User login
More and more doctors abandoning private practice
according to a new report.
These patterns likely reflect broader trends toward consolidation in health care, with both insurance companies and hospitals also having grown in size in recent years.
The latest biennial analysis of doctors’ practices by the American Medical Association showed an acceleration of a trend away from private practice, defined as a practice wholly owned by physicians. The 2020 results found less than half – 49.1 % – of doctors involved in patient care worked in a private practice, the AMA said in a report released in May 2021.
This marked the first time private practice was not the dominant approach since the AMA analysis began in 2012. What’s more, the trend appears to be gaining steam, with a drop of almost 5 percentage points from 54.0% in private practice in 2018. The percent of doctors in private practice declined at a slower rate in previous AMA surveys, slipping to 55.8% in 2016 from 56.8% in 2018 and 60.1% in 2012.
Employment and ownership structures have become so varied that no single approach or size of organization “can or should be considered the typical physician practice,” the report noted.
The AMA, for example, added to its 2020 benchmark survey an option to identify private equity organizations as employers. The survey found 4% of doctors involved in patient care worked in practices owned by these kinds of firms. Other options include practices wholly or jointly owned by hospital and health systems and insurers, as well as direct employment and contracting.
There are signs that the shift away from smaller private practices will continue, with younger doctors appearing more likely to seek employment.
The survey found 42% of doctors ages 55 and older were employed by someone else, compared with 51.2% of doctors ages 40-54 and 70% of physicians under the age of 40.
The AMA surveyed 3,500 U.S. doctors through the 2020 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The survey was conducted from September to October 2020, roughly 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may not reflect its full impact.
“Physician practices were hit hard by the economic impact of the early pandemic as patient volume and revenues shrank while medical supply expenses spiked. The impact of these economic forces on physician practice arrangements is ongoing and may not be fully realized for some time,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.
In a survey released in 2020 by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent doctors reported that they were worried about their practices surviving the stresses of the pandemic, this news organization reported.
Challenging environment
It’s not just money leading to the shift away from private practice, according to a 2020 report from the American Hospital Association, titled “Evolving Physician-Practice Ownership Models.”
Many recent graduates of medical schools have significant debt and are more likely to opt for employment, which offers more financial stability and work-life balance, the report said.
Doctors also need to keep up with expectations of their patients that have been shaped by advances in other sectors, like banking, the AHA noted. People are used to working on their own schedules, and want to make appointments through apps, get test results rapidly and on their mobile devices, and communicate with their providers virtually.
“It is challenging to meet these expectations and make the necessary technology investments as a solo or small group practice,” the AHA report said.
Hospitals face competition for doctors from insurers, which have been looking in some cases to directly employ more physicians, the AHA also noted. The report cites insurance giant UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit as the most visible example of this trend.
On a January call about corporate earnings, David Wichmann, then chief executive of UnitedHealth, spoke about the firm’s “aim to reinvent health care delivery,” including efforts to have its own primary and multispecialty care practices.
“OptumCare entered 2021 with over 50,000 physicians and 1,400 clinics,” Mr. Wichmann said. “Over the course of this year, we expect to grow our employed and affiliated physicians by at least 10,000. This work of building local physician-led systems of care continues to be central to our mission. “
UnitedHealth’s new CEO is Andrew Witty, who had led the Optum unit.
Attractions of larger groups
Older doctors – those 55 years and up – were significantly more likely to work in small practices than those younger than 40, the 2020 survey found. Results showed 40.9% of doctors under 40 worked in practices of 10 or fewer colleagues, compared with 61.4% of those age 55 and older.
The large difference between age groups suggests that attrition is one reason for the shift in practice size. Retiring doctors who leave small practices are not being replaced on a one-for-one basis by younger doctors, AMA said. The same reason also appears to be a factor in the shift in practice ownership to larger systems.
Doctors in larger group practices can count on a stable business model, with a better ability to survive disruptive market trends, including those of a more extreme nature, like COVID-19, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA Consulting.
AMGA Consulting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMGA, formerly called American Medical Group Association. Its more than 400 members include well-known multispecialty groups and health care systems such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, the Permanente Medical Group, and Intermountain Healthcare as well as many smaller physician practices.
Mr. Horton, who holds a master’s degree in health administration, said some doctors may want to participate in alternative payment programs offered by insurers, who are seeking to shift away from the fee-for-service model
“Larger organizations can dedicate more resources to continuous quality improvement,” Mr. Horton said. “This is especially important for physicians who are taking on risk-based contracts, as quality can directly impact how much they earn.”
For one oncologist, it was turning to alternative payment methods that helped him keep his private practice afloat.
Kashyap Patel, MD, chief executive of the Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., said he maintained the independence of his practice amid pressure from a large health system, which had been buying medical groups in the area. That began to interfere with referrals of patients from other doctors, which are key for cancer specialists, said Dr. Patel, who also is president of the Community Oncology Alliance.
In response, Dr. Patel worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina on an arrangement where his practice sought certifications from the National Committee for Quality Assurance to get better rates.
The effort has allowed Dr. Patel’s clinic to focus more on preventing hospitalizations and visits to the emergency room he said.
In Dr. Patel’s view, his patients benefit from his efforts to remain in independent practice. A switch to ownership by a large health care organization would have put them at risk for higher medical bills, jeopardizing their access to treatment, he said. The reason? Hospitals can charge more for services provided by doctors they employ.
“Nothing would change. I would be the same. The building would be the same, but the cost would go up,” Dr. Patel said.
For its part, the AHA has repeatedly challenged arguments that acquisitions and mergers result in higher costs for patients.
Instead, the AHA has raised alarms about consolidation of health insurers, a concern it shares with AMA. In a 2020 report examining competition among insurers, AMA noted doctors working in small practices can be put at a disadvantage if mergers and acquisitions leave an insurer with too much market power.
“Under antitrust law, independent physicians cannot negotiate collectively with health
Insurers,” the AMA said in the report. “This imbalance in relative size leaves most physicians with a weak bargaining position relative to commercial payers.”
AMA’s research on the effects of insurers’ wielding significant market clout has been used in effort to thwart mergers in this industry.
‘Dramatic restructuring’
The Federal Trade Commission also has taken note of the trends discussed in the new AMA report, saying that “U.S. physician markets are undergoing a dramatic restructuring.”
The FTC in January announced a study of the impact of the consolidation of doctors groups and health care facilities. FTC is seeking data for inpatient, outpatient, and doctors services in 15 states from 2015 through 2020. To gather this data, the commission has issued orders to six major insurers – Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare.
The FTC is concerned that acquired practices may have to alter their referral patterns to favor their affiliated hospital system over competing hospital systems. But FTC staff also said it might be that these acquisitions result in efficiencies, such as enhanced coordination of care between doctors and hospitals “that outweigh potential competitive harms.”
The research project will likely take several years to complete because of its scope, the FTC said. For that reason, the FTC said its Bureau of Economics will release a series of research papers examining different aspects of this inquiry rather than a single paper containing all of the analyses.
Private equity ‘roll-ups’
On the day the FTC announced the study of the impact of doctors groups, one of the panel’s commissioners argued for a closer look at how private equity firms make their purchases.
In a Jan. 15 tweet, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said his agency needs to challenge their “roll-ups of small physician practices” as well as clinics and labs. This is a practice of using a series of acquisitions too small to trigger the federal threshold for a serious look from the FTC and Department of Justice. (The threshold for 2021 stands around the $92 million mark. This benchmark is known as Hart-Scott-Rodino notification after a 1976 law that set a reporting standard.)
Mr. Chopra attached to his Jan. 15 tweet a 2020 statement in which he called for stepped-up scrutiny of private-equity firms’ acquisitions of doctors’ practices. Mr. Chopra noted that private-equity firms have been buying practices focused on anesthesiology and emergency medicine, fields which triggered consumer complaints about surprise billing for emergency care.
“Given trends in today’s markets, it is critical that the FTC find new ways to ensure the agency has a rigorous, data-driven approach to market monitoring and enforcement,” Mr. Chopra wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a new report.
These patterns likely reflect broader trends toward consolidation in health care, with both insurance companies and hospitals also having grown in size in recent years.
The latest biennial analysis of doctors’ practices by the American Medical Association showed an acceleration of a trend away from private practice, defined as a practice wholly owned by physicians. The 2020 results found less than half – 49.1 % – of doctors involved in patient care worked in a private practice, the AMA said in a report released in May 2021.
This marked the first time private practice was not the dominant approach since the AMA analysis began in 2012. What’s more, the trend appears to be gaining steam, with a drop of almost 5 percentage points from 54.0% in private practice in 2018. The percent of doctors in private practice declined at a slower rate in previous AMA surveys, slipping to 55.8% in 2016 from 56.8% in 2018 and 60.1% in 2012.
Employment and ownership structures have become so varied that no single approach or size of organization “can or should be considered the typical physician practice,” the report noted.
The AMA, for example, added to its 2020 benchmark survey an option to identify private equity organizations as employers. The survey found 4% of doctors involved in patient care worked in practices owned by these kinds of firms. Other options include practices wholly or jointly owned by hospital and health systems and insurers, as well as direct employment and contracting.
There are signs that the shift away from smaller private practices will continue, with younger doctors appearing more likely to seek employment.
The survey found 42% of doctors ages 55 and older were employed by someone else, compared with 51.2% of doctors ages 40-54 and 70% of physicians under the age of 40.
The AMA surveyed 3,500 U.S. doctors through the 2020 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The survey was conducted from September to October 2020, roughly 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may not reflect its full impact.
“Physician practices were hit hard by the economic impact of the early pandemic as patient volume and revenues shrank while medical supply expenses spiked. The impact of these economic forces on physician practice arrangements is ongoing and may not be fully realized for some time,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.
In a survey released in 2020 by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent doctors reported that they were worried about their practices surviving the stresses of the pandemic, this news organization reported.
Challenging environment
It’s not just money leading to the shift away from private practice, according to a 2020 report from the American Hospital Association, titled “Evolving Physician-Practice Ownership Models.”
Many recent graduates of medical schools have significant debt and are more likely to opt for employment, which offers more financial stability and work-life balance, the report said.
Doctors also need to keep up with expectations of their patients that have been shaped by advances in other sectors, like banking, the AHA noted. People are used to working on their own schedules, and want to make appointments through apps, get test results rapidly and on their mobile devices, and communicate with their providers virtually.
“It is challenging to meet these expectations and make the necessary technology investments as a solo or small group practice,” the AHA report said.
Hospitals face competition for doctors from insurers, which have been looking in some cases to directly employ more physicians, the AHA also noted. The report cites insurance giant UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit as the most visible example of this trend.
On a January call about corporate earnings, David Wichmann, then chief executive of UnitedHealth, spoke about the firm’s “aim to reinvent health care delivery,” including efforts to have its own primary and multispecialty care practices.
“OptumCare entered 2021 with over 50,000 physicians and 1,400 clinics,” Mr. Wichmann said. “Over the course of this year, we expect to grow our employed and affiliated physicians by at least 10,000. This work of building local physician-led systems of care continues to be central to our mission. “
UnitedHealth’s new CEO is Andrew Witty, who had led the Optum unit.
Attractions of larger groups
Older doctors – those 55 years and up – were significantly more likely to work in small practices than those younger than 40, the 2020 survey found. Results showed 40.9% of doctors under 40 worked in practices of 10 or fewer colleagues, compared with 61.4% of those age 55 and older.
The large difference between age groups suggests that attrition is one reason for the shift in practice size. Retiring doctors who leave small practices are not being replaced on a one-for-one basis by younger doctors, AMA said. The same reason also appears to be a factor in the shift in practice ownership to larger systems.
Doctors in larger group practices can count on a stable business model, with a better ability to survive disruptive market trends, including those of a more extreme nature, like COVID-19, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA Consulting.
AMGA Consulting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMGA, formerly called American Medical Group Association. Its more than 400 members include well-known multispecialty groups and health care systems such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, the Permanente Medical Group, and Intermountain Healthcare as well as many smaller physician practices.
Mr. Horton, who holds a master’s degree in health administration, said some doctors may want to participate in alternative payment programs offered by insurers, who are seeking to shift away from the fee-for-service model
“Larger organizations can dedicate more resources to continuous quality improvement,” Mr. Horton said. “This is especially important for physicians who are taking on risk-based contracts, as quality can directly impact how much they earn.”
For one oncologist, it was turning to alternative payment methods that helped him keep his private practice afloat.
Kashyap Patel, MD, chief executive of the Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., said he maintained the independence of his practice amid pressure from a large health system, which had been buying medical groups in the area. That began to interfere with referrals of patients from other doctors, which are key for cancer specialists, said Dr. Patel, who also is president of the Community Oncology Alliance.
In response, Dr. Patel worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina on an arrangement where his practice sought certifications from the National Committee for Quality Assurance to get better rates.
The effort has allowed Dr. Patel’s clinic to focus more on preventing hospitalizations and visits to the emergency room he said.
In Dr. Patel’s view, his patients benefit from his efforts to remain in independent practice. A switch to ownership by a large health care organization would have put them at risk for higher medical bills, jeopardizing their access to treatment, he said. The reason? Hospitals can charge more for services provided by doctors they employ.
“Nothing would change. I would be the same. The building would be the same, but the cost would go up,” Dr. Patel said.
For its part, the AHA has repeatedly challenged arguments that acquisitions and mergers result in higher costs for patients.
Instead, the AHA has raised alarms about consolidation of health insurers, a concern it shares with AMA. In a 2020 report examining competition among insurers, AMA noted doctors working in small practices can be put at a disadvantage if mergers and acquisitions leave an insurer with too much market power.
“Under antitrust law, independent physicians cannot negotiate collectively with health
Insurers,” the AMA said in the report. “This imbalance in relative size leaves most physicians with a weak bargaining position relative to commercial payers.”
AMA’s research on the effects of insurers’ wielding significant market clout has been used in effort to thwart mergers in this industry.
‘Dramatic restructuring’
The Federal Trade Commission also has taken note of the trends discussed in the new AMA report, saying that “U.S. physician markets are undergoing a dramatic restructuring.”
The FTC in January announced a study of the impact of the consolidation of doctors groups and health care facilities. FTC is seeking data for inpatient, outpatient, and doctors services in 15 states from 2015 through 2020. To gather this data, the commission has issued orders to six major insurers – Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare.
The FTC is concerned that acquired practices may have to alter their referral patterns to favor their affiliated hospital system over competing hospital systems. But FTC staff also said it might be that these acquisitions result in efficiencies, such as enhanced coordination of care between doctors and hospitals “that outweigh potential competitive harms.”
The research project will likely take several years to complete because of its scope, the FTC said. For that reason, the FTC said its Bureau of Economics will release a series of research papers examining different aspects of this inquiry rather than a single paper containing all of the analyses.
Private equity ‘roll-ups’
On the day the FTC announced the study of the impact of doctors groups, one of the panel’s commissioners argued for a closer look at how private equity firms make their purchases.
In a Jan. 15 tweet, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said his agency needs to challenge their “roll-ups of small physician practices” as well as clinics and labs. This is a practice of using a series of acquisitions too small to trigger the federal threshold for a serious look from the FTC and Department of Justice. (The threshold for 2021 stands around the $92 million mark. This benchmark is known as Hart-Scott-Rodino notification after a 1976 law that set a reporting standard.)
Mr. Chopra attached to his Jan. 15 tweet a 2020 statement in which he called for stepped-up scrutiny of private-equity firms’ acquisitions of doctors’ practices. Mr. Chopra noted that private-equity firms have been buying practices focused on anesthesiology and emergency medicine, fields which triggered consumer complaints about surprise billing for emergency care.
“Given trends in today’s markets, it is critical that the FTC find new ways to ensure the agency has a rigorous, data-driven approach to market monitoring and enforcement,” Mr. Chopra wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a new report.
These patterns likely reflect broader trends toward consolidation in health care, with both insurance companies and hospitals also having grown in size in recent years.
The latest biennial analysis of doctors’ practices by the American Medical Association showed an acceleration of a trend away from private practice, defined as a practice wholly owned by physicians. The 2020 results found less than half – 49.1 % – of doctors involved in patient care worked in a private practice, the AMA said in a report released in May 2021.
This marked the first time private practice was not the dominant approach since the AMA analysis began in 2012. What’s more, the trend appears to be gaining steam, with a drop of almost 5 percentage points from 54.0% in private practice in 2018. The percent of doctors in private practice declined at a slower rate in previous AMA surveys, slipping to 55.8% in 2016 from 56.8% in 2018 and 60.1% in 2012.
Employment and ownership structures have become so varied that no single approach or size of organization “can or should be considered the typical physician practice,” the report noted.
The AMA, for example, added to its 2020 benchmark survey an option to identify private equity organizations as employers. The survey found 4% of doctors involved in patient care worked in practices owned by these kinds of firms. Other options include practices wholly or jointly owned by hospital and health systems and insurers, as well as direct employment and contracting.
There are signs that the shift away from smaller private practices will continue, with younger doctors appearing more likely to seek employment.
The survey found 42% of doctors ages 55 and older were employed by someone else, compared with 51.2% of doctors ages 40-54 and 70% of physicians under the age of 40.
The AMA surveyed 3,500 U.S. doctors through the 2020 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The survey was conducted from September to October 2020, roughly 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may not reflect its full impact.
“Physician practices were hit hard by the economic impact of the early pandemic as patient volume and revenues shrank while medical supply expenses spiked. The impact of these economic forces on physician practice arrangements is ongoing and may not be fully realized for some time,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.
In a survey released in 2020 by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent doctors reported that they were worried about their practices surviving the stresses of the pandemic, this news organization reported.
Challenging environment
It’s not just money leading to the shift away from private practice, according to a 2020 report from the American Hospital Association, titled “Evolving Physician-Practice Ownership Models.”
Many recent graduates of medical schools have significant debt and are more likely to opt for employment, which offers more financial stability and work-life balance, the report said.
Doctors also need to keep up with expectations of their patients that have been shaped by advances in other sectors, like banking, the AHA noted. People are used to working on their own schedules, and want to make appointments through apps, get test results rapidly and on their mobile devices, and communicate with their providers virtually.
“It is challenging to meet these expectations and make the necessary technology investments as a solo or small group practice,” the AHA report said.
Hospitals face competition for doctors from insurers, which have been looking in some cases to directly employ more physicians, the AHA also noted. The report cites insurance giant UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit as the most visible example of this trend.
On a January call about corporate earnings, David Wichmann, then chief executive of UnitedHealth, spoke about the firm’s “aim to reinvent health care delivery,” including efforts to have its own primary and multispecialty care practices.
“OptumCare entered 2021 with over 50,000 physicians and 1,400 clinics,” Mr. Wichmann said. “Over the course of this year, we expect to grow our employed and affiliated physicians by at least 10,000. This work of building local physician-led systems of care continues to be central to our mission. “
UnitedHealth’s new CEO is Andrew Witty, who had led the Optum unit.
Attractions of larger groups
Older doctors – those 55 years and up – were significantly more likely to work in small practices than those younger than 40, the 2020 survey found. Results showed 40.9% of doctors under 40 worked in practices of 10 or fewer colleagues, compared with 61.4% of those age 55 and older.
The large difference between age groups suggests that attrition is one reason for the shift in practice size. Retiring doctors who leave small practices are not being replaced on a one-for-one basis by younger doctors, AMA said. The same reason also appears to be a factor in the shift in practice ownership to larger systems.
Doctors in larger group practices can count on a stable business model, with a better ability to survive disruptive market trends, including those of a more extreme nature, like COVID-19, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA Consulting.
AMGA Consulting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMGA, formerly called American Medical Group Association. Its more than 400 members include well-known multispecialty groups and health care systems such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, the Permanente Medical Group, and Intermountain Healthcare as well as many smaller physician practices.
Mr. Horton, who holds a master’s degree in health administration, said some doctors may want to participate in alternative payment programs offered by insurers, who are seeking to shift away from the fee-for-service model
“Larger organizations can dedicate more resources to continuous quality improvement,” Mr. Horton said. “This is especially important for physicians who are taking on risk-based contracts, as quality can directly impact how much they earn.”
For one oncologist, it was turning to alternative payment methods that helped him keep his private practice afloat.
Kashyap Patel, MD, chief executive of the Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., said he maintained the independence of his practice amid pressure from a large health system, which had been buying medical groups in the area. That began to interfere with referrals of patients from other doctors, which are key for cancer specialists, said Dr. Patel, who also is president of the Community Oncology Alliance.
In response, Dr. Patel worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina on an arrangement where his practice sought certifications from the National Committee for Quality Assurance to get better rates.
The effort has allowed Dr. Patel’s clinic to focus more on preventing hospitalizations and visits to the emergency room he said.
In Dr. Patel’s view, his patients benefit from his efforts to remain in independent practice. A switch to ownership by a large health care organization would have put them at risk for higher medical bills, jeopardizing their access to treatment, he said. The reason? Hospitals can charge more for services provided by doctors they employ.
“Nothing would change. I would be the same. The building would be the same, but the cost would go up,” Dr. Patel said.
For its part, the AHA has repeatedly challenged arguments that acquisitions and mergers result in higher costs for patients.
Instead, the AHA has raised alarms about consolidation of health insurers, a concern it shares with AMA. In a 2020 report examining competition among insurers, AMA noted doctors working in small practices can be put at a disadvantage if mergers and acquisitions leave an insurer with too much market power.
“Under antitrust law, independent physicians cannot negotiate collectively with health
Insurers,” the AMA said in the report. “This imbalance in relative size leaves most physicians with a weak bargaining position relative to commercial payers.”
AMA’s research on the effects of insurers’ wielding significant market clout has been used in effort to thwart mergers in this industry.
‘Dramatic restructuring’
The Federal Trade Commission also has taken note of the trends discussed in the new AMA report, saying that “U.S. physician markets are undergoing a dramatic restructuring.”
The FTC in January announced a study of the impact of the consolidation of doctors groups and health care facilities. FTC is seeking data for inpatient, outpatient, and doctors services in 15 states from 2015 through 2020. To gather this data, the commission has issued orders to six major insurers – Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare.
The FTC is concerned that acquired practices may have to alter their referral patterns to favor their affiliated hospital system over competing hospital systems. But FTC staff also said it might be that these acquisitions result in efficiencies, such as enhanced coordination of care between doctors and hospitals “that outweigh potential competitive harms.”
The research project will likely take several years to complete because of its scope, the FTC said. For that reason, the FTC said its Bureau of Economics will release a series of research papers examining different aspects of this inquiry rather than a single paper containing all of the analyses.
Private equity ‘roll-ups’
On the day the FTC announced the study of the impact of doctors groups, one of the panel’s commissioners argued for a closer look at how private equity firms make their purchases.
In a Jan. 15 tweet, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said his agency needs to challenge their “roll-ups of small physician practices” as well as clinics and labs. This is a practice of using a series of acquisitions too small to trigger the federal threshold for a serious look from the FTC and Department of Justice. (The threshold for 2021 stands around the $92 million mark. This benchmark is known as Hart-Scott-Rodino notification after a 1976 law that set a reporting standard.)
Mr. Chopra attached to his Jan. 15 tweet a 2020 statement in which he called for stepped-up scrutiny of private-equity firms’ acquisitions of doctors’ practices. Mr. Chopra noted that private-equity firms have been buying practices focused on anesthesiology and emergency medicine, fields which triggered consumer complaints about surprise billing for emergency care.
“Given trends in today’s markets, it is critical that the FTC find new ways to ensure the agency has a rigorous, data-driven approach to market monitoring and enforcement,” Mr. Chopra wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Liver transplant outcomes improving for U.S. patients with HIV/HCV
While liver transplant outcomes were historically poor in people coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV), they have improved significantly in the era of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, a recent analysis of U.S. organ transplant data showed.
The availability of highly potent DAA therapy should change how transplant specialists view patients coinfected with HIV/HCV who need a liver transplant, according to researcher Jennifer Wang, MD, chief gastroenterology fellow at the University of Chicago, who presented the results of the analysis at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). Cumulative graft survival rates since the introduction of DAAs are comparable between transplant recipients with HIV/HCV coinfection and recipients who are both HIV and HCV negative, according to the study.
“Having hepatitis C no longer confers worse patient survival in the DAA era, and this is the main takeaway from our study,” Dr. Wang said.
The study also showed that the number of liver transplants among HIV-infected patients has increased over the past 4-5 years. However, the absolute number remains low at 64 cases in 2019, or less than 1% of all liver transplants that year, and only about one-third of those HIV-positive recipients had HCV coinfection, according to Dr. Wang.
Moreover, relatively few centers are performing liver transplants for patients who are HIV/HCV coinfected, and there is significant geographic variation in where the procedures are done, she said in her presentation.
Reassuring data that should prompt referral
Taken together, these results should offer reassurance to transplant centers that patients coinfected with HIV/HCV are no longer at increased risk for poor outcomes after transplantation, said Christine M. Durand, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“The additional call for action should be beyond the transplantation community to ensure that referrals for liver transplant are where they should be,” Dr. Durand said in an interview.
“With a number of only 64 transplants a year, we’re not doing enough, and there are more patients that could benefit from liver transplants,” added Dr. Durand, who is principal investigator of HOPE in Action, a prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and survival outcomes of HIV-positive deceased donor liver transplants in HIV-positive recipients.
Impact of the HOPE Act
Liver transplantation for HIV-positive patients has increased since the signing of the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in 2013, according to Dr. Wang.
The HOPE act expanded the donor pool to include HIV-positive deceased donors, which not only increased the donor supply overall, but specifically helped HIV-positive individuals, who experience a higher rate of waiting-list mortality, according to a review on the topic authored by Dr. Durand and coauthors.
However, some transplant centers may be reluctant to do liver transplants in HIV-positive patients coinfected with HCV. That’s because, in previous studies that were conducted before the DAA era, outcomes after liver transplant in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients were inferior to those in patients with HIV but no HCV infection, Dr. Wang said.
Accordingly, Dr. Wang and colleagues analyzed Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data on adult patients who underwent liver transplants between 2008 and 2019 to see if the introduction of DAAs had leveled the playing field for those with HCV coinfection.
Progress in a still-underserved population
The practice of liver transplant in the HIV population has been increasing since the HOPE Act, according to Dr. Wang.
Overall, out of 70,125 liver transplant recipients over the 2008-2019 period, 416 (0.6%) were HIV infected, the data show.
In 2014, 28 liver transplants (0.5%) were performed in HIV-infected individuals, which increased to 64 transplants (0.8%) in 2019, data show. Of those 64 HIV-positive liver transplant recipients in 2019, 23 (35.9%) were coinfected with HCV.
Graft survival has greatly improved, from a 3-year survival of only 58% in patients transplanted before the availability of DAAs to 82% in the DAA era, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. Wang said.
In the DAA era, there was no significant difference in graft failure outcomes when comparing HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients with uninfected recipients, she added.
The largest proportion of liver transplantations in HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients have been done in OPTN Region 9 (New York), both in the pre- and post-DAA eras, according to Dr. Wang. Several regions have very low numbers or have performed no liver transplants in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in either era.
“The number of transplant centers participating in liver transplant for coinfected patients is still quite low, so this is a very underserved patient population,” Dr. Wang said.
Dr. Wang provided no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Durand receives grants to the institution from Abbvie and GlaxoSmithKline and she receives honoraria from Gilead Sciences for serving on a grant review committee.
While liver transplant outcomes were historically poor in people coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV), they have improved significantly in the era of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, a recent analysis of U.S. organ transplant data showed.
The availability of highly potent DAA therapy should change how transplant specialists view patients coinfected with HIV/HCV who need a liver transplant, according to researcher Jennifer Wang, MD, chief gastroenterology fellow at the University of Chicago, who presented the results of the analysis at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). Cumulative graft survival rates since the introduction of DAAs are comparable between transplant recipients with HIV/HCV coinfection and recipients who are both HIV and HCV negative, according to the study.
“Having hepatitis C no longer confers worse patient survival in the DAA era, and this is the main takeaway from our study,” Dr. Wang said.
The study also showed that the number of liver transplants among HIV-infected patients has increased over the past 4-5 years. However, the absolute number remains low at 64 cases in 2019, or less than 1% of all liver transplants that year, and only about one-third of those HIV-positive recipients had HCV coinfection, according to Dr. Wang.
Moreover, relatively few centers are performing liver transplants for patients who are HIV/HCV coinfected, and there is significant geographic variation in where the procedures are done, she said in her presentation.
Reassuring data that should prompt referral
Taken together, these results should offer reassurance to transplant centers that patients coinfected with HIV/HCV are no longer at increased risk for poor outcomes after transplantation, said Christine M. Durand, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“The additional call for action should be beyond the transplantation community to ensure that referrals for liver transplant are where they should be,” Dr. Durand said in an interview.
“With a number of only 64 transplants a year, we’re not doing enough, and there are more patients that could benefit from liver transplants,” added Dr. Durand, who is principal investigator of HOPE in Action, a prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and survival outcomes of HIV-positive deceased donor liver transplants in HIV-positive recipients.
Impact of the HOPE Act
Liver transplantation for HIV-positive patients has increased since the signing of the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in 2013, according to Dr. Wang.
The HOPE act expanded the donor pool to include HIV-positive deceased donors, which not only increased the donor supply overall, but specifically helped HIV-positive individuals, who experience a higher rate of waiting-list mortality, according to a review on the topic authored by Dr. Durand and coauthors.
However, some transplant centers may be reluctant to do liver transplants in HIV-positive patients coinfected with HCV. That’s because, in previous studies that were conducted before the DAA era, outcomes after liver transplant in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients were inferior to those in patients with HIV but no HCV infection, Dr. Wang said.
Accordingly, Dr. Wang and colleagues analyzed Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data on adult patients who underwent liver transplants between 2008 and 2019 to see if the introduction of DAAs had leveled the playing field for those with HCV coinfection.
Progress in a still-underserved population
The practice of liver transplant in the HIV population has been increasing since the HOPE Act, according to Dr. Wang.
Overall, out of 70,125 liver transplant recipients over the 2008-2019 period, 416 (0.6%) were HIV infected, the data show.
In 2014, 28 liver transplants (0.5%) were performed in HIV-infected individuals, which increased to 64 transplants (0.8%) in 2019, data show. Of those 64 HIV-positive liver transplant recipients in 2019, 23 (35.9%) were coinfected with HCV.
Graft survival has greatly improved, from a 3-year survival of only 58% in patients transplanted before the availability of DAAs to 82% in the DAA era, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. Wang said.
In the DAA era, there was no significant difference in graft failure outcomes when comparing HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients with uninfected recipients, she added.
The largest proportion of liver transplantations in HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients have been done in OPTN Region 9 (New York), both in the pre- and post-DAA eras, according to Dr. Wang. Several regions have very low numbers or have performed no liver transplants in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in either era.
“The number of transplant centers participating in liver transplant for coinfected patients is still quite low, so this is a very underserved patient population,” Dr. Wang said.
Dr. Wang provided no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Durand receives grants to the institution from Abbvie and GlaxoSmithKline and she receives honoraria from Gilead Sciences for serving on a grant review committee.
While liver transplant outcomes were historically poor in people coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV), they have improved significantly in the era of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, a recent analysis of U.S. organ transplant data showed.
The availability of highly potent DAA therapy should change how transplant specialists view patients coinfected with HIV/HCV who need a liver transplant, according to researcher Jennifer Wang, MD, chief gastroenterology fellow at the University of Chicago, who presented the results of the analysis at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). Cumulative graft survival rates since the introduction of DAAs are comparable between transplant recipients with HIV/HCV coinfection and recipients who are both HIV and HCV negative, according to the study.
“Having hepatitis C no longer confers worse patient survival in the DAA era, and this is the main takeaway from our study,” Dr. Wang said.
The study also showed that the number of liver transplants among HIV-infected patients has increased over the past 4-5 years. However, the absolute number remains low at 64 cases in 2019, or less than 1% of all liver transplants that year, and only about one-third of those HIV-positive recipients had HCV coinfection, according to Dr. Wang.
Moreover, relatively few centers are performing liver transplants for patients who are HIV/HCV coinfected, and there is significant geographic variation in where the procedures are done, she said in her presentation.
Reassuring data that should prompt referral
Taken together, these results should offer reassurance to transplant centers that patients coinfected with HIV/HCV are no longer at increased risk for poor outcomes after transplantation, said Christine M. Durand, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“The additional call for action should be beyond the transplantation community to ensure that referrals for liver transplant are where they should be,” Dr. Durand said in an interview.
“With a number of only 64 transplants a year, we’re not doing enough, and there are more patients that could benefit from liver transplants,” added Dr. Durand, who is principal investigator of HOPE in Action, a prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and survival outcomes of HIV-positive deceased donor liver transplants in HIV-positive recipients.
Impact of the HOPE Act
Liver transplantation for HIV-positive patients has increased since the signing of the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in 2013, according to Dr. Wang.
The HOPE act expanded the donor pool to include HIV-positive deceased donors, which not only increased the donor supply overall, but specifically helped HIV-positive individuals, who experience a higher rate of waiting-list mortality, according to a review on the topic authored by Dr. Durand and coauthors.
However, some transplant centers may be reluctant to do liver transplants in HIV-positive patients coinfected with HCV. That’s because, in previous studies that were conducted before the DAA era, outcomes after liver transplant in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients were inferior to those in patients with HIV but no HCV infection, Dr. Wang said.
Accordingly, Dr. Wang and colleagues analyzed Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data on adult patients who underwent liver transplants between 2008 and 2019 to see if the introduction of DAAs had leveled the playing field for those with HCV coinfection.
Progress in a still-underserved population
The practice of liver transplant in the HIV population has been increasing since the HOPE Act, according to Dr. Wang.
Overall, out of 70,125 liver transplant recipients over the 2008-2019 period, 416 (0.6%) were HIV infected, the data show.
In 2014, 28 liver transplants (0.5%) were performed in HIV-infected individuals, which increased to 64 transplants (0.8%) in 2019, data show. Of those 64 HIV-positive liver transplant recipients in 2019, 23 (35.9%) were coinfected with HCV.
Graft survival has greatly improved, from a 3-year survival of only 58% in patients transplanted before the availability of DAAs to 82% in the DAA era, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. Wang said.
In the DAA era, there was no significant difference in graft failure outcomes when comparing HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients with uninfected recipients, she added.
The largest proportion of liver transplantations in HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients have been done in OPTN Region 9 (New York), both in the pre- and post-DAA eras, according to Dr. Wang. Several regions have very low numbers or have performed no liver transplants in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in either era.
“The number of transplant centers participating in liver transplant for coinfected patients is still quite low, so this is a very underserved patient population,” Dr. Wang said.
Dr. Wang provided no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Durand receives grants to the institution from Abbvie and GlaxoSmithKline and she receives honoraria from Gilead Sciences for serving on a grant review committee.
FROM DDW 2021
Poloxamer 188 disappoints for painful SCD vaso-occlusive episodes, study showsteaser
Poloxamer 188, a nonionic block polymer surfactant reported to reduce blood viscosity and cell-cell interactions, failed to shorten painful vaso-occlusive episodes in adults and children with sickle cell disease (SCD) in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
The findings contrast with those from a prior phase 3 trial showing benefits with treatment, James F. Casella, MD, professor of pediatrics and chief of pediatric hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reported.
The time from randomization to the last dose of parenteral opioids in the current study did not differ in 194 patients randomized to the active treatment and 194 randomized to a placebo group (81.8 hours with poloxamer 188 vs. 77.8 hours with placebo), the authors found.
The study results were reported online in JAMA.
Participants in the double-blind study were individuals aged 4-65 years (mean, 15.2 years) with acute moderate to severe painful vaso-occlusive episodes requiring hospitalization. They were recruited between May 2013 and February 2016 from 66 hospitals in 12 countries.
Adverse events that were more common in the poloxamer 188 group included hyperbilirubinemia, which occurred in 12.7% of patients versus 5.2% in the placebo group. Hypoxia occurred more often in the placebo group (12.0% vs. 5.3%).
“Poloxamer 188 has been evaluated in three clinical trials of SCD demonstrating safety and possible efficacy for painful vaso-occlusive episodes and acute chest syndrome, which involves intrapulmonary vascular occlusion and/or infection,” the authors noted. “These studies included a previous phase 3 trial that suggested efficacy for painful vaso-occlusive episodes, particularly in children and participants receiving hydroxyurea.”
The mean duration of vaso-occlusive crisis was reduced by 8.8 hours overall, by 21 hours in those aged under 16 years, and by 16 hours in those receiving hydroxyurea. A small, nonsignificant difference was also seen in the incidence of acute chest syndrome for children in that study.
The findings were encouraging given the lack of disease-modifying therapies for ongoing painful vaso-occlusive episodes, which are associated with higher mortality in patients with SCD; although three agents are available for the prevention vaso-occlusive episodes, including hydroxyurea, L-glutamine, and crizanlizumab-tmca, no available agent effectively manages vaso-occlusive episodes once they have begun, the authors noted.
Current treatment therefore remains supportive, with analgesia and hydration, they added.
This is concerning since “acute pain is estimated to account for 95% of hospital admissions for those with SCD, creating a burden for individuals with SCD, their families, and health care systems,” they explained, adding that the ability to reduce the severity and duration of vaso-occlusive episodes would be a significant advance.
“Because intravenous poloxamer 188 is neither approved by the Food and Drug Administration nor available for clinical use and because other drugs for managing ongoing vaso-occlusive episodes are absent, the present trial was designed to determine whether poloxamer 188 is efficacious for painful vaso-occlusive episodes in SCD,” they said.
However, no benefit was seen for episode duration with treatment in the current study, nor was any beneficial effect on acute chest syndrome observed.
“Rather, although not statistically significant, there were more participants younger than 16 years who developed acute chest syndrome in the poloxamer 188 group than in the placebo group, paralleling the direction of effects on the primary outcome for participants younger than 16 years [in the current study],” they wrote, adding that there were also “no apparent effects on readmission for painful vaso-occlusive episodes in participants receiving hydroxyurea, despite the known effect of hydroxyurea in reducing rates of painful vaso-occlusive episodes and acute chest syndrome.”
Though limited by subjective aspects of assessing the primary outcome in this study and by challenges with effectively blinding poloxamer 188 use, the current findings do not support the use of poloxamer 188 for vaso-occlusive episodes, they concluded.
In an accompanying editorial, JAMA deputy editor Jody Zylke, MD, suggested that the most likely explanation for the differing conclusions in the current and prior phase 3 trials relates to the choice of primary outcome.
In the prior study, the primary outcome was time from randomization to crisis resolution.
“The resolution of pain is subjective, and the criteria to determine crisis resolution established by the investigators were extremely stringent and difficult to implement, leading to a high proportion of participants with incomplete documentation,” Dr. Zylke noted. “Also, incomplete documentation occurred more often in the placebo group than the intervention group, resulting in more imputation of missing values for the placebo group, which favored the poloxamer 188 group.”
In the current trial, a “more easily verified primary outcome was selected, with data available for 99% of participants.”
The report by Dr. Casella and colleagues “adds to the evidence base and illustrates some of the challenges in finding effective treatments for patients with sickle cell disease,” he said.
This study was funded by Mast Therapeutics (previously Adventrx Therapeutics). Dr. Casella reported receiving grants from Mast Therapeutics and receiving an honorarium, travel expenses, and salary support through Johns Hopkins for providing consultative advice to Mast Pharmaceuticals during development of the clinical trial and for serving as the principal investigator for the clinical trial; being an inventor and a named party on a patent and licensing agreement to ImmunArray through Johns Hopkins for a panel of brain biomarkers for the detection of brain injury; and holding a patent for aptamers as a potential treatment for sickle cell disease. Dr. Zylke reported having no disclosures.
Poloxamer 188, a nonionic block polymer surfactant reported to reduce blood viscosity and cell-cell interactions, failed to shorten painful vaso-occlusive episodes in adults and children with sickle cell disease (SCD) in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
The findings contrast with those from a prior phase 3 trial showing benefits with treatment, James F. Casella, MD, professor of pediatrics and chief of pediatric hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reported.
The time from randomization to the last dose of parenteral opioids in the current study did not differ in 194 patients randomized to the active treatment and 194 randomized to a placebo group (81.8 hours with poloxamer 188 vs. 77.8 hours with placebo), the authors found.
The study results were reported online in JAMA.
Participants in the double-blind study were individuals aged 4-65 years (mean, 15.2 years) with acute moderate to severe painful vaso-occlusive episodes requiring hospitalization. They were recruited between May 2013 and February 2016 from 66 hospitals in 12 countries.
Adverse events that were more common in the poloxamer 188 group included hyperbilirubinemia, which occurred in 12.7% of patients versus 5.2% in the placebo group. Hypoxia occurred more often in the placebo group (12.0% vs. 5.3%).
“Poloxamer 188 has been evaluated in three clinical trials of SCD demonstrating safety and possible efficacy for painful vaso-occlusive episodes and acute chest syndrome, which involves intrapulmonary vascular occlusion and/or infection,” the authors noted. “These studies included a previous phase 3 trial that suggested efficacy for painful vaso-occlusive episodes, particularly in children and participants receiving hydroxyurea.”
The mean duration of vaso-occlusive crisis was reduced by 8.8 hours overall, by 21 hours in those aged under 16 years, and by 16 hours in those receiving hydroxyurea. A small, nonsignificant difference was also seen in the incidence of acute chest syndrome for children in that study.
The findings were encouraging given the lack of disease-modifying therapies for ongoing painful vaso-occlusive episodes, which are associated with higher mortality in patients with SCD; although three agents are available for the prevention vaso-occlusive episodes, including hydroxyurea, L-glutamine, and crizanlizumab-tmca, no available agent effectively manages vaso-occlusive episodes once they have begun, the authors noted.
Current treatment therefore remains supportive, with analgesia and hydration, they added.
This is concerning since “acute pain is estimated to account for 95% of hospital admissions for those with SCD, creating a burden for individuals with SCD, their families, and health care systems,” they explained, adding that the ability to reduce the severity and duration of vaso-occlusive episodes would be a significant advance.
“Because intravenous poloxamer 188 is neither approved by the Food and Drug Administration nor available for clinical use and because other drugs for managing ongoing vaso-occlusive episodes are absent, the present trial was designed to determine whether poloxamer 188 is efficacious for painful vaso-occlusive episodes in SCD,” they said.
However, no benefit was seen for episode duration with treatment in the current study, nor was any beneficial effect on acute chest syndrome observed.
“Rather, although not statistically significant, there were more participants younger than 16 years who developed acute chest syndrome in the poloxamer 188 group than in the placebo group, paralleling the direction of effects on the primary outcome for participants younger than 16 years [in the current study],” they wrote, adding that there were also “no apparent effects on readmission for painful vaso-occlusive episodes in participants receiving hydroxyurea, despite the known effect of hydroxyurea in reducing rates of painful vaso-occlusive episodes and acute chest syndrome.”
Though limited by subjective aspects of assessing the primary outcome in this study and by challenges with effectively blinding poloxamer 188 use, the current findings do not support the use of poloxamer 188 for vaso-occlusive episodes, they concluded.
In an accompanying editorial, JAMA deputy editor Jody Zylke, MD, suggested that the most likely explanation for the differing conclusions in the current and prior phase 3 trials relates to the choice of primary outcome.
In the prior study, the primary outcome was time from randomization to crisis resolution.
“The resolution of pain is subjective, and the criteria to determine crisis resolution established by the investigators were extremely stringent and difficult to implement, leading to a high proportion of participants with incomplete documentation,” Dr. Zylke noted. “Also, incomplete documentation occurred more often in the placebo group than the intervention group, resulting in more imputation of missing values for the placebo group, which favored the poloxamer 188 group.”
In the current trial, a “more easily verified primary outcome was selected, with data available for 99% of participants.”
The report by Dr. Casella and colleagues “adds to the evidence base and illustrates some of the challenges in finding effective treatments for patients with sickle cell disease,” he said.
This study was funded by Mast Therapeutics (previously Adventrx Therapeutics). Dr. Casella reported receiving grants from Mast Therapeutics and receiving an honorarium, travel expenses, and salary support through Johns Hopkins for providing consultative advice to Mast Pharmaceuticals during development of the clinical trial and for serving as the principal investigator for the clinical trial; being an inventor and a named party on a patent and licensing agreement to ImmunArray through Johns Hopkins for a panel of brain biomarkers for the detection of brain injury; and holding a patent for aptamers as a potential treatment for sickle cell disease. Dr. Zylke reported having no disclosures.
Poloxamer 188, a nonionic block polymer surfactant reported to reduce blood viscosity and cell-cell interactions, failed to shorten painful vaso-occlusive episodes in adults and children with sickle cell disease (SCD) in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
The findings contrast with those from a prior phase 3 trial showing benefits with treatment, James F. Casella, MD, professor of pediatrics and chief of pediatric hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reported.
The time from randomization to the last dose of parenteral opioids in the current study did not differ in 194 patients randomized to the active treatment and 194 randomized to a placebo group (81.8 hours with poloxamer 188 vs. 77.8 hours with placebo), the authors found.
The study results were reported online in JAMA.
Participants in the double-blind study were individuals aged 4-65 years (mean, 15.2 years) with acute moderate to severe painful vaso-occlusive episodes requiring hospitalization. They were recruited between May 2013 and February 2016 from 66 hospitals in 12 countries.
Adverse events that were more common in the poloxamer 188 group included hyperbilirubinemia, which occurred in 12.7% of patients versus 5.2% in the placebo group. Hypoxia occurred more often in the placebo group (12.0% vs. 5.3%).
“Poloxamer 188 has been evaluated in three clinical trials of SCD demonstrating safety and possible efficacy for painful vaso-occlusive episodes and acute chest syndrome, which involves intrapulmonary vascular occlusion and/or infection,” the authors noted. “These studies included a previous phase 3 trial that suggested efficacy for painful vaso-occlusive episodes, particularly in children and participants receiving hydroxyurea.”
The mean duration of vaso-occlusive crisis was reduced by 8.8 hours overall, by 21 hours in those aged under 16 years, and by 16 hours in those receiving hydroxyurea. A small, nonsignificant difference was also seen in the incidence of acute chest syndrome for children in that study.
The findings were encouraging given the lack of disease-modifying therapies for ongoing painful vaso-occlusive episodes, which are associated with higher mortality in patients with SCD; although three agents are available for the prevention vaso-occlusive episodes, including hydroxyurea, L-glutamine, and crizanlizumab-tmca, no available agent effectively manages vaso-occlusive episodes once they have begun, the authors noted.
Current treatment therefore remains supportive, with analgesia and hydration, they added.
This is concerning since “acute pain is estimated to account for 95% of hospital admissions for those with SCD, creating a burden for individuals with SCD, their families, and health care systems,” they explained, adding that the ability to reduce the severity and duration of vaso-occlusive episodes would be a significant advance.
“Because intravenous poloxamer 188 is neither approved by the Food and Drug Administration nor available for clinical use and because other drugs for managing ongoing vaso-occlusive episodes are absent, the present trial was designed to determine whether poloxamer 188 is efficacious for painful vaso-occlusive episodes in SCD,” they said.
However, no benefit was seen for episode duration with treatment in the current study, nor was any beneficial effect on acute chest syndrome observed.
“Rather, although not statistically significant, there were more participants younger than 16 years who developed acute chest syndrome in the poloxamer 188 group than in the placebo group, paralleling the direction of effects on the primary outcome for participants younger than 16 years [in the current study],” they wrote, adding that there were also “no apparent effects on readmission for painful vaso-occlusive episodes in participants receiving hydroxyurea, despite the known effect of hydroxyurea in reducing rates of painful vaso-occlusive episodes and acute chest syndrome.”
Though limited by subjective aspects of assessing the primary outcome in this study and by challenges with effectively blinding poloxamer 188 use, the current findings do not support the use of poloxamer 188 for vaso-occlusive episodes, they concluded.
In an accompanying editorial, JAMA deputy editor Jody Zylke, MD, suggested that the most likely explanation for the differing conclusions in the current and prior phase 3 trials relates to the choice of primary outcome.
In the prior study, the primary outcome was time from randomization to crisis resolution.
“The resolution of pain is subjective, and the criteria to determine crisis resolution established by the investigators were extremely stringent and difficult to implement, leading to a high proportion of participants with incomplete documentation,” Dr. Zylke noted. “Also, incomplete documentation occurred more often in the placebo group than the intervention group, resulting in more imputation of missing values for the placebo group, which favored the poloxamer 188 group.”
In the current trial, a “more easily verified primary outcome was selected, with data available for 99% of participants.”
The report by Dr. Casella and colleagues “adds to the evidence base and illustrates some of the challenges in finding effective treatments for patients with sickle cell disease,” he said.
This study was funded by Mast Therapeutics (previously Adventrx Therapeutics). Dr. Casella reported receiving grants from Mast Therapeutics and receiving an honorarium, travel expenses, and salary support through Johns Hopkins for providing consultative advice to Mast Pharmaceuticals during development of the clinical trial and for serving as the principal investigator for the clinical trial; being an inventor and a named party on a patent and licensing agreement to ImmunArray through Johns Hopkins for a panel of brain biomarkers for the detection of brain injury; and holding a patent for aptamers as a potential treatment for sickle cell disease. Dr. Zylke reported having no disclosures.
FROM JAMA
Obstructive sleep apnea linked to COVID-19 risk
Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.
OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.
He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.
The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.
During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.
The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.
Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.
There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).
Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).
Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.
A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.
The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.
The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.
OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.
He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.
The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.
During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.
The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.
Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.
There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).
Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).
Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.
A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.
The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.
The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.
OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.
He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.
The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.
During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.
The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.
Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.
There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).
Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).
Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.
A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.
The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.
The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM ATS 2021
Hospitalist movers and shakers – May 2021
Rebecca Jaffe, MD, has been elevated to the permanent role of director of the division of hospital medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Dr. Jaffe has been the interim director since July 2020.
In the position, Dr. Jaffe will be responsible for leading an academic hospital medicine division that includes 36 faculty and 10 advanced-practice providers. She said her focus will be on developing physicians, advanced providers, and the inpatient practice model used while “educating the next generation of creative and compassionate clinicians.”
Dr. Jaffe is associate professor of medicine at Jefferson’s Sidney Kimmel Medical College and the hospital’s director of clinical learning environment improvement.
Christopher Freer, DO, recently was named the new senior vice president for emergency hospital medicine for RWJBarnabas Health (West Orange, N.J.). In a concurrent move, Maninder “Dolly” Abraham, MD, was named RWJBH’s chief of hospital medicine. The selections were made as RWJBH has become a direct employer for Envision Physician Services, a former hospital partner.
Dr. Freer has spent the past 5 years with RWJBH, where he has served as emergency services system director since 2015. He previously worked in leadership roles at Saint Barnabas Medical Center.
Dr. Abraham was previously medical director of Saint Barnabas’ hospitalist program, as well as a regional medical director with Envision during her 17 years of experience.
Sheetal Patel, MD, has been named the new regional medical director for Eagle Telemedicine (Cincinnati, Ohio), a physician-led company that provides telehospitalist services to hospitals around the country.
Dr. Patel will work closely with hospital administrators and medical directors to provide high-level telemedicine services, as well as devising processes and guidelines to guarantee streamlined care across Eagle’s facilities.
Dr. Patel has spent 4 years as a telehospitalist for Eagle, where she has been in charge of guiding on-site and remote staff members and providing training to new telehospitalists.
Timothy Crone, MD, MBA, has been elevated to the role of president of Cleveland Clinic Mercy Hospital (Canton, Ohio). The move comes as Cleveland Clinic recently added Mercy Medical Center as a full member of its health system.
Dr. Crone has served as chief medical officer at Cleveland Clinic Hillcrest Hospital in Cleveland since 2019. Previously, he was a medical director in enterprise business intelligence and analytics in medical operations at Cleveland Clinic’s main campus. He also was vice chairman of hospital medicine and has served as a staff hospitalist since 2010.
In addition to his role as president, Dr. Crone plans to work in patient care at Mercy Hospital.
Just prior to the start of 2021, Wake Forest Baptist Health (Winston-Salem, N.C.) established a “Hospitalist at Home” program with the goal of reducing the length of time patients spend in the hospital.
Hospitalist at Home was created as the COVID-19 pandemic threatened hospital capacity. Wakehealth’s innovative approach involves developing an at-home plan with each patient before they leave the facility. Patients include those with COVID-19 who are stable but require supplemental oxygen or have diseases that need intravenous medication administration.
At home, a Wakehealth paramedic visits the patient while a hospitalist communicates and reviews the patient’s care plan via smartphone, tablet, or computer. The visits continue until the patient’s hospital-related care is complete.
The Multicare Health System (Tacoma, Wash.) has bulked up its hospitalist program by partnering with nationwide, physician-led health care provider Sound Physicians. The goal is to provide health care management at a regional level instead of individually per hospital.
Sound Physicians, which already contracts to provide hospitalist services at two Multicare facilities in Washington, transitioned its services to three other facilities as of April 5, 2021.
Conemaugh Meyersdale Medical Center (Meyersdale, Pa.) has started a hospitalist program at its facility in Somerset County. The program will be led by nurse practitioners Zeke Feyock and Sarah Piscatello.
Rebecca Jaffe, MD, has been elevated to the permanent role of director of the division of hospital medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Dr. Jaffe has been the interim director since July 2020.
In the position, Dr. Jaffe will be responsible for leading an academic hospital medicine division that includes 36 faculty and 10 advanced-practice providers. She said her focus will be on developing physicians, advanced providers, and the inpatient practice model used while “educating the next generation of creative and compassionate clinicians.”
Dr. Jaffe is associate professor of medicine at Jefferson’s Sidney Kimmel Medical College and the hospital’s director of clinical learning environment improvement.
Christopher Freer, DO, recently was named the new senior vice president for emergency hospital medicine for RWJBarnabas Health (West Orange, N.J.). In a concurrent move, Maninder “Dolly” Abraham, MD, was named RWJBH’s chief of hospital medicine. The selections were made as RWJBH has become a direct employer for Envision Physician Services, a former hospital partner.
Dr. Freer has spent the past 5 years with RWJBH, where he has served as emergency services system director since 2015. He previously worked in leadership roles at Saint Barnabas Medical Center.
Dr. Abraham was previously medical director of Saint Barnabas’ hospitalist program, as well as a regional medical director with Envision during her 17 years of experience.
Sheetal Patel, MD, has been named the new regional medical director for Eagle Telemedicine (Cincinnati, Ohio), a physician-led company that provides telehospitalist services to hospitals around the country.
Dr. Patel will work closely with hospital administrators and medical directors to provide high-level telemedicine services, as well as devising processes and guidelines to guarantee streamlined care across Eagle’s facilities.
Dr. Patel has spent 4 years as a telehospitalist for Eagle, where she has been in charge of guiding on-site and remote staff members and providing training to new telehospitalists.
Timothy Crone, MD, MBA, has been elevated to the role of president of Cleveland Clinic Mercy Hospital (Canton, Ohio). The move comes as Cleveland Clinic recently added Mercy Medical Center as a full member of its health system.
Dr. Crone has served as chief medical officer at Cleveland Clinic Hillcrest Hospital in Cleveland since 2019. Previously, he was a medical director in enterprise business intelligence and analytics in medical operations at Cleveland Clinic’s main campus. He also was vice chairman of hospital medicine and has served as a staff hospitalist since 2010.
In addition to his role as president, Dr. Crone plans to work in patient care at Mercy Hospital.
Just prior to the start of 2021, Wake Forest Baptist Health (Winston-Salem, N.C.) established a “Hospitalist at Home” program with the goal of reducing the length of time patients spend in the hospital.
Hospitalist at Home was created as the COVID-19 pandemic threatened hospital capacity. Wakehealth’s innovative approach involves developing an at-home plan with each patient before they leave the facility. Patients include those with COVID-19 who are stable but require supplemental oxygen or have diseases that need intravenous medication administration.
At home, a Wakehealth paramedic visits the patient while a hospitalist communicates and reviews the patient’s care plan via smartphone, tablet, or computer. The visits continue until the patient’s hospital-related care is complete.
The Multicare Health System (Tacoma, Wash.) has bulked up its hospitalist program by partnering with nationwide, physician-led health care provider Sound Physicians. The goal is to provide health care management at a regional level instead of individually per hospital.
Sound Physicians, which already contracts to provide hospitalist services at two Multicare facilities in Washington, transitioned its services to three other facilities as of April 5, 2021.
Conemaugh Meyersdale Medical Center (Meyersdale, Pa.) has started a hospitalist program at its facility in Somerset County. The program will be led by nurse practitioners Zeke Feyock and Sarah Piscatello.
Rebecca Jaffe, MD, has been elevated to the permanent role of director of the division of hospital medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Dr. Jaffe has been the interim director since July 2020.
In the position, Dr. Jaffe will be responsible for leading an academic hospital medicine division that includes 36 faculty and 10 advanced-practice providers. She said her focus will be on developing physicians, advanced providers, and the inpatient practice model used while “educating the next generation of creative and compassionate clinicians.”
Dr. Jaffe is associate professor of medicine at Jefferson’s Sidney Kimmel Medical College and the hospital’s director of clinical learning environment improvement.
Christopher Freer, DO, recently was named the new senior vice president for emergency hospital medicine for RWJBarnabas Health (West Orange, N.J.). In a concurrent move, Maninder “Dolly” Abraham, MD, was named RWJBH’s chief of hospital medicine. The selections were made as RWJBH has become a direct employer for Envision Physician Services, a former hospital partner.
Dr. Freer has spent the past 5 years with RWJBH, where he has served as emergency services system director since 2015. He previously worked in leadership roles at Saint Barnabas Medical Center.
Dr. Abraham was previously medical director of Saint Barnabas’ hospitalist program, as well as a regional medical director with Envision during her 17 years of experience.
Sheetal Patel, MD, has been named the new regional medical director for Eagle Telemedicine (Cincinnati, Ohio), a physician-led company that provides telehospitalist services to hospitals around the country.
Dr. Patel will work closely with hospital administrators and medical directors to provide high-level telemedicine services, as well as devising processes and guidelines to guarantee streamlined care across Eagle’s facilities.
Dr. Patel has spent 4 years as a telehospitalist for Eagle, where she has been in charge of guiding on-site and remote staff members and providing training to new telehospitalists.
Timothy Crone, MD, MBA, has been elevated to the role of president of Cleveland Clinic Mercy Hospital (Canton, Ohio). The move comes as Cleveland Clinic recently added Mercy Medical Center as a full member of its health system.
Dr. Crone has served as chief medical officer at Cleveland Clinic Hillcrest Hospital in Cleveland since 2019. Previously, he was a medical director in enterprise business intelligence and analytics in medical operations at Cleveland Clinic’s main campus. He also was vice chairman of hospital medicine and has served as a staff hospitalist since 2010.
In addition to his role as president, Dr. Crone plans to work in patient care at Mercy Hospital.
Just prior to the start of 2021, Wake Forest Baptist Health (Winston-Salem, N.C.) established a “Hospitalist at Home” program with the goal of reducing the length of time patients spend in the hospital.
Hospitalist at Home was created as the COVID-19 pandemic threatened hospital capacity. Wakehealth’s innovative approach involves developing an at-home plan with each patient before they leave the facility. Patients include those with COVID-19 who are stable but require supplemental oxygen or have diseases that need intravenous medication administration.
At home, a Wakehealth paramedic visits the patient while a hospitalist communicates and reviews the patient’s care plan via smartphone, tablet, or computer. The visits continue until the patient’s hospital-related care is complete.
The Multicare Health System (Tacoma, Wash.) has bulked up its hospitalist program by partnering with nationwide, physician-led health care provider Sound Physicians. The goal is to provide health care management at a regional level instead of individually per hospital.
Sound Physicians, which already contracts to provide hospitalist services at two Multicare facilities in Washington, transitioned its services to three other facilities as of April 5, 2021.
Conemaugh Meyersdale Medical Center (Meyersdale, Pa.) has started a hospitalist program at its facility in Somerset County. The program will be led by nurse practitioners Zeke Feyock and Sarah Piscatello.
Bill seeks to streamline prior authorization in Medicare Advantage plans
A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.
These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.
There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.
There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.
“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
Strong support among health care groups
There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.
The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.
“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.
Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.
Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.
“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.
In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”
“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”
The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
“Rationing care by hassling”
Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.
Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.
“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”
The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.
In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.
“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”
During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.
Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.
In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.
“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”
Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.
“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.
Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.
“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.
These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.
There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.
There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.
“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
Strong support among health care groups
There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.
The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.
“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.
Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.
Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.
“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.
In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”
“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”
The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
“Rationing care by hassling”
Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.
Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.
“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”
The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.
In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.
“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”
During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.
Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.
In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.
“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”
Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.
“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.
Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.
“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.
These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.
There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.
There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.
“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
Strong support among health care groups
There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.
The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.
“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.
Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.
Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.
“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.
In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”
“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”
The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
“Rationing care by hassling”
Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.
Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.
“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”
The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.
In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.
“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”
During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.
Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.
In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.
“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”
Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.
“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.
Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.
“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Advanced and Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treatment and Management
What brought me back from the brink of suicide: A physician’s story
William Lynes, MD, had a flourishing medical practice and a fulfilling family life with three children when he first attempted suicide in 1999 at age 45. By 2003, depression and two more suicide attempts led to his early retirement.
In a session at the recent virtual American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2021 annual meeting, Dr. Lynes talked about the challenges of dealing with depression while managing the stresses of a career in medicine. The session in which he spoke was called, “The Suicidal Physician: Narratives From a Physician Who Survived and the Physician Widow of One Who Did Not.”
By writing and speaking about his experiences, he says, he has been able to retain his identity as a physician and avoid obsessive thoughts about suicide. He hopes conversations like these help other physicians feel less alone and enable them to push past stigmas to get the help they need. He suspects they do. More than 600 people joined the APA session, and Dr. Lynes received dozens of thankful messages afterward.
“I love medicine, but intrinsically, the practice of medicine is stressful, and you can’t get away,” said Dr. Lynes, a retired urologist in Temecula, Calif. “As far as feedback, it made me feel like it’s something I should continue to do.”
A way to heal
For Dr. Lynes, his “downward spiral into darkness” began with a series of catastrophic medical events starting in 1998, when he came home from a family vacation in Mexico feeling unwell. He didn’t bother to do anything about it – typical of a physician, he says. Then one night he woke up shaking with chills and fever. Soon he was in the hospital with respiratory failure from septic shock.
Dr. Lynes spent 6 weeks in the intensive care unit, including 4 weeks on a ventilator. He underwent a tracheostomy. He lost 40 pounds and experienced ICU-related delirium. It was a terrifying time, he said. When he tried to return to work 10 months later, he didn’t feel as though he could function normally.
Having once been a driven doctor who worked long hours, he now doubted himself and dreaded giving patients bad news. Spontaneously, he tried to take his own life.
Afterward, he concealed what had happened from everyone except his wife and managed to resume his practice. However, he was unable to regain the enthusiasm he had once had for his work. Although he had experienced depression before, this time it was unrelenting.
He sought help from a psychiatrist, received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and began taking medication. Still, he struggled to fulfill his responsibilities. Then in April 2002, he had a snowboarding accident that caused multiple facial fractures and required five operations. When he returned to work this time, he felt like a failure but resisted asking colleagues for help.
A few months later, Dr. Lynes again attempted suicide, which led to another stay in the ICU and more time on a ventilator. Doctors told his family they didn’t think he would survive. When he recovered, he spent time as an inpatient in a psychiatric ward, where he received the first of a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Compounding his anxiety and depression was the inability to come to terms with his life if he were not able to practice medicine.
The next fall, in September 2003, his third suicide attempt took place in his office on a weekend when no one was around. After locking the door, he looked at his reflection in the frame of his medical school diploma. The glass was cracked. “It was dark, it was black, it was cold,” he said. “I can remember seeing my reflection and thinking how disgusted I was.”
For years after that, Dr. Lynes struggled with his sense of self-worth. He hid from the medical system and dreaded doctors’ appointments. Finally in 2016, he found new meaning at a writing conference, where he met a fellow physician whose story was similar to his. She encouraged him to write about his experience. His essay was published in Annals of Internal Medicine that year. “Then I started speaking, and I feel like I’m a physician again,” he said. “That has really healed me quite a bit.”
Why physicians die by suicide
Working in health care can be extremely stressful, even in the best of times, said Michael Myers, MD, a psychiatrist at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and author of the book, “Why Physicians Die By Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”
Years of school and training culminate in a career in which demands are relentless. Societal expectations are high. Many doctors are perfectionists by nature, and physicians tend to feel intense pressure to compete for coveted positions.
Stress starts early in a medical career. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of 183 studies from 43 countries showed that nearly 30% of medical students experienced symptoms of depression and that 11% reported suicidal thoughts, but only 15% sought help.
A 2015 review of 31 studies that involved residents showed that rates of depression remained close to 30% and that about three-quarters of trainees meet criteria for burnout, a type of emotional exhaustion and sense of inadequacy that can result from chronic stress at work.
The stress of medical training appears to be a direct cause of mental health struggles. Rates of depression are higher among those working to become physicians than among their peers of the same age, research shows. In addition, symptoms become more prevalent as people progress through their training.
The COVID-19 pandemic has added stress to an already stressful job. Of more than 2,300 physicians surveyed in August 2020 by the Physicians Foundation, a physicians advocacy organization, 50% indicated that they experienced excessive anger, tearfulness, or anxiety because of the way the pandemic affected their work; 30% felt hopeless or lacking purpose; and 8% had thoughts of self-harm related to the pandemic. Rates of burnout had risen from 40% in 2018 to 58%.
Those problems might be even more acute in places experiencing other types of crises. A 2020 study of 154 emergency department (ED) physicians in Libya, which is in the midst of a civil war, found that 65% were experiencing anxiety, 73% were showing signs of depression, and 68% felt emotionally exhausted.
Every story is different
It is unclear how common suicide is among physicians. One often-repeated estimate is that 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, but no one is certain how that number was determined, said Dr. Myers, who organized the APA panel.
Studies on suicide are inconsistent, and trends are hard to pinpoint. Anecdotally, he has received just as many calls about physician suicides in the past year as he did before the pandemic started.
Every person is different, and so is every death. Sometimes, career problems have nothing to do with a physician’s suicide, Dr. Myers said. When job stress does play a role, factors are often varied and complex.
After a 35-year career as a double board certified ED physician, Matthew Seaman, MD, retired in January 2017. The same month, a patient filed a complaint against him with the Washington State medical board, which led to an investigation and a lawsuit.
The case was hard on Dr. Seaman, who had continued to work night shifts throughout his career and had won a Hero Award from the American Board of Emergency Medicine, said his wife, Linda Seaman, MD, a family practitioner in Yakima, Wash., who also spoke on the APA panel.
Dr. Seaman said that 2 years after the investigation started, her husband was growing increasingly depressed. In 2019, he testified in a deposition. She said the plaintiff’s attorney “tried every way he could to shame Matt, humiliate Matt, make him believe he was a very bad doctor.” Three days later, he died by suicide at age 62.
Looking back at the year leading up to her husband’s death, Dr. Seaman recognizes multiple obstacles that interfered with her husband’s ability to get help, including frustrating interactions with psychiatrists and the couple’s insurance company.
His identity and experience as a physician also played a role. A couple of months before he died, she tried unsuccessfully to reach his psychiatrist, whose office suggested he go to the ED. However, because he worked as an ED doctor in their small town, he wouldn’t go. Dr. Seaman suspects he was wary of the stigma.
Burnout likely set him up to cave in after decades of work on the front lines, she added. Working in the ED exposes providers to horrific, traumatic cases every day, she said. Physicians learn to suppress their own emotions to deal with what they encounter. Stuffing their feelings can lead to posttraumatic stress. “You just perform,” she said. “You learn to do that.”
A real gift
Whenever Dr. Myers hears stories about doctors who died by suicide or who have written about their mental health struggles to help others, he contacts them. One goal of his own writing and of the conference sessions he organizes is to make it easier for others to share their own stories.
“I tell them, first of all, their courage and honesty is a real gift, and they’re saving lives,” he said. “There are so many suffering doctors out there who think that they’re the only one.”
Public conversations such as those that occurred in the APA session also offer opportunities to share advice, including Dr. Myers’ recommendation that doctors be sure they have a primary care physician of their own.
Many don’t, he says, because they say they are too busy, they can treat their own symptoms, or they can self-refer to specialists when needed. But physicians don’t always recognize symptoms of depression in themselves, and when mental health problems arise, they may not seek help or treat themselves appropriately.
A primary care physician can be the first person to recognize a mental health problem and refer a patient for mental health care, said Dr. Myers, whose latest book, “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir,” explores his experiences treating doctors with burnout and other mental health problems.
Whether they have a primary care doctor or not, he suggests that physicians talk to anyone they trust – a social worker, a religious leader, or a family member who can then help them find the right sort of care.
In the United States, around-the-clock help is available through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. A psychiatrist-run hotline specifically for physicians is available at 888-409-0141. “Reach out and get some help,” Dr. Myers said. “Just don’t do it alone.”
Dr. Lynes advocates setting boundaries between life and work. He has also benefited from writing about his experiences. A blog or a diary can help physicians process their feelings, he said. His 2016 essay marked a major turning point in his life, giving his life meaning in helping others.
“Since I wrote that article, I can’t tell you how much better I am,” he said. “Now, I’m not embarrassed to be around physicians. I actually consider myself a physician. I didn’t for many, many years. So, I’m doing pretty well.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
William Lynes, MD, had a flourishing medical practice and a fulfilling family life with three children when he first attempted suicide in 1999 at age 45. By 2003, depression and two more suicide attempts led to his early retirement.
In a session at the recent virtual American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2021 annual meeting, Dr. Lynes talked about the challenges of dealing with depression while managing the stresses of a career in medicine. The session in which he spoke was called, “The Suicidal Physician: Narratives From a Physician Who Survived and the Physician Widow of One Who Did Not.”
By writing and speaking about his experiences, he says, he has been able to retain his identity as a physician and avoid obsessive thoughts about suicide. He hopes conversations like these help other physicians feel less alone and enable them to push past stigmas to get the help they need. He suspects they do. More than 600 people joined the APA session, and Dr. Lynes received dozens of thankful messages afterward.
“I love medicine, but intrinsically, the practice of medicine is stressful, and you can’t get away,” said Dr. Lynes, a retired urologist in Temecula, Calif. “As far as feedback, it made me feel like it’s something I should continue to do.”
A way to heal
For Dr. Lynes, his “downward spiral into darkness” began with a series of catastrophic medical events starting in 1998, when he came home from a family vacation in Mexico feeling unwell. He didn’t bother to do anything about it – typical of a physician, he says. Then one night he woke up shaking with chills and fever. Soon he was in the hospital with respiratory failure from septic shock.
Dr. Lynes spent 6 weeks in the intensive care unit, including 4 weeks on a ventilator. He underwent a tracheostomy. He lost 40 pounds and experienced ICU-related delirium. It was a terrifying time, he said. When he tried to return to work 10 months later, he didn’t feel as though he could function normally.
Having once been a driven doctor who worked long hours, he now doubted himself and dreaded giving patients bad news. Spontaneously, he tried to take his own life.
Afterward, he concealed what had happened from everyone except his wife and managed to resume his practice. However, he was unable to regain the enthusiasm he had once had for his work. Although he had experienced depression before, this time it was unrelenting.
He sought help from a psychiatrist, received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and began taking medication. Still, he struggled to fulfill his responsibilities. Then in April 2002, he had a snowboarding accident that caused multiple facial fractures and required five operations. When he returned to work this time, he felt like a failure but resisted asking colleagues for help.
A few months later, Dr. Lynes again attempted suicide, which led to another stay in the ICU and more time on a ventilator. Doctors told his family they didn’t think he would survive. When he recovered, he spent time as an inpatient in a psychiatric ward, where he received the first of a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Compounding his anxiety and depression was the inability to come to terms with his life if he were not able to practice medicine.
The next fall, in September 2003, his third suicide attempt took place in his office on a weekend when no one was around. After locking the door, he looked at his reflection in the frame of his medical school diploma. The glass was cracked. “It was dark, it was black, it was cold,” he said. “I can remember seeing my reflection and thinking how disgusted I was.”
For years after that, Dr. Lynes struggled with his sense of self-worth. He hid from the medical system and dreaded doctors’ appointments. Finally in 2016, he found new meaning at a writing conference, where he met a fellow physician whose story was similar to his. She encouraged him to write about his experience. His essay was published in Annals of Internal Medicine that year. “Then I started speaking, and I feel like I’m a physician again,” he said. “That has really healed me quite a bit.”
Why physicians die by suicide
Working in health care can be extremely stressful, even in the best of times, said Michael Myers, MD, a psychiatrist at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and author of the book, “Why Physicians Die By Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”
Years of school and training culminate in a career in which demands are relentless. Societal expectations are high. Many doctors are perfectionists by nature, and physicians tend to feel intense pressure to compete for coveted positions.
Stress starts early in a medical career. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of 183 studies from 43 countries showed that nearly 30% of medical students experienced symptoms of depression and that 11% reported suicidal thoughts, but only 15% sought help.
A 2015 review of 31 studies that involved residents showed that rates of depression remained close to 30% and that about three-quarters of trainees meet criteria for burnout, a type of emotional exhaustion and sense of inadequacy that can result from chronic stress at work.
The stress of medical training appears to be a direct cause of mental health struggles. Rates of depression are higher among those working to become physicians than among their peers of the same age, research shows. In addition, symptoms become more prevalent as people progress through their training.
The COVID-19 pandemic has added stress to an already stressful job. Of more than 2,300 physicians surveyed in August 2020 by the Physicians Foundation, a physicians advocacy organization, 50% indicated that they experienced excessive anger, tearfulness, or anxiety because of the way the pandemic affected their work; 30% felt hopeless or lacking purpose; and 8% had thoughts of self-harm related to the pandemic. Rates of burnout had risen from 40% in 2018 to 58%.
Those problems might be even more acute in places experiencing other types of crises. A 2020 study of 154 emergency department (ED) physicians in Libya, which is in the midst of a civil war, found that 65% were experiencing anxiety, 73% were showing signs of depression, and 68% felt emotionally exhausted.
Every story is different
It is unclear how common suicide is among physicians. One often-repeated estimate is that 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, but no one is certain how that number was determined, said Dr. Myers, who organized the APA panel.
Studies on suicide are inconsistent, and trends are hard to pinpoint. Anecdotally, he has received just as many calls about physician suicides in the past year as he did before the pandemic started.
Every person is different, and so is every death. Sometimes, career problems have nothing to do with a physician’s suicide, Dr. Myers said. When job stress does play a role, factors are often varied and complex.
After a 35-year career as a double board certified ED physician, Matthew Seaman, MD, retired in January 2017. The same month, a patient filed a complaint against him with the Washington State medical board, which led to an investigation and a lawsuit.
The case was hard on Dr. Seaman, who had continued to work night shifts throughout his career and had won a Hero Award from the American Board of Emergency Medicine, said his wife, Linda Seaman, MD, a family practitioner in Yakima, Wash., who also spoke on the APA panel.
Dr. Seaman said that 2 years after the investigation started, her husband was growing increasingly depressed. In 2019, he testified in a deposition. She said the plaintiff’s attorney “tried every way he could to shame Matt, humiliate Matt, make him believe he was a very bad doctor.” Three days later, he died by suicide at age 62.
Looking back at the year leading up to her husband’s death, Dr. Seaman recognizes multiple obstacles that interfered with her husband’s ability to get help, including frustrating interactions with psychiatrists and the couple’s insurance company.
His identity and experience as a physician also played a role. A couple of months before he died, she tried unsuccessfully to reach his psychiatrist, whose office suggested he go to the ED. However, because he worked as an ED doctor in their small town, he wouldn’t go. Dr. Seaman suspects he was wary of the stigma.
Burnout likely set him up to cave in after decades of work on the front lines, she added. Working in the ED exposes providers to horrific, traumatic cases every day, she said. Physicians learn to suppress their own emotions to deal with what they encounter. Stuffing their feelings can lead to posttraumatic stress. “You just perform,” she said. “You learn to do that.”
A real gift
Whenever Dr. Myers hears stories about doctors who died by suicide or who have written about their mental health struggles to help others, he contacts them. One goal of his own writing and of the conference sessions he organizes is to make it easier for others to share their own stories.
“I tell them, first of all, their courage and honesty is a real gift, and they’re saving lives,” he said. “There are so many suffering doctors out there who think that they’re the only one.”
Public conversations such as those that occurred in the APA session also offer opportunities to share advice, including Dr. Myers’ recommendation that doctors be sure they have a primary care physician of their own.
Many don’t, he says, because they say they are too busy, they can treat their own symptoms, or they can self-refer to specialists when needed. But physicians don’t always recognize symptoms of depression in themselves, and when mental health problems arise, they may not seek help or treat themselves appropriately.
A primary care physician can be the first person to recognize a mental health problem and refer a patient for mental health care, said Dr. Myers, whose latest book, “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir,” explores his experiences treating doctors with burnout and other mental health problems.
Whether they have a primary care doctor or not, he suggests that physicians talk to anyone they trust – a social worker, a religious leader, or a family member who can then help them find the right sort of care.
In the United States, around-the-clock help is available through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. A psychiatrist-run hotline specifically for physicians is available at 888-409-0141. “Reach out and get some help,” Dr. Myers said. “Just don’t do it alone.”
Dr. Lynes advocates setting boundaries between life and work. He has also benefited from writing about his experiences. A blog or a diary can help physicians process their feelings, he said. His 2016 essay marked a major turning point in his life, giving his life meaning in helping others.
“Since I wrote that article, I can’t tell you how much better I am,” he said. “Now, I’m not embarrassed to be around physicians. I actually consider myself a physician. I didn’t for many, many years. So, I’m doing pretty well.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
William Lynes, MD, had a flourishing medical practice and a fulfilling family life with three children when he first attempted suicide in 1999 at age 45. By 2003, depression and two more suicide attempts led to his early retirement.
In a session at the recent virtual American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2021 annual meeting, Dr. Lynes talked about the challenges of dealing with depression while managing the stresses of a career in medicine. The session in which he spoke was called, “The Suicidal Physician: Narratives From a Physician Who Survived and the Physician Widow of One Who Did Not.”
By writing and speaking about his experiences, he says, he has been able to retain his identity as a physician and avoid obsessive thoughts about suicide. He hopes conversations like these help other physicians feel less alone and enable them to push past stigmas to get the help they need. He suspects they do. More than 600 people joined the APA session, and Dr. Lynes received dozens of thankful messages afterward.
“I love medicine, but intrinsically, the practice of medicine is stressful, and you can’t get away,” said Dr. Lynes, a retired urologist in Temecula, Calif. “As far as feedback, it made me feel like it’s something I should continue to do.”
A way to heal
For Dr. Lynes, his “downward spiral into darkness” began with a series of catastrophic medical events starting in 1998, when he came home from a family vacation in Mexico feeling unwell. He didn’t bother to do anything about it – typical of a physician, he says. Then one night he woke up shaking with chills and fever. Soon he was in the hospital with respiratory failure from septic shock.
Dr. Lynes spent 6 weeks in the intensive care unit, including 4 weeks on a ventilator. He underwent a tracheostomy. He lost 40 pounds and experienced ICU-related delirium. It was a terrifying time, he said. When he tried to return to work 10 months later, he didn’t feel as though he could function normally.
Having once been a driven doctor who worked long hours, he now doubted himself and dreaded giving patients bad news. Spontaneously, he tried to take his own life.
Afterward, he concealed what had happened from everyone except his wife and managed to resume his practice. However, he was unable to regain the enthusiasm he had once had for his work. Although he had experienced depression before, this time it was unrelenting.
He sought help from a psychiatrist, received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and began taking medication. Still, he struggled to fulfill his responsibilities. Then in April 2002, he had a snowboarding accident that caused multiple facial fractures and required five operations. When he returned to work this time, he felt like a failure but resisted asking colleagues for help.
A few months later, Dr. Lynes again attempted suicide, which led to another stay in the ICU and more time on a ventilator. Doctors told his family they didn’t think he would survive. When he recovered, he spent time as an inpatient in a psychiatric ward, where he received the first of a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Compounding his anxiety and depression was the inability to come to terms with his life if he were not able to practice medicine.
The next fall, in September 2003, his third suicide attempt took place in his office on a weekend when no one was around. After locking the door, he looked at his reflection in the frame of his medical school diploma. The glass was cracked. “It was dark, it was black, it was cold,” he said. “I can remember seeing my reflection and thinking how disgusted I was.”
For years after that, Dr. Lynes struggled with his sense of self-worth. He hid from the medical system and dreaded doctors’ appointments. Finally in 2016, he found new meaning at a writing conference, where he met a fellow physician whose story was similar to his. She encouraged him to write about his experience. His essay was published in Annals of Internal Medicine that year. “Then I started speaking, and I feel like I’m a physician again,” he said. “That has really healed me quite a bit.”
Why physicians die by suicide
Working in health care can be extremely stressful, even in the best of times, said Michael Myers, MD, a psychiatrist at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and author of the book, “Why Physicians Die By Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”
Years of school and training culminate in a career in which demands are relentless. Societal expectations are high. Many doctors are perfectionists by nature, and physicians tend to feel intense pressure to compete for coveted positions.
Stress starts early in a medical career. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of 183 studies from 43 countries showed that nearly 30% of medical students experienced symptoms of depression and that 11% reported suicidal thoughts, but only 15% sought help.
A 2015 review of 31 studies that involved residents showed that rates of depression remained close to 30% and that about three-quarters of trainees meet criteria for burnout, a type of emotional exhaustion and sense of inadequacy that can result from chronic stress at work.
The stress of medical training appears to be a direct cause of mental health struggles. Rates of depression are higher among those working to become physicians than among their peers of the same age, research shows. In addition, symptoms become more prevalent as people progress through their training.
The COVID-19 pandemic has added stress to an already stressful job. Of more than 2,300 physicians surveyed in August 2020 by the Physicians Foundation, a physicians advocacy organization, 50% indicated that they experienced excessive anger, tearfulness, or anxiety because of the way the pandemic affected their work; 30% felt hopeless or lacking purpose; and 8% had thoughts of self-harm related to the pandemic. Rates of burnout had risen from 40% in 2018 to 58%.
Those problems might be even more acute in places experiencing other types of crises. A 2020 study of 154 emergency department (ED) physicians in Libya, which is in the midst of a civil war, found that 65% were experiencing anxiety, 73% were showing signs of depression, and 68% felt emotionally exhausted.
Every story is different
It is unclear how common suicide is among physicians. One often-repeated estimate is that 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, but no one is certain how that number was determined, said Dr. Myers, who organized the APA panel.
Studies on suicide are inconsistent, and trends are hard to pinpoint. Anecdotally, he has received just as many calls about physician suicides in the past year as he did before the pandemic started.
Every person is different, and so is every death. Sometimes, career problems have nothing to do with a physician’s suicide, Dr. Myers said. When job stress does play a role, factors are often varied and complex.
After a 35-year career as a double board certified ED physician, Matthew Seaman, MD, retired in January 2017. The same month, a patient filed a complaint against him with the Washington State medical board, which led to an investigation and a lawsuit.
The case was hard on Dr. Seaman, who had continued to work night shifts throughout his career and had won a Hero Award from the American Board of Emergency Medicine, said his wife, Linda Seaman, MD, a family practitioner in Yakima, Wash., who also spoke on the APA panel.
Dr. Seaman said that 2 years after the investigation started, her husband was growing increasingly depressed. In 2019, he testified in a deposition. She said the plaintiff’s attorney “tried every way he could to shame Matt, humiliate Matt, make him believe he was a very bad doctor.” Three days later, he died by suicide at age 62.
Looking back at the year leading up to her husband’s death, Dr. Seaman recognizes multiple obstacles that interfered with her husband’s ability to get help, including frustrating interactions with psychiatrists and the couple’s insurance company.
His identity and experience as a physician also played a role. A couple of months before he died, she tried unsuccessfully to reach his psychiatrist, whose office suggested he go to the ED. However, because he worked as an ED doctor in their small town, he wouldn’t go. Dr. Seaman suspects he was wary of the stigma.
Burnout likely set him up to cave in after decades of work on the front lines, she added. Working in the ED exposes providers to horrific, traumatic cases every day, she said. Physicians learn to suppress their own emotions to deal with what they encounter. Stuffing their feelings can lead to posttraumatic stress. “You just perform,” she said. “You learn to do that.”
A real gift
Whenever Dr. Myers hears stories about doctors who died by suicide or who have written about their mental health struggles to help others, he contacts them. One goal of his own writing and of the conference sessions he organizes is to make it easier for others to share their own stories.
“I tell them, first of all, their courage and honesty is a real gift, and they’re saving lives,” he said. “There are so many suffering doctors out there who think that they’re the only one.”
Public conversations such as those that occurred in the APA session also offer opportunities to share advice, including Dr. Myers’ recommendation that doctors be sure they have a primary care physician of their own.
Many don’t, he says, because they say they are too busy, they can treat their own symptoms, or they can self-refer to specialists when needed. But physicians don’t always recognize symptoms of depression in themselves, and when mental health problems arise, they may not seek help or treat themselves appropriately.
A primary care physician can be the first person to recognize a mental health problem and refer a patient for mental health care, said Dr. Myers, whose latest book, “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir,” explores his experiences treating doctors with burnout and other mental health problems.
Whether they have a primary care doctor or not, he suggests that physicians talk to anyone they trust – a social worker, a religious leader, or a family member who can then help them find the right sort of care.
In the United States, around-the-clock help is available through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. A psychiatrist-run hotline specifically for physicians is available at 888-409-0141. “Reach out and get some help,” Dr. Myers said. “Just don’t do it alone.”
Dr. Lynes advocates setting boundaries between life and work. He has also benefited from writing about his experiences. A blog or a diary can help physicians process their feelings, he said. His 2016 essay marked a major turning point in his life, giving his life meaning in helping others.
“Since I wrote that article, I can’t tell you how much better I am,” he said. “Now, I’m not embarrassed to be around physicians. I actually consider myself a physician. I didn’t for many, many years. So, I’m doing pretty well.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heart benefits of DASH low-sodium diet ‘swift and direct’
New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.
“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.
“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.
The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Renewed focus on diet
“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.
“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.
The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).
The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.
Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.
Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.
In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).
Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.
“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.
“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.
“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.
It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.
“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.
In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”
“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.
The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.
“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.
“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.
The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Renewed focus on diet
“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.
“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.
The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).
The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.
Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.
Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.
In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).
Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.
“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.
“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.
“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.
It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.
“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.
In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”
“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.
The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.
“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.
“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.
The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Renewed focus on diet
“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.
“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.
The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).
The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.
Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.
Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.
In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).
Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.
“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.
“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.
“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.
It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.
“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.
In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”
“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.
The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaginoplasty basics – what every gynecologist needs to know
Feminizing gender affirmation surgery is a complex genital surgery that most commonly involves removal of natal male genitalia (testes, penile urethra, a majority of the glans penis, penile shaft) and construction of the vulva and/or neovagina utilizing scrotal and penile shaft tissue. Other surgical procedures can also involve using a peritoneal flap or a portion of the small bowel or sigmoid colon to create the neovaginal canal. As with any major surgical procedure, complications do occur, and these can range from minor to major; intraoperative to postoperative. For the purposes of this article, the focus shall be on postoperative complications. Most postoperative complications occur within the first 4 months of the surgery and include vaginal stenosis, genitourinary fistula formation, urinary stream abnormalities, and sexual dysfunction.1 Minor complications that can be managed in the office include granulation tissue treatment, vaginitis, and hair growth in the neovagina. It is important to note that, if any complication occurs, it is essential to refer to the patient’s original surgeon or to a surgeon with expertise in vaginoplasty techniques and postoperative management.2
For patients who undergo vaginoplasty, or a creation of a neovaginal canal, postoperative dilation is necessary to maintain patency. The frequency and duration of dilation are often determined by each individual surgeon or surgical practice as there is no universal, evidence-based standard to guide recommendations on dilation. Failure to maintain a dilation schedule can result in neovaginal stenosis and inability to engage in penetrative vaginal intercourse (if patients desire). Dilation can be difficult.
Challenges with dilation can occur for a variety of reasons: pain, history of trauma, pelvic floor dysfunction, lack of privacy or a supportive environment, or change in personal goals.3 If the underlying cause is related to pelvic floor dysfunction, postoperative pelvic floor therapy has demonstrated improvement in dilation.4 Additionally, routine douching is required for vaginal hygiene. Unlike natal vaginas, neovaginas do not usually contain mucosa, with the exception of a colonic interposition vaginoplasty, and routine douching with soapy water can help prevent a buildup of lubricant and debris.
If a patient reports abnormal discharge, an exam of the vulva and neovagina is warranted. Many patients are able to tolerate a speculum examination. If a patient has undergone a penile inversion vaginoplasty, the microbiome of the neovagina is quite different than that of a natal vagina and most common causes of abnormal discharge often include retained lubricant, keratin debris, sebum, or semen.5 During a speculum exam, the provider may notice granulation tissue, which is often another cause of persistent vaginal discharge, vaginal bleeding, or pain during dilation. Depending on the patient’s symptoms and quantity of granulation tissue present, it can often resolve spontaneously. Persistent granulation tissue can be treated with silver nitrate. An alternative to silver nitrate is using medical grade honey or a course of a mild-strength topical steroid cream or ointment.5 In some cases, abnormal discharge may be the result of a fistula. If a fistula is noted the patient should be immediately referred back to the original surgeon or to a urogynecologist and/or colorectal surgeon for evaluation and management.
While this surgery often falls outside of the scope of practice of the general obstetrician-gynecologist, most patients will seek the care of a general obstetrician-gynecologist in the postoperative period. It is therefore imperative that obstetrician-gynecologists have a basic understanding of the surgical procedure and the aftercare involved.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Gaither TW et al. J Urol. 2018;199(3):760-5.
2. Ferrando CA and Bowers ML. In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care of the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 82-92.
3. Chi AC et al. Complications of vaginoplasty. In: Niklavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. “Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide” Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2021 p. 83-97.
4. Jiang D et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(5):1003-11.
5. Obedin-Maliver J and Haan GD. Gynecologic care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care of the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 131-51.
Feminizing gender affirmation surgery is a complex genital surgery that most commonly involves removal of natal male genitalia (testes, penile urethra, a majority of the glans penis, penile shaft) and construction of the vulva and/or neovagina utilizing scrotal and penile shaft tissue. Other surgical procedures can also involve using a peritoneal flap or a portion of the small bowel or sigmoid colon to create the neovaginal canal. As with any major surgical procedure, complications do occur, and these can range from minor to major; intraoperative to postoperative. For the purposes of this article, the focus shall be on postoperative complications. Most postoperative complications occur within the first 4 months of the surgery and include vaginal stenosis, genitourinary fistula formation, urinary stream abnormalities, and sexual dysfunction.1 Minor complications that can be managed in the office include granulation tissue treatment, vaginitis, and hair growth in the neovagina. It is important to note that, if any complication occurs, it is essential to refer to the patient’s original surgeon or to a surgeon with expertise in vaginoplasty techniques and postoperative management.2
For patients who undergo vaginoplasty, or a creation of a neovaginal canal, postoperative dilation is necessary to maintain patency. The frequency and duration of dilation are often determined by each individual surgeon or surgical practice as there is no universal, evidence-based standard to guide recommendations on dilation. Failure to maintain a dilation schedule can result in neovaginal stenosis and inability to engage in penetrative vaginal intercourse (if patients desire). Dilation can be difficult.
Challenges with dilation can occur for a variety of reasons: pain, history of trauma, pelvic floor dysfunction, lack of privacy or a supportive environment, or change in personal goals.3 If the underlying cause is related to pelvic floor dysfunction, postoperative pelvic floor therapy has demonstrated improvement in dilation.4 Additionally, routine douching is required for vaginal hygiene. Unlike natal vaginas, neovaginas do not usually contain mucosa, with the exception of a colonic interposition vaginoplasty, and routine douching with soapy water can help prevent a buildup of lubricant and debris.
If a patient reports abnormal discharge, an exam of the vulva and neovagina is warranted. Many patients are able to tolerate a speculum examination. If a patient has undergone a penile inversion vaginoplasty, the microbiome of the neovagina is quite different than that of a natal vagina and most common causes of abnormal discharge often include retained lubricant, keratin debris, sebum, or semen.5 During a speculum exam, the provider may notice granulation tissue, which is often another cause of persistent vaginal discharge, vaginal bleeding, or pain during dilation. Depending on the patient’s symptoms and quantity of granulation tissue present, it can often resolve spontaneously. Persistent granulation tissue can be treated with silver nitrate. An alternative to silver nitrate is using medical grade honey or a course of a mild-strength topical steroid cream or ointment.5 In some cases, abnormal discharge may be the result of a fistula. If a fistula is noted the patient should be immediately referred back to the original surgeon or to a urogynecologist and/or colorectal surgeon for evaluation and management.
While this surgery often falls outside of the scope of practice of the general obstetrician-gynecologist, most patients will seek the care of a general obstetrician-gynecologist in the postoperative period. It is therefore imperative that obstetrician-gynecologists have a basic understanding of the surgical procedure and the aftercare involved.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Gaither TW et al. J Urol. 2018;199(3):760-5.
2. Ferrando CA and Bowers ML. In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care of the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 82-92.
3. Chi AC et al. Complications of vaginoplasty. In: Niklavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. “Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide” Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2021 p. 83-97.
4. Jiang D et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(5):1003-11.
5. Obedin-Maliver J and Haan GD. Gynecologic care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care of the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 131-51.
Feminizing gender affirmation surgery is a complex genital surgery that most commonly involves removal of natal male genitalia (testes, penile urethra, a majority of the glans penis, penile shaft) and construction of the vulva and/or neovagina utilizing scrotal and penile shaft tissue. Other surgical procedures can also involve using a peritoneal flap or a portion of the small bowel or sigmoid colon to create the neovaginal canal. As with any major surgical procedure, complications do occur, and these can range from minor to major; intraoperative to postoperative. For the purposes of this article, the focus shall be on postoperative complications. Most postoperative complications occur within the first 4 months of the surgery and include vaginal stenosis, genitourinary fistula formation, urinary stream abnormalities, and sexual dysfunction.1 Minor complications that can be managed in the office include granulation tissue treatment, vaginitis, and hair growth in the neovagina. It is important to note that, if any complication occurs, it is essential to refer to the patient’s original surgeon or to a surgeon with expertise in vaginoplasty techniques and postoperative management.2
For patients who undergo vaginoplasty, or a creation of a neovaginal canal, postoperative dilation is necessary to maintain patency. The frequency and duration of dilation are often determined by each individual surgeon or surgical practice as there is no universal, evidence-based standard to guide recommendations on dilation. Failure to maintain a dilation schedule can result in neovaginal stenosis and inability to engage in penetrative vaginal intercourse (if patients desire). Dilation can be difficult.
Challenges with dilation can occur for a variety of reasons: pain, history of trauma, pelvic floor dysfunction, lack of privacy or a supportive environment, or change in personal goals.3 If the underlying cause is related to pelvic floor dysfunction, postoperative pelvic floor therapy has demonstrated improvement in dilation.4 Additionally, routine douching is required for vaginal hygiene. Unlike natal vaginas, neovaginas do not usually contain mucosa, with the exception of a colonic interposition vaginoplasty, and routine douching with soapy water can help prevent a buildup of lubricant and debris.
If a patient reports abnormal discharge, an exam of the vulva and neovagina is warranted. Many patients are able to tolerate a speculum examination. If a patient has undergone a penile inversion vaginoplasty, the microbiome of the neovagina is quite different than that of a natal vagina and most common causes of abnormal discharge often include retained lubricant, keratin debris, sebum, or semen.5 During a speculum exam, the provider may notice granulation tissue, which is often another cause of persistent vaginal discharge, vaginal bleeding, or pain during dilation. Depending on the patient’s symptoms and quantity of granulation tissue present, it can often resolve spontaneously. Persistent granulation tissue can be treated with silver nitrate. An alternative to silver nitrate is using medical grade honey or a course of a mild-strength topical steroid cream or ointment.5 In some cases, abnormal discharge may be the result of a fistula. If a fistula is noted the patient should be immediately referred back to the original surgeon or to a urogynecologist and/or colorectal surgeon for evaluation and management.
While this surgery often falls outside of the scope of practice of the general obstetrician-gynecologist, most patients will seek the care of a general obstetrician-gynecologist in the postoperative period. It is therefore imperative that obstetrician-gynecologists have a basic understanding of the surgical procedure and the aftercare involved.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Gaither TW et al. J Urol. 2018;199(3):760-5.
2. Ferrando CA and Bowers ML. In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care of the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 82-92.
3. Chi AC et al. Complications of vaginoplasty. In: Niklavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. “Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide” Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2021 p. 83-97.
4. Jiang D et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(5):1003-11.
5. Obedin-Maliver J and Haan GD. Gynecologic care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care of the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 131-51.