From T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Dr. Ebekozien, Dr. Odugbesan, and Nicole Rioles); Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (Dr. Majidi); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH (Dr. Jones); and Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH (Dr. Kamboj)

Health equity has been described as the opportunity for all persons to obtain their highest level of health possible.¹ Unfortunately, even with advances in technology and care practices, disparities persist in health care outcomes. Disparities in prevalence, prognosis, and outcomes still exist in diabetes management.² Non-Hispanic Black and/or Hispanic populations are more likely to have worse glycemic control,^3,4 to encounter more barriers in access to care,⁵ and to have higher levels of acute complications,⁴ and to use advanced technologies less frequently.⁴ Diabetes is one of the preexisting conditions that increase morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.^6,7 Unfortunately, adverse outcomes from COVID-19 also disproportionately impact a specific vulnerable population.^8,9 The urgent transition to managing diabetes remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate long-term inequities because some vulnerable patients might not have access to technology devices necessary for effective remote management.

Here, we describe how quality improvement (QI) tools and principles can be adapted into a framework for advancing health equity. Specifically, we describe a 10-step framework that may be applied in diabetes care management to achieve improvement, using a hypothetical example of increasing use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) among patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.¹⁰ This framework was developed to address the literature gap on practical ways health care providers can address inequities using QI principles, and was implemented by 1 of the authors at a local public health department.¹¹ The framework’s iterative and comprehensive design makes it ideal for addressing inequities in chronic diseases like diabetes, which have multiple root causes with no easy solutions. The improvement program pilot received a national model practice award.^11,12

10-Step Framework

Step 1: Review program/project baseline data for existing disparities. Diabetes programs and routine QI processes encourage existing data review to determine how effective the current system is working and if the existing process has a predictable pattern.^13,14 Our equity-revised framework proposes a more in-depth review to stratify baseline data based on factors that might contribute to inequities, including race, age, income levels, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, insurance type, and zip code. This process will identify patients not served or unfairly impacted due to socioeconomic factors. For example, using the hypothetical example of improving CGM use, a team completes a preliminary data review and determines that baseline CGM use is 30% in the clinic population. However, in a review to assess for disparities, they also identify that patients on public insurance have a significantly lower CGM uptake of only 15%.

Step 2: Build an equitable project team, including patients with lived experiences. Routine projects typically have clinicians, administrative staff, and analytic staff as members of their team. In a post-COVID-19 world, every team needs to learn directly from people impacted and share decision-making power. The traditional approach to receiving feedback has generally been to collect responses using surveys or focus groups. We propose that individuals/families who are disproportionately impacted be included as active members on QI teams. For example, in the hypothetical example of the CGM project, team members would include patients with type 1 diabetes who are on public insurance and their families.

Step 3: Develop equity-focused goals. The traditional program involves the development of aims that are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound).¹⁵ The proposed framework encourages the inclusion of equity-revised goals (SMARTer) using insights from Steps 1 and 2. For example, your typical smart goal might be to increase the percentage of patients using CGM by 20% in 6 months, while a SMARTer goal would be to increase the proportion of patients using CGM by 20% and reduce the disparities among public and private insurance patients by 30% in 6 months.

Step 4: Identify inequitable processes/pathways. Traditional QI programs might use a process map or flow diagram to depict the current state of a process visually.¹⁶ For example, in Figure 1, the process map diagram depicts some differences in the process for patients with public insurance as opposed to those with private insurance. The framework also advocates for using visual tools like process maps to depict how there might be inequitable pathways in a system. Visually identifying inequitable processes/pathways can help a team see barriers, address challenges, and pilot innovative solutions.

Step 5: Identify how socioeconomic factors are contributing to the current outcome. A good understanding of factors that contribute to the problem is an essential part of finding fundamental solutions. The fishbone diagram¹⁶ is a visualization tool used to identify contributing factors. When investigating contributing factors, it is commonplace to identify factors that fit into 1 of 5 categories: people, process, place, product, and policies (5 Ps). An equity-focused process will include equity as a new major factor category, and the socioeconomic impacts that contribute to inequities will be brainstormed and visually represented. For example, in the hypothetical CGM improvement example, an equity contributing factor is extensive CGM application paperwork for patients on public insurance as compared to those on private insurance. Figure 2 shows equity integrated into a fishbone diagram.

Step 6: Brainstorm possible improvements. Potential improvement ideas for the hypothetical CGM example might include redesigning the existing workflow, piloting CGM educational classes, and using a CGM barrier assessment tool to identify and address barriers to adoption.

Step 7: Use the decision matrix with equity as a criterion to prioritize improvement ideas. Decision matrix¹⁵ is a great tool that is frequently used to help teams prioritize potential ideas. Project team members must decide what criteria are important in prioritizing ideas to implement. Common criteria include implementation cost, time, and resources, but in addition to the common criteria, the team can specify ”impact on equity” as one of their criteria, alongside other standard criteria like impact.

Step 8: Test one small change at a time. This step is consistent with other traditional improvement models using the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) model for improvement.¹⁷ During this phase, the team should make predictions on the expected impact of the intervention on outcomes. For example, in the hypothetical example, the team predicts that testing and expanding CGM classes will reduce disparities among public versus private health insurance users by 5% and increase overall CGM uptake by 10%.

Step 9: Measure and compare results with predictions to identify inequitable practices or consequences. After each test of change, the team should review the results, including implementation cost considerations, and compare them to the predictions in the earlier step. The team should also document the potential reasons why their predictions were correct or inaccurate, and whether there were any unforeseen outcomes from the intervention.

Step 10: Celebrate small wins and repeat the process. Making fundamental and equitable changes takes time. This framework aimed at undoing inequities, particularly those inequities that have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, is iterative and ongoing.^18,19 Not every test of change will impact the outcome or reduce inequity, but over time, each change will impact the next, generating sustainable effects.

Conclusion

There are ongoing studies examining the adverse outcomes and potential health inequities for patients with diabetes impacted by COVID-19.²⁰ Health care providers need to plan for post-COVID-19 care, keeping in mind that the pandemic might worsen already existing health disparities in diabetes management.^3,4,21 This work will involve an intentional approach to address structural and systemic racism.²² Therefore, the work of building health equity solutions must be rooted in racial justice, economic equity, and equitable access to health care and education.

Initiatives like this are currently being funded through foundation grants as well as state and federal research or program grants. Regional and national payors, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, are currently piloting long-term sustainable funding models through programs like accountable care organizations and the Accountable Health Communities Model.²³

Health systems can successfully address health equity and racial justice, using a framework as described above, to identify determinants of health, develop policies to expand access to care for the most vulnerable patients, distribute decision-making power, and train staff by naming structural racism as a driver of health inequities.

Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the contributions of patients, families, diabetes care teams, and collaborators within the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, who continually seek to improve care and outcomes for people living with diabetes.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, 11 Avenue De La Fayette, Boston, MA 02115; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. No specific funding was received for this manuscript or the development of this framework.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes; quality improvement; QI framework; racial justice; health disparities.

From T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Dr. Ebekozien, Dr. Odugbesan, and Nicole Rioles); Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (Dr. Majidi); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH (Dr. Jones); and Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH (Dr. Kamboj)

Health equity has been described as the opportunity for all persons to obtain their highest level of health possible.¹ Unfortunately, even with advances in technology and care practices, disparities persist in health care outcomes. Disparities in prevalence, prognosis, and outcomes still exist in diabetes management.² Non-Hispanic Black and/or Hispanic populations are more likely to have worse glycemic control,^3,4 to encounter more barriers in access to care,⁵ and to have higher levels of acute complications,⁴ and to use advanced technologies less frequently.⁴ Diabetes is one of the preexisting conditions that increase morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.^6,7 Unfortunately, adverse outcomes from COVID-19 also disproportionately impact a specific vulnerable population.^8,9 The urgent transition to managing diabetes remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate long-term inequities because some vulnerable patients might not have access to technology devices necessary for effective remote management.

Here, we describe how quality improvement (QI) tools and principles can be adapted into a framework for advancing health equity. Specifically, we describe a 10-step framework that may be applied in diabetes care management to achieve improvement, using a hypothetical example of increasing use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) among patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.¹⁰ This framework was developed to address the literature gap on practical ways health care providers can address inequities using QI principles, and was implemented by 1 of the authors at a local public health department.¹¹ The framework’s iterative and comprehensive design makes it ideal for addressing inequities in chronic diseases like diabetes, which have multiple root causes with no easy solutions. The improvement program pilot received a national model practice award.^11,12

10-Step Framework

Step 1: Review program/project baseline data for existing disparities. Diabetes programs and routine QI processes encourage existing data review to determine how effective the current system is working and if the existing process has a predictable pattern.^13,14 Our equity-revised framework proposes a more in-depth review to stratify baseline data based on factors that might contribute to inequities, including race, age, income levels, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, insurance type, and zip code. This process will identify patients not served or unfairly impacted due to socioeconomic factors. For example, using the hypothetical example of improving CGM use, a team completes a preliminary data review and determines that baseline CGM use is 30% in the clinic population. However, in a review to assess for disparities, they also identify that patients on public insurance have a significantly lower CGM uptake of only 15%.

Step 2: Build an equitable project team, including patients with lived experiences. Routine projects typically have clinicians, administrative staff, and analytic staff as members of their team. In a post-COVID-19 world, every team needs to learn directly from people impacted and share decision-making power. The traditional approach to receiving feedback has generally been to collect responses using surveys or focus groups. We propose that individuals/families who are disproportionately impacted be included as active members on QI teams. For example, in the hypothetical example of the CGM project, team members would include patients with type 1 diabetes who are on public insurance and their families.

Step 3: Develop equity-focused goals. The traditional program involves the development of aims that are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound).¹⁵ The proposed framework encourages the inclusion of equity-revised goals (SMARTer) using insights from Steps 1 and 2. For example, your typical smart goal might be to increase the percentage of patients using CGM by 20% in 6 months, while a SMARTer goal would be to increase the proportion of patients using CGM by 20% and reduce the disparities among public and private insurance patients by 30% in 6 months.

Step 4: Identify inequitable processes/pathways. Traditional QI programs might use a process map or flow diagram to depict the current state of a process visually.¹⁶ For example, in Figure 1, the process map diagram depicts some differences in the process for patients with public insurance as opposed to those with private insurance. The framework also advocates for using visual tools like process maps to depict how there might be inequitable pathways in a system. Visually identifying inequitable processes/pathways can help a team see barriers, address challenges, and pilot innovative solutions.

Step 5: Identify how socioeconomic factors are contributing to the current outcome. A good understanding of factors that contribute to the problem is an essential part of finding fundamental solutions. The fishbone diagram¹⁶ is a visualization tool used to identify contributing factors. When investigating contributing factors, it is commonplace to identify factors that fit into 1 of 5 categories: people, process, place, product, and policies (5 Ps). An equity-focused process will include equity as a new major factor category, and the socioeconomic impacts that contribute to inequities will be brainstormed and visually represented. For example, in the hypothetical CGM improvement example, an equity contributing factor is extensive CGM application paperwork for patients on public insurance as compared to those on private insurance. Figure 2 shows equity integrated into a fishbone diagram.

Step 6: Brainstorm possible improvements. Potential improvement ideas for the hypothetical CGM example might include redesigning the existing workflow, piloting CGM educational classes, and using a CGM barrier assessment tool to identify and address barriers to adoption.

Step 7: Use the decision matrix with equity as a criterion to prioritize improvement ideas. Decision matrix¹⁵ is a great tool that is frequently used to help teams prioritize potential ideas. Project team members must decide what criteria are important in prioritizing ideas to implement. Common criteria include implementation cost, time, and resources, but in addition to the common criteria, the team can specify ”impact on equity” as one of their criteria, alongside other standard criteria like impact.

Step 8: Test one small change at a time. This step is consistent with other traditional improvement models using the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) model for improvement.¹⁷ During this phase, the team should make predictions on the expected impact of the intervention on outcomes. For example, in the hypothetical example, the team predicts that testing and expanding CGM classes will reduce disparities among public versus private health insurance users by 5% and increase overall CGM uptake by 10%.

Step 9: Measure and compare results with predictions to identify inequitable practices or consequences. After each test of change, the team should review the results, including implementation cost considerations, and compare them to the predictions in the earlier step. The team should also document the potential reasons why their predictions were correct or inaccurate, and whether there were any unforeseen outcomes from the intervention.

Step 10: Celebrate small wins and repeat the process. Making fundamental and equitable changes takes time. This framework aimed at undoing inequities, particularly those inequities that have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, is iterative and ongoing.^18,19 Not every test of change will impact the outcome or reduce inequity, but over time, each change will impact the next, generating sustainable effects.

Conclusion

There are ongoing studies examining the adverse outcomes and potential health inequities for patients with diabetes impacted by COVID-19.²⁰ Health care providers need to plan for post-COVID-19 care, keeping in mind that the pandemic might worsen already existing health disparities in diabetes management.^3,4,21 This work will involve an intentional approach to address structural and systemic racism.²² Therefore, the work of building health equity solutions must be rooted in racial justice, economic equity, and equitable access to health care and education.

Initiatives like this are currently being funded through foundation grants as well as state and federal research or program grants. Regional and national payors, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, are currently piloting long-term sustainable funding models through programs like accountable care organizations and the Accountable Health Communities Model.²³

Health systems can successfully address health equity and racial justice, using a framework as described above, to identify determinants of health, develop policies to expand access to care for the most vulnerable patients, distribute decision-making power, and train staff by naming structural racism as a driver of health inequities.

Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the contributions of patients, families, diabetes care teams, and collaborators within the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, who continually seek to improve care and outcomes for people living with diabetes.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, 11 Avenue De La Fayette, Boston, MA 02115; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. No specific funding was received for this manuscript or the development of this framework.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes; quality improvement; QI framework; racial justice; health disparities.

From T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Dr. Ebekozien, Dr. Odugbesan, and Nicole Rioles); Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (Dr. Majidi); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH (Dr. Jones); and Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH (Dr. Kamboj)

Health equity has been described as the opportunity for all persons to obtain their highest level of health possible.¹ Unfortunately, even with advances in technology and care practices, disparities persist in health care outcomes. Disparities in prevalence, prognosis, and outcomes still exist in diabetes management.² Non-Hispanic Black and/or Hispanic populations are more likely to have worse glycemic control,^3,4 to encounter more barriers in access to care,⁵ and to have higher levels of acute complications,⁴ and to use advanced technologies less frequently.⁴ Diabetes is one of the preexisting conditions that increase morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.^6,7 Unfortunately, adverse outcomes from COVID-19 also disproportionately impact a specific vulnerable population.^8,9 The urgent transition to managing diabetes remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate long-term inequities because some vulnerable patients might not have access to technology devices necessary for effective remote management.

Here, we describe how quality improvement (QI) tools and principles can be adapted into a framework for advancing health equity. Specifically, we describe a 10-step framework that may be applied in diabetes care management to achieve improvement, using a hypothetical example of increasing use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) among patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.¹⁰ This framework was developed to address the literature gap on practical ways health care providers can address inequities using QI principles, and was implemented by 1 of the authors at a local public health department.¹¹ The framework’s iterative and comprehensive design makes it ideal for addressing inequities in chronic diseases like diabetes, which have multiple root causes with no easy solutions. The improvement program pilot received a national model practice award.^11,12

10-Step Framework

Step 1: Review program/project baseline data for existing disparities. Diabetes programs and routine QI processes encourage existing data review to determine how effective the current system is working and if the existing process has a predictable pattern.^13,14 Our equity-revised framework proposes a more in-depth review to stratify baseline data based on factors that might contribute to inequities, including race, age, income levels, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, insurance type, and zip code. This process will identify patients not served or unfairly impacted due to socioeconomic factors. For example, using the hypothetical example of improving CGM use, a team completes a preliminary data review and determines that baseline CGM use is 30% in the clinic population. However, in a review to assess for disparities, they also identify that patients on public insurance have a significantly lower CGM uptake of only 15%.

Step 2: Build an equitable project team, including patients with lived experiences. Routine projects typically have clinicians, administrative staff, and analytic staff as members of their team. In a post-COVID-19 world, every team needs to learn directly from people impacted and share decision-making power. The traditional approach to receiving feedback has generally been to collect responses using surveys or focus groups. We propose that individuals/families who are disproportionately impacted be included as active members on QI teams. For example, in the hypothetical example of the CGM project, team members would include patients with type 1 diabetes who are on public insurance and their families.

Step 3: Develop equity-focused goals. The traditional program involves the development of aims that are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound).¹⁵ The proposed framework encourages the inclusion of equity-revised goals (SMARTer) using insights from Steps 1 and 2. For example, your typical smart goal might be to increase the percentage of patients using CGM by 20% in 6 months, while a SMARTer goal would be to increase the proportion of patients using CGM by 20% and reduce the disparities among public and private insurance patients by 30% in 6 months.

Step 4: Identify inequitable processes/pathways. Traditional QI programs might use a process map or flow diagram to depict the current state of a process visually.¹⁶ For example, in Figure 1, the process map diagram depicts some differences in the process for patients with public insurance as opposed to those with private insurance. The framework also advocates for using visual tools like process maps to depict how there might be inequitable pathways in a system. Visually identifying inequitable processes/pathways can help a team see barriers, address challenges, and pilot innovative solutions.

Step 5: Identify how socioeconomic factors are contributing to the current outcome. A good understanding of factors that contribute to the problem is an essential part of finding fundamental solutions. The fishbone diagram¹⁶ is a visualization tool used to identify contributing factors. When investigating contributing factors, it is commonplace to identify factors that fit into 1 of 5 categories: people, process, place, product, and policies (5 Ps). An equity-focused process will include equity as a new major factor category, and the socioeconomic impacts that contribute to inequities will be brainstormed and visually represented. For example, in the hypothetical CGM improvement example, an equity contributing factor is extensive CGM application paperwork for patients on public insurance as compared to those on private insurance. Figure 2 shows equity integrated into a fishbone diagram.

Step 6: Brainstorm possible improvements. Potential improvement ideas for the hypothetical CGM example might include redesigning the existing workflow, piloting CGM educational classes, and using a CGM barrier assessment tool to identify and address barriers to adoption.

Step 7: Use the decision matrix with equity as a criterion to prioritize improvement ideas. Decision matrix¹⁵ is a great tool that is frequently used to help teams prioritize potential ideas. Project team members must decide what criteria are important in prioritizing ideas to implement. Common criteria include implementation cost, time, and resources, but in addition to the common criteria, the team can specify ”impact on equity” as one of their criteria, alongside other standard criteria like impact.

Step 8: Test one small change at a time. This step is consistent with other traditional improvement models using the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) model for improvement.¹⁷ During this phase, the team should make predictions on the expected impact of the intervention on outcomes. For example, in the hypothetical example, the team predicts that testing and expanding CGM classes will reduce disparities among public versus private health insurance users by 5% and increase overall CGM uptake by 10%.

Step 9: Measure and compare results with predictions to identify inequitable practices or consequences. After each test of change, the team should review the results, including implementation cost considerations, and compare them to the predictions in the earlier step. The team should also document the potential reasons why their predictions were correct or inaccurate, and whether there were any unforeseen outcomes from the intervention.

Step 10: Celebrate small wins and repeat the process. Making fundamental and equitable changes takes time. This framework aimed at undoing inequities, particularly those inequities that have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, is iterative and ongoing.^18,19 Not every test of change will impact the outcome or reduce inequity, but over time, each change will impact the next, generating sustainable effects.

Conclusion

There are ongoing studies examining the adverse outcomes and potential health inequities for patients with diabetes impacted by COVID-19.²⁰ Health care providers need to plan for post-COVID-19 care, keeping in mind that the pandemic might worsen already existing health disparities in diabetes management.^3,4,21 This work will involve an intentional approach to address structural and systemic racism.²² Therefore, the work of building health equity solutions must be rooted in racial justice, economic equity, and equitable access to health care and education.

Initiatives like this are currently being funded through foundation grants as well as state and federal research or program grants. Regional and national payors, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, are currently piloting long-term sustainable funding models through programs like accountable care organizations and the Accountable Health Communities Model.²³

Health systems can successfully address health equity and racial justice, using a framework as described above, to identify determinants of health, develop policies to expand access to care for the most vulnerable patients, distribute decision-making power, and train staff by naming structural racism as a driver of health inequities.

Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the contributions of patients, families, diabetes care teams, and collaborators within the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, who continually seek to improve care and outcomes for people living with diabetes.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, 11 Avenue De La Fayette, Boston, MA 02115; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. No specific funding was received for this manuscript or the development of this framework.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes; quality improvement; QI framework; racial justice; health disparities.

Once the fog lifts on a global pandemic that led to an explosion in telehealth visits in 2020, mental health experts expect virtual and in-person visits to merge to become a standard model of care in clinical psychiatry.

Hybrid care is the future, Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. “I’ve been working this way for several years – where all of my patients get to see me in person or online, or both.”

The model’s increasing popularity reflects a major shift toward virtual consults. Telemedicine offers safer, quicker, and less expensive alternatives, Steven Chan, MD, MBA, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “This continuity is essential to helping to reduce emergency room visits, reduce inpatient hospitalizations and readmissions, and improving adherence to treatment,” Dr. Chan said. State and federal regulators’ actions to lift certain licensing and prescribing restrictions and expand coverage made it easier for clinical psychiatrists to offer and get paid for these services.

The catch is that no one knows whether these easements will remain in place once COVID-19 recedes, ending the national public health emergency, Jay H. Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association telepsychiatry committee, and professor and director of telemedicine programming at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora’s department of psychiatry, said in an interview. “These all temporarily changed during this time period, but we have no idea when they’re going to end or if they’re going to continue off of COVID. So now, there’s a lot of uncertainty.”

 

‘Suite of different technologies’

New freedoms to deliver telehealth care left some practices scrambling to adopt or refine technology. Once COVID-19 hit, “I can’t think of a psychiatrist or provider or institution that didn’t have to rapidly virtualize and do at least some video conferencing,” Dr. Shore said. This immediate shift signaled a key move toward hybrid patient-doctor relations. “It means you hold a relationship with your patients through multiple different mediums, email, portal, telephone, in person. It’s not just about in-person versus video, it’s about a suite of different technologies.”

Dr. Shore began practicing telehealth 20 years ago, long before the age of COVID. He’s since established rewarding relationships with patients he’s never met. “I’ve done everything from medical management to long-term psychotherapy, group psychotherapy, and I’ve been successful with different populations.”

Many nuances exist around matching the right patient with the right videoconferencing adaptation, Dr. Shore continued. However, “in general, the literature supports that you can get equal clinical outcomes with telehealth versus in-person treatment.”
 

‘I see their garden’

While some may eschew the idea of providing care over a virtual platform, other physicians see it as an insightful window into a person’s mental state. “I think some are actually quite surprised by how much good care you can give using video,” said Dr. Yellowlees. Unlike a phone conversation, video allows you to see a person’s home. “The beauty of a video is not just that you can see the person, you can also look around their home, and learn more about them.”

In his own visits, he asks patients to take him on a virtual “walk” through their house, provided there are no confidentiality issues.

“I get to meet their pets, the carers, the spouses; I get to see their garden. I get to see what their interests are from looking at the paintings on their walls. I learn more about my patients that way. If you use video to purely see people from the neck up, then that’s fine, but I think you can also use it to your advantage, seeing people at home.” He also encourages patients to do visits in their cars – as long as the windows are shut, they’re in a safe area, and most importantly, they’re not driving.

Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, who treats patients at Stanford and in a concierge private practice for executives, agrees that seeing patients in the home offers a more direct view of patients’ lives. “These little extra pieces of information are things that we didn’t get before COVID, when patients would come by themselves into the office week after week. I do feel like I know some patients much better by being able to see their surroundings and home interactions,” Dr. Vasan, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of the APA’s committee on innovation, said in an interview.

She uses Zoom for her sessions, and regularly texts with her concierge patients. In both clinics, where most visits have gone virtual, “the no-show rate is near zero. Before COVID, it was around 10%-20%.”

Safety is a key advantage of virtual visits, noted Dr. Shore. “It’s certainly better than some of the risks of seeing people in person.”
 

Lack of integration causes frustration

Some challenges exist around access and adaptation of virtual technology. The pandemic’s sudden onslaught left many clinicians scrambling to adjust to a virtual format without any training or tools to support them. “This has caused some stress,” Dr. Shore said.

Electronic health record systems may or may not integrate video visits, noted Dr. Chan. “For instance, I work at a health system where mental health questionnaires, imaging systems, notes, and video visit scheduling are housed in separate systems.”

Without a seamless national, integrated system in place, physicians are often left to couple different IT formats together. “There are some systems that work pretty well, and there are some that are really clunky where you’re forcing the two together, so that’s a challenge,” Dr. Shore said. Providers may be using one system for their office and another system to provide care. “They may be using different EHRs and different teleconferencing platforms. That adds complexity.” Video conferencing platforms aren’t as challenging to use as EHRs. However, if some people are self-taught, there’s no way of knowing if they’re using best practices, he added.

Many health systems do offer video built into EMRs. Companies such as Epic have provided integrations with Vidyo, Amwell, and other platforms, noted Dr. Chan.

An integrated platform is useful if done well – but isn’t necessarily essential, according to Dr. Yellowlees. In his own setup, he signs a laptop into an EMR and uses an iPad to communicate with patients via video on the iPad and all video on the phone.

“The big advantage of telemedicine is you can type your notes in a socially appropriate way while talking to the patient on video. I do that, and it saves me a considerable amount of time. I don’t have to spend time after a consultation typing up notes.”

Still, others may struggle with bandwidth or connectivity. “Perhaps there’s a problem with privacy or the types of patients you’re dealing with,” Dr. Shore said. Older patients in a nursing home, for example, may require a team of people that works onsite. Suddenly, their care has to transition to a virtual system. “You may need to figure how to put the right team together to do straightforward and individual interactions,” he said.

Virtual care also suffers from the “digital divide,” an issue that predates COVID-19, said Dr. Shore. Not all patients have access to bandwidth and the technology to see clinicians. Other lack expertise and comfort with using the technology, or can’t afford the equipment necessary to bring them online. The pandemic has highlighted all of these disparities, he emphasized.

Dr. Chan offered that the digital divide is part of a larger socioeconomic divide, where barriers to any care – including transportation for in-person care – exist.

Technology and access issues aside, insidious “Zoom fatigue” is affecting everyone right now. “That’s clearly real,” Dr. Shore said. “And it’s not just about videoconferencing; it’s about being in quarantine. We’re all in this virtual lockdown, where people are using the term ‘videoconferencing fatigue.’ It’s a complicated problem.”

To assist with telehealth implementation, the APA has issued practice guidance and a toolkit that includes an extensive set of educational materials, including 40 videos on various topics. It’s also hosted webinars on telehealth policies and written up standard operating procedures on this topic, Dr. Yellowlees said. “The most important thing is APA, like other organizations, is advocating to have the relaxation of regulations during COVID made permanent,” he said.

Reimbursement post pandemic

As virtual visits rose in 2020, so did billing for such services. According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, claims to private insurers exploded by more than 4,000% in 2020. AHIP last July reported that mental health conditions made up one-third or more than 33% of telehealth claims to private insurers during the pandemic. Dr. Yellowlees said the health insurers he’s dealt with “have been good about paying for telehealth visits during the COVID-declared emergency.”

Whether this coverage will continue once the public health emergency ends, is unclear, some contend. “My sense is that there will be a rollback of coverage, but it won’t be back to what we had prepandemic,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, who studies telemedicine trends, in an interview. Right now, there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about reimbursement, “and that’s what’s giving providers pause,” said Dr. Mehrotra, of the department of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.

AHIP will continue to support federal and state policies to further promote telehealth access during the public health emergency, spokesman David Allen said in a statement. “Insurance providers have independently shifted their policies to increase access to care and services, ranging from acute care needs and triage services to chronic disease management and behavioral health. We are still awaiting information on what changes will remain in place beyond the public health emergency,” he said.

Even before COVID-19, Mr. Allen noted, nearly all large employers (96%) offered access to telehealth services as a covered benefit in 2019. In May, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that many insurers were reducing or lifting cost sharing for telehealth for limited time periods.

Some of the larger payers said they’re continuing benefits, although it’s not clear how long some benefits will remain in place.

UnitedHealthcare offers no-cost coverage for COVID-19 testing–related telehealth visits, but that benefit is set to expire once the public health emergency presumably ends on Jan. 20, 2021. Through Dec. 31, 2020, the payer said it would offer coverage with no cost sharing for telehealth visits related to COVID-19 treatment and expanded access to telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 through its network. Similarly, Anthem is waiving cost sharing for COVID-19 treatments via telehealth or in-person visits, and for telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 for Medicare members through the end of the year.

Anthem will continue to cover telehealth and encourage members and clinicians to use telehealth for behavioral health, a spokesperson said. Anthem also has a telehealth provider, LiveHealth Online, “another safe and effective way for members to see a doctor to receive health guidance from their home via mobile device or a computer with a webcam,” said the spokesperson.

Dr. Vasan hopes that insurers will increase coverage for telehealth and at the same rate as in-person visits, especially for mental health. “I have not felt that the quality of the clinic has decreased, and in fact, in some ways it’s gotten better, and insurance coverage should reflect this.”
 

Outlook for the hybrid model

As long as there’s COVID-19, psychiatry practices must remain virtual, at least for now, Dr. Shore said. “We will emerge from this pandemic, I suspect in bits and starts.” When that happens, practices will need to have a transition plan in place. “Once we get away from COVID, I don’t think our mental health will ever be the same again. We’ll have much more virtual technology along the lines of a hybrid model, where we’ll see patients in person, but we’ll use more technology to work with patients, but it will be more of a blend.” Practices will also have to address the regulatory, reimbursement, and prescribing conditions the new world offers.

Some practices are already discovering the benefits of relying less on a brick-and-mortar office.

Dr. Chan said his colleagues are finding that they no longer have to deal with the expense and upkeep of renting and furnishing office space. “Many are taking their practice virtual-only because the monthly recurring costs are so cheap, and they can see patients in distant, underserved communities.” In-person visits are now inconvenient and risky, he continued. They require expensive personal protective equipment and cleaning protocols. “Plus, there’s the risk that services must shut down when stay-at-home orders return or when a staff member gets infected.”

Physicians prescribing certain controlled substances will likely continue to use office space, once the public health emergency expires and face-to-face visits resume. “In such cases, they can rent office space part-time,” Dr. Chan added.

Dr. Vasan, also of the department of psychiatry at Stanford and chief medical officer of Real, hopes that such a model prevails. “I do miss seeing patients in person and think a hybrid will be a good balance.”

Most patients want it, as do the influx of Generation Z physicians coming into the profession, Dr. Yellowlees noted. These are young, technologically savvy doctors who grew up in the age of the Internet. “I think the silver lining of COVID is it led telemedicine past the tipping point, where both patients and providers are learning that it’s an appropriate way to get care, as long as you’re careful, use professional guidelines – and don’t drop your standards of care.”

Dr. Yellowlees and Dr. Shore are coauthors of Telepsychiatry and Health Technologies: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2018), and receive royalties from the book. Dr. Shore also reported working with AccessCare and receiving royalties from Springer Press. Dr. Chan reported consulting for Orbit Health. Dr. Vasan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehrotra has received research funding from several U.S. agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Once the fog lifts on a global pandemic that led to an explosion in telehealth visits in 2020, mental health experts expect virtual and in-person visits to merge to become a standard model of care in clinical psychiatry.

Hybrid care is the future, Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. “I’ve been working this way for several years – where all of my patients get to see me in person or online, or both.”

The model’s increasing popularity reflects a major shift toward virtual consults. Telemedicine offers safer, quicker, and less expensive alternatives, Steven Chan, MD, MBA, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “This continuity is essential to helping to reduce emergency room visits, reduce inpatient hospitalizations and readmissions, and improving adherence to treatment,” Dr. Chan said. State and federal regulators’ actions to lift certain licensing and prescribing restrictions and expand coverage made it easier for clinical psychiatrists to offer and get paid for these services.

The catch is that no one knows whether these easements will remain in place once COVID-19 recedes, ending the national public health emergency, Jay H. Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association telepsychiatry committee, and professor and director of telemedicine programming at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora’s department of psychiatry, said in an interview. “These all temporarily changed during this time period, but we have no idea when they’re going to end or if they’re going to continue off of COVID. So now, there’s a lot of uncertainty.”

 

‘Suite of different technologies’

New freedoms to deliver telehealth care left some practices scrambling to adopt or refine technology. Once COVID-19 hit, “I can’t think of a psychiatrist or provider or institution that didn’t have to rapidly virtualize and do at least some video conferencing,” Dr. Shore said. This immediate shift signaled a key move toward hybrid patient-doctor relations. “It means you hold a relationship with your patients through multiple different mediums, email, portal, telephone, in person. It’s not just about in-person versus video, it’s about a suite of different technologies.”

Dr. Shore began practicing telehealth 20 years ago, long before the age of COVID. He’s since established rewarding relationships with patients he’s never met. “I’ve done everything from medical management to long-term psychotherapy, group psychotherapy, and I’ve been successful with different populations.”

Many nuances exist around matching the right patient with the right videoconferencing adaptation, Dr. Shore continued. However, “in general, the literature supports that you can get equal clinical outcomes with telehealth versus in-person treatment.”
 

‘I see their garden’

While some may eschew the idea of providing care over a virtual platform, other physicians see it as an insightful window into a person’s mental state. “I think some are actually quite surprised by how much good care you can give using video,” said Dr. Yellowlees. Unlike a phone conversation, video allows you to see a person’s home. “The beauty of a video is not just that you can see the person, you can also look around their home, and learn more about them.”

In his own visits, he asks patients to take him on a virtual “walk” through their house, provided there are no confidentiality issues.

“I get to meet their pets, the carers, the spouses; I get to see their garden. I get to see what their interests are from looking at the paintings on their walls. I learn more about my patients that way. If you use video to purely see people from the neck up, then that’s fine, but I think you can also use it to your advantage, seeing people at home.” He also encourages patients to do visits in their cars – as long as the windows are shut, they’re in a safe area, and most importantly, they’re not driving.

Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, who treats patients at Stanford and in a concierge private practice for executives, agrees that seeing patients in the home offers a more direct view of patients’ lives. “These little extra pieces of information are things that we didn’t get before COVID, when patients would come by themselves into the office week after week. I do feel like I know some patients much better by being able to see their surroundings and home interactions,” Dr. Vasan, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of the APA’s committee on innovation, said in an interview.

She uses Zoom for her sessions, and regularly texts with her concierge patients. In both clinics, where most visits have gone virtual, “the no-show rate is near zero. Before COVID, it was around 10%-20%.”

Safety is a key advantage of virtual visits, noted Dr. Shore. “It’s certainly better than some of the risks of seeing people in person.”
 

Lack of integration causes frustration

Some challenges exist around access and adaptation of virtual technology. The pandemic’s sudden onslaught left many clinicians scrambling to adjust to a virtual format without any training or tools to support them. “This has caused some stress,” Dr. Shore said.

Electronic health record systems may or may not integrate video visits, noted Dr. Chan. “For instance, I work at a health system where mental health questionnaires, imaging systems, notes, and video visit scheduling are housed in separate systems.”

Without a seamless national, integrated system in place, physicians are often left to couple different IT formats together. “There are some systems that work pretty well, and there are some that are really clunky where you’re forcing the two together, so that’s a challenge,” Dr. Shore said. Providers may be using one system for their office and another system to provide care. “They may be using different EHRs and different teleconferencing platforms. That adds complexity.” Video conferencing platforms aren’t as challenging to use as EHRs. However, if some people are self-taught, there’s no way of knowing if they’re using best practices, he added.

Many health systems do offer video built into EMRs. Companies such as Epic have provided integrations with Vidyo, Amwell, and other platforms, noted Dr. Chan.

An integrated platform is useful if done well – but isn’t necessarily essential, according to Dr. Yellowlees. In his own setup, he signs a laptop into an EMR and uses an iPad to communicate with patients via video on the iPad and all video on the phone.

“The big advantage of telemedicine is you can type your notes in a socially appropriate way while talking to the patient on video. I do that, and it saves me a considerable amount of time. I don’t have to spend time after a consultation typing up notes.”

Still, others may struggle with bandwidth or connectivity. “Perhaps there’s a problem with privacy or the types of patients you’re dealing with,” Dr. Shore said. Older patients in a nursing home, for example, may require a team of people that works onsite. Suddenly, their care has to transition to a virtual system. “You may need to figure how to put the right team together to do straightforward and individual interactions,” he said.

Virtual care also suffers from the “digital divide,” an issue that predates COVID-19, said Dr. Shore. Not all patients have access to bandwidth and the technology to see clinicians. Other lack expertise and comfort with using the technology, or can’t afford the equipment necessary to bring them online. The pandemic has highlighted all of these disparities, he emphasized.

Dr. Chan offered that the digital divide is part of a larger socioeconomic divide, where barriers to any care – including transportation for in-person care – exist.

Technology and access issues aside, insidious “Zoom fatigue” is affecting everyone right now. “That’s clearly real,” Dr. Shore said. “And it’s not just about videoconferencing; it’s about being in quarantine. We’re all in this virtual lockdown, where people are using the term ‘videoconferencing fatigue.’ It’s a complicated problem.”

To assist with telehealth implementation, the APA has issued practice guidance and a toolkit that includes an extensive set of educational materials, including 40 videos on various topics. It’s also hosted webinars on telehealth policies and written up standard operating procedures on this topic, Dr. Yellowlees said. “The most important thing is APA, like other organizations, is advocating to have the relaxation of regulations during COVID made permanent,” he said.

Reimbursement post pandemic

As virtual visits rose in 2020, so did billing for such services. According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, claims to private insurers exploded by more than 4,000% in 2020. AHIP last July reported that mental health conditions made up one-third or more than 33% of telehealth claims to private insurers during the pandemic. Dr. Yellowlees said the health insurers he’s dealt with “have been good about paying for telehealth visits during the COVID-declared emergency.”

Whether this coverage will continue once the public health emergency ends, is unclear, some contend. “My sense is that there will be a rollback of coverage, but it won’t be back to what we had prepandemic,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, who studies telemedicine trends, in an interview. Right now, there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about reimbursement, “and that’s what’s giving providers pause,” said Dr. Mehrotra, of the department of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.

AHIP will continue to support federal and state policies to further promote telehealth access during the public health emergency, spokesman David Allen said in a statement. “Insurance providers have independently shifted their policies to increase access to care and services, ranging from acute care needs and triage services to chronic disease management and behavioral health. We are still awaiting information on what changes will remain in place beyond the public health emergency,” he said.

Even before COVID-19, Mr. Allen noted, nearly all large employers (96%) offered access to telehealth services as a covered benefit in 2019. In May, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that many insurers were reducing or lifting cost sharing for telehealth for limited time periods.

Some of the larger payers said they’re continuing benefits, although it’s not clear how long some benefits will remain in place.

UnitedHealthcare offers no-cost coverage for COVID-19 testing–related telehealth visits, but that benefit is set to expire once the public health emergency presumably ends on Jan. 20, 2021. Through Dec. 31, 2020, the payer said it would offer coverage with no cost sharing for telehealth visits related to COVID-19 treatment and expanded access to telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 through its network. Similarly, Anthem is waiving cost sharing for COVID-19 treatments via telehealth or in-person visits, and for telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 for Medicare members through the end of the year.

Anthem will continue to cover telehealth and encourage members and clinicians to use telehealth for behavioral health, a spokesperson said. Anthem also has a telehealth provider, LiveHealth Online, “another safe and effective way for members to see a doctor to receive health guidance from their home via mobile device or a computer with a webcam,” said the spokesperson.

Dr. Vasan hopes that insurers will increase coverage for telehealth and at the same rate as in-person visits, especially for mental health. “I have not felt that the quality of the clinic has decreased, and in fact, in some ways it’s gotten better, and insurance coverage should reflect this.”
 

Outlook for the hybrid model

As long as there’s COVID-19, psychiatry practices must remain virtual, at least for now, Dr. Shore said. “We will emerge from this pandemic, I suspect in bits and starts.” When that happens, practices will need to have a transition plan in place. “Once we get away from COVID, I don’t think our mental health will ever be the same again. We’ll have much more virtual technology along the lines of a hybrid model, where we’ll see patients in person, but we’ll use more technology to work with patients, but it will be more of a blend.” Practices will also have to address the regulatory, reimbursement, and prescribing conditions the new world offers.

Some practices are already discovering the benefits of relying less on a brick-and-mortar office.

Dr. Chan said his colleagues are finding that they no longer have to deal with the expense and upkeep of renting and furnishing office space. “Many are taking their practice virtual-only because the monthly recurring costs are so cheap, and they can see patients in distant, underserved communities.” In-person visits are now inconvenient and risky, he continued. They require expensive personal protective equipment and cleaning protocols. “Plus, there’s the risk that services must shut down when stay-at-home orders return or when a staff member gets infected.”

Physicians prescribing certain controlled substances will likely continue to use office space, once the public health emergency expires and face-to-face visits resume. “In such cases, they can rent office space part-time,” Dr. Chan added.

Dr. Vasan, also of the department of psychiatry at Stanford and chief medical officer of Real, hopes that such a model prevails. “I do miss seeing patients in person and think a hybrid will be a good balance.”

Most patients want it, as do the influx of Generation Z physicians coming into the profession, Dr. Yellowlees noted. These are young, technologically savvy doctors who grew up in the age of the Internet. “I think the silver lining of COVID is it led telemedicine past the tipping point, where both patients and providers are learning that it’s an appropriate way to get care, as long as you’re careful, use professional guidelines – and don’t drop your standards of care.”

Dr. Yellowlees and Dr. Shore are coauthors of Telepsychiatry and Health Technologies: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2018), and receive royalties from the book. Dr. Shore also reported working with AccessCare and receiving royalties from Springer Press. Dr. Chan reported consulting for Orbit Health. Dr. Vasan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehrotra has received research funding from several U.S. agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Once the fog lifts on a global pandemic that led to an explosion in telehealth visits in 2020, mental health experts expect virtual and in-person visits to merge to become a standard model of care in clinical psychiatry.

Hybrid care is the future, Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. “I’ve been working this way for several years – where all of my patients get to see me in person or online, or both.”

The model’s increasing popularity reflects a major shift toward virtual consults. Telemedicine offers safer, quicker, and less expensive alternatives, Steven Chan, MD, MBA, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “This continuity is essential to helping to reduce emergency room visits, reduce inpatient hospitalizations and readmissions, and improving adherence to treatment,” Dr. Chan said. State and federal regulators’ actions to lift certain licensing and prescribing restrictions and expand coverage made it easier for clinical psychiatrists to offer and get paid for these services.

The catch is that no one knows whether these easements will remain in place once COVID-19 recedes, ending the national public health emergency, Jay H. Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association telepsychiatry committee, and professor and director of telemedicine programming at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora’s department of psychiatry, said in an interview. “These all temporarily changed during this time period, but we have no idea when they’re going to end or if they’re going to continue off of COVID. So now, there’s a lot of uncertainty.”

 

‘Suite of different technologies’

New freedoms to deliver telehealth care left some practices scrambling to adopt or refine technology. Once COVID-19 hit, “I can’t think of a psychiatrist or provider or institution that didn’t have to rapidly virtualize and do at least some video conferencing,” Dr. Shore said. This immediate shift signaled a key move toward hybrid patient-doctor relations. “It means you hold a relationship with your patients through multiple different mediums, email, portal, telephone, in person. It’s not just about in-person versus video, it’s about a suite of different technologies.”

Dr. Shore began practicing telehealth 20 years ago, long before the age of COVID. He’s since established rewarding relationships with patients he’s never met. “I’ve done everything from medical management to long-term psychotherapy, group psychotherapy, and I’ve been successful with different populations.”

Many nuances exist around matching the right patient with the right videoconferencing adaptation, Dr. Shore continued. However, “in general, the literature supports that you can get equal clinical outcomes with telehealth versus in-person treatment.”
 

‘I see their garden’

While some may eschew the idea of providing care over a virtual platform, other physicians see it as an insightful window into a person’s mental state. “I think some are actually quite surprised by how much good care you can give using video,” said Dr. Yellowlees. Unlike a phone conversation, video allows you to see a person’s home. “The beauty of a video is not just that you can see the person, you can also look around their home, and learn more about them.”

In his own visits, he asks patients to take him on a virtual “walk” through their house, provided there are no confidentiality issues.

“I get to meet their pets, the carers, the spouses; I get to see their garden. I get to see what their interests are from looking at the paintings on their walls. I learn more about my patients that way. If you use video to purely see people from the neck up, then that’s fine, but I think you can also use it to your advantage, seeing people at home.” He also encourages patients to do visits in their cars – as long as the windows are shut, they’re in a safe area, and most importantly, they’re not driving.

Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, who treats patients at Stanford and in a concierge private practice for executives, agrees that seeing patients in the home offers a more direct view of patients’ lives. “These little extra pieces of information are things that we didn’t get before COVID, when patients would come by themselves into the office week after week. I do feel like I know some patients much better by being able to see their surroundings and home interactions,” Dr. Vasan, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of the APA’s committee on innovation, said in an interview.

She uses Zoom for her sessions, and regularly texts with her concierge patients. In both clinics, where most visits have gone virtual, “the no-show rate is near zero. Before COVID, it was around 10%-20%.”

Safety is a key advantage of virtual visits, noted Dr. Shore. “It’s certainly better than some of the risks of seeing people in person.”
 

Lack of integration causes frustration

Some challenges exist around access and adaptation of virtual technology. The pandemic’s sudden onslaught left many clinicians scrambling to adjust to a virtual format without any training or tools to support them. “This has caused some stress,” Dr. Shore said.

Electronic health record systems may or may not integrate video visits, noted Dr. Chan. “For instance, I work at a health system where mental health questionnaires, imaging systems, notes, and video visit scheduling are housed in separate systems.”

Without a seamless national, integrated system in place, physicians are often left to couple different IT formats together. “There are some systems that work pretty well, and there are some that are really clunky where you’re forcing the two together, so that’s a challenge,” Dr. Shore said. Providers may be using one system for their office and another system to provide care. “They may be using different EHRs and different teleconferencing platforms. That adds complexity.” Video conferencing platforms aren’t as challenging to use as EHRs. However, if some people are self-taught, there’s no way of knowing if they’re using best practices, he added.

Many health systems do offer video built into EMRs. Companies such as Epic have provided integrations with Vidyo, Amwell, and other platforms, noted Dr. Chan.

An integrated platform is useful if done well – but isn’t necessarily essential, according to Dr. Yellowlees. In his own setup, he signs a laptop into an EMR and uses an iPad to communicate with patients via video on the iPad and all video on the phone.

“The big advantage of telemedicine is you can type your notes in a socially appropriate way while talking to the patient on video. I do that, and it saves me a considerable amount of time. I don’t have to spend time after a consultation typing up notes.”

Still, others may struggle with bandwidth or connectivity. “Perhaps there’s a problem with privacy or the types of patients you’re dealing with,” Dr. Shore said. Older patients in a nursing home, for example, may require a team of people that works onsite. Suddenly, their care has to transition to a virtual system. “You may need to figure how to put the right team together to do straightforward and individual interactions,” he said.

Virtual care also suffers from the “digital divide,” an issue that predates COVID-19, said Dr. Shore. Not all patients have access to bandwidth and the technology to see clinicians. Other lack expertise and comfort with using the technology, or can’t afford the equipment necessary to bring them online. The pandemic has highlighted all of these disparities, he emphasized.

Dr. Chan offered that the digital divide is part of a larger socioeconomic divide, where barriers to any care – including transportation for in-person care – exist.

Technology and access issues aside, insidious “Zoom fatigue” is affecting everyone right now. “That’s clearly real,” Dr. Shore said. “And it’s not just about videoconferencing; it’s about being in quarantine. We’re all in this virtual lockdown, where people are using the term ‘videoconferencing fatigue.’ It’s a complicated problem.”

To assist with telehealth implementation, the APA has issued practice guidance and a toolkit that includes an extensive set of educational materials, including 40 videos on various topics. It’s also hosted webinars on telehealth policies and written up standard operating procedures on this topic, Dr. Yellowlees said. “The most important thing is APA, like other organizations, is advocating to have the relaxation of regulations during COVID made permanent,” he said.

Reimbursement post pandemic

As virtual visits rose in 2020, so did billing for such services. According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, claims to private insurers exploded by more than 4,000% in 2020. AHIP last July reported that mental health conditions made up one-third or more than 33% of telehealth claims to private insurers during the pandemic. Dr. Yellowlees said the health insurers he’s dealt with “have been good about paying for telehealth visits during the COVID-declared emergency.”

Whether this coverage will continue once the public health emergency ends, is unclear, some contend. “My sense is that there will be a rollback of coverage, but it won’t be back to what we had prepandemic,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, who studies telemedicine trends, in an interview. Right now, there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about reimbursement, “and that’s what’s giving providers pause,” said Dr. Mehrotra, of the department of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.

AHIP will continue to support federal and state policies to further promote telehealth access during the public health emergency, spokesman David Allen said in a statement. “Insurance providers have independently shifted their policies to increase access to care and services, ranging from acute care needs and triage services to chronic disease management and behavioral health. We are still awaiting information on what changes will remain in place beyond the public health emergency,” he said.

Even before COVID-19, Mr. Allen noted, nearly all large employers (96%) offered access to telehealth services as a covered benefit in 2019. In May, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that many insurers were reducing or lifting cost sharing for telehealth for limited time periods.

Some of the larger payers said they’re continuing benefits, although it’s not clear how long some benefits will remain in place.

UnitedHealthcare offers no-cost coverage for COVID-19 testing–related telehealth visits, but that benefit is set to expire once the public health emergency presumably ends on Jan. 20, 2021. Through Dec. 31, 2020, the payer said it would offer coverage with no cost sharing for telehealth visits related to COVID-19 treatment and expanded access to telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 through its network. Similarly, Anthem is waiving cost sharing for COVID-19 treatments via telehealth or in-person visits, and for telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 for Medicare members through the end of the year.

Anthem will continue to cover telehealth and encourage members and clinicians to use telehealth for behavioral health, a spokesperson said. Anthem also has a telehealth provider, LiveHealth Online, “another safe and effective way for members to see a doctor to receive health guidance from their home via mobile device or a computer with a webcam,” said the spokesperson.

Dr. Vasan hopes that insurers will increase coverage for telehealth and at the same rate as in-person visits, especially for mental health. “I have not felt that the quality of the clinic has decreased, and in fact, in some ways it’s gotten better, and insurance coverage should reflect this.”
 

Outlook for the hybrid model

As long as there’s COVID-19, psychiatry practices must remain virtual, at least for now, Dr. Shore said. “We will emerge from this pandemic, I suspect in bits and starts.” When that happens, practices will need to have a transition plan in place. “Once we get away from COVID, I don’t think our mental health will ever be the same again. We’ll have much more virtual technology along the lines of a hybrid model, where we’ll see patients in person, but we’ll use more technology to work with patients, but it will be more of a blend.” Practices will also have to address the regulatory, reimbursement, and prescribing conditions the new world offers.

Some practices are already discovering the benefits of relying less on a brick-and-mortar office.

Dr. Chan said his colleagues are finding that they no longer have to deal with the expense and upkeep of renting and furnishing office space. “Many are taking their practice virtual-only because the monthly recurring costs are so cheap, and they can see patients in distant, underserved communities.” In-person visits are now inconvenient and risky, he continued. They require expensive personal protective equipment and cleaning protocols. “Plus, there’s the risk that services must shut down when stay-at-home orders return or when a staff member gets infected.”

Physicians prescribing certain controlled substances will likely continue to use office space, once the public health emergency expires and face-to-face visits resume. “In such cases, they can rent office space part-time,” Dr. Chan added.

Dr. Vasan, also of the department of psychiatry at Stanford and chief medical officer of Real, hopes that such a model prevails. “I do miss seeing patients in person and think a hybrid will be a good balance.”

Most patients want it, as do the influx of Generation Z physicians coming into the profession, Dr. Yellowlees noted. These are young, technologically savvy doctors who grew up in the age of the Internet. “I think the silver lining of COVID is it led telemedicine past the tipping point, where both patients and providers are learning that it’s an appropriate way to get care, as long as you’re careful, use professional guidelines – and don’t drop your standards of care.”

Dr. Yellowlees and Dr. Shore are coauthors of Telepsychiatry and Health Technologies: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2018), and receive royalties from the book. Dr. Shore also reported working with AccessCare and receiving royalties from Springer Press. Dr. Chan reported consulting for Orbit Health. Dr. Vasan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehrotra has received research funding from several U.S. agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Lawmakers, physicians, and advocates alike have hailed a relaxation of telehealth rules under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, and they’d like things to stay this way.

Regulators previously restricted telemedicine use “by insisting that you could only see patients in the state you’re licensed in, by not reimbursing as widely for telehealth, and by not allowing us to prescribe controlled substances. They also didn’t allow us to see patients on the phone. So, there’s very good reasons to keep those regulations permanently relaxed,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis.

In his view, changes should take place in four key areas:

• Licensing. “Traditionally, state medical boards have been very insistent that clinical psychiatrists license in the state the patient resides in. This means physicians must have licenses in many different states. It’s very restrictive, because physicians can’t follow patients from one state to another. Under COVID, we can do this, but physicians want these licensing changes to be made permanent.”
• Reimbursement. “In the past, federal regulators have only allowed reimbursement for telemedicine in very specific, defined rural areas and specified clinical environments. This rule has since been relaxed, allowing us to see patients anywhere, especially in their homes. This is another area that should become permanent. Payers should continue to pay telehealth services on par with in-person visits.”
• Telephony. “Psychiatrists and other physicians haven’t been traditionally paid for telephone visits. But there’s no doubt that telephone follow-up visits can be very beneficial, so while I wouldn’t personally see a new patient on the phone, I now follow up with them on the phone once I have gotten to know them, and this works well.”
• Prescribing. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 was introduced to stop overseas pharmacies prescribing narcotics. “It was very successful, but as a side effect, it stopped most physicians from prescribing controlled substances on video. With COVID, we can now do this. For psychiatry, this is very important because it means we can use video to treat people for addictions with medications like buprenorphine and [prescribe] stimulants for children with ADHD. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should finalize regulations for the Ryan Haight Act to allow for the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth without a prior in-person exam.”

The American Psychiatric Association has called for an extension of the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency declaration to study its impact. It will continue to advocate to allow for telephone-only telehealth to be reimbursed at the same rate as live audio-video, said a spokesperson. “We also will continue to advocate for the removal of geographic and originating site restrictions in Medicare, which prevent Medicare patients from being seen in the home,” with some exceptions, the spokesperson said.

The APA has also issued guidance to practitioners seeking clarity on telehealth coverage and COVID-19.

Lawmakers, physicians, and advocates alike have hailed a relaxation of telehealth rules under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, and they’d like things to stay this way.

Regulators previously restricted telemedicine use “by insisting that you could only see patients in the state you’re licensed in, by not reimbursing as widely for telehealth, and by not allowing us to prescribe controlled substances. They also didn’t allow us to see patients on the phone. So, there’s very good reasons to keep those regulations permanently relaxed,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis.

In his view, changes should take place in four key areas:

• Licensing. “Traditionally, state medical boards have been very insistent that clinical psychiatrists license in the state the patient resides in. This means physicians must have licenses in many different states. It’s very restrictive, because physicians can’t follow patients from one state to another. Under COVID, we can do this, but physicians want these licensing changes to be made permanent.”
• Reimbursement. “In the past, federal regulators have only allowed reimbursement for telemedicine in very specific, defined rural areas and specified clinical environments. This rule has since been relaxed, allowing us to see patients anywhere, especially in their homes. This is another area that should become permanent. Payers should continue to pay telehealth services on par with in-person visits.”
• Telephony. “Psychiatrists and other physicians haven’t been traditionally paid for telephone visits. But there’s no doubt that telephone follow-up visits can be very beneficial, so while I wouldn’t personally see a new patient on the phone, I now follow up with them on the phone once I have gotten to know them, and this works well.”
• Prescribing. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 was introduced to stop overseas pharmacies prescribing narcotics. “It was very successful, but as a side effect, it stopped most physicians from prescribing controlled substances on video. With COVID, we can now do this. For psychiatry, this is very important because it means we can use video to treat people for addictions with medications like buprenorphine and [prescribe] stimulants for children with ADHD. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should finalize regulations for the Ryan Haight Act to allow for the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth without a prior in-person exam.”

The American Psychiatric Association has called for an extension of the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency declaration to study its impact. It will continue to advocate to allow for telephone-only telehealth to be reimbursed at the same rate as live audio-video, said a spokesperson. “We also will continue to advocate for the removal of geographic and originating site restrictions in Medicare, which prevent Medicare patients from being seen in the home,” with some exceptions, the spokesperson said.

The APA has also issued guidance to practitioners seeking clarity on telehealth coverage and COVID-19.

Lawmakers, physicians, and advocates alike have hailed a relaxation of telehealth rules under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, and they’d like things to stay this way.

Regulators previously restricted telemedicine use “by insisting that you could only see patients in the state you’re licensed in, by not reimbursing as widely for telehealth, and by not allowing us to prescribe controlled substances. They also didn’t allow us to see patients on the phone. So, there’s very good reasons to keep those regulations permanently relaxed,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis.

In his view, changes should take place in four key areas:

• Licensing. “Traditionally, state medical boards have been very insistent that clinical psychiatrists license in the state the patient resides in. This means physicians must have licenses in many different states. It’s very restrictive, because physicians can’t follow patients from one state to another. Under COVID, we can do this, but physicians want these licensing changes to be made permanent.”
• Reimbursement. “In the past, federal regulators have only allowed reimbursement for telemedicine in very specific, defined rural areas and specified clinical environments. This rule has since been relaxed, allowing us to see patients anywhere, especially in their homes. This is another area that should become permanent. Payers should continue to pay telehealth services on par with in-person visits.”
• Telephony. “Psychiatrists and other physicians haven’t been traditionally paid for telephone visits. But there’s no doubt that telephone follow-up visits can be very beneficial, so while I wouldn’t personally see a new patient on the phone, I now follow up with them on the phone once I have gotten to know them, and this works well.”
• Prescribing. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 was introduced to stop overseas pharmacies prescribing narcotics. “It was very successful, but as a side effect, it stopped most physicians from prescribing controlled substances on video. With COVID, we can now do this. For psychiatry, this is very important because it means we can use video to treat people for addictions with medications like buprenorphine and [prescribe] stimulants for children with ADHD. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should finalize regulations for the Ryan Haight Act to allow for the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth without a prior in-person exam.”

The American Psychiatric Association has called for an extension of the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency declaration to study its impact. It will continue to advocate to allow for telephone-only telehealth to be reimbursed at the same rate as live audio-video, said a spokesperson. “We also will continue to advocate for the removal of geographic and originating site restrictions in Medicare, which prevent Medicare patients from being seen in the home,” with some exceptions, the spokesperson said.

The APA has also issued guidance to practitioners seeking clarity on telehealth coverage and COVID-19.

This year saw an unprecedented rise in medical consults over virtual platforms, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on in the United States and worldwide.

Statistics from major health care groups and payers underscore this effect. Polling 1,004 U.S. adults this fall, the American Psychiatric Association found that 31% had used telehealth services – with 72% reporting they had ventured into this mode of care over the last 6 months.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was a major catalyst, waiving geographic and Medicare telehealth payment restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. Medicare beneficiaries gained access to telehealth services – they could start seeing doctors via videoconferencing in their homes, regardless of location. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began paying doctors for telehealth services at the same rate as in-office visits for all diagnoses and issued a toolkit to promote adoption of telehealth coverage policies among state Medicaid agencies.

Most states responded, expanding telehealth in Medicaid programs and relaxing restrictions on provider licensing, online prescribing, and patient consent for telehealth, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May. Other federal agencies took actions during the public health emergency. The Drug Enforcement Administration allowed for the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights agreed not to impose penalties for noncompliance of HIPAA during video conferencing, provided that physicians were acting in the best interests of the patient.

“The benefits we’re seeing on both sides – for patients and for doctors – around convenience and access are wonderful,” Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of APA’s Committee on Innovation, said in an interview. Before COVID began, only a handful of clinicians were seeing patients via televideo at Stanford, said Dr. Vasan. “Now, almost everyone is. The forced uptake and change of behavior was something we’ve needed for years, and now that it has happened, I don’t see it going away.”

This year saw an unprecedented rise in medical consults over virtual platforms, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on in the United States and worldwide.

Statistics from major health care groups and payers underscore this effect. Polling 1,004 U.S. adults this fall, the American Psychiatric Association found that 31% had used telehealth services – with 72% reporting they had ventured into this mode of care over the last 6 months.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was a major catalyst, waiving geographic and Medicare telehealth payment restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. Medicare beneficiaries gained access to telehealth services – they could start seeing doctors via videoconferencing in their homes, regardless of location. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began paying doctors for telehealth services at the same rate as in-office visits for all diagnoses and issued a toolkit to promote adoption of telehealth coverage policies among state Medicaid agencies.

Most states responded, expanding telehealth in Medicaid programs and relaxing restrictions on provider licensing, online prescribing, and patient consent for telehealth, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May. Other federal agencies took actions during the public health emergency. The Drug Enforcement Administration allowed for the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights agreed not to impose penalties for noncompliance of HIPAA during video conferencing, provided that physicians were acting in the best interests of the patient.

“The benefits we’re seeing on both sides – for patients and for doctors – around convenience and access are wonderful,” Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of APA’s Committee on Innovation, said in an interview. Before COVID began, only a handful of clinicians were seeing patients via televideo at Stanford, said Dr. Vasan. “Now, almost everyone is. The forced uptake and change of behavior was something we’ve needed for years, and now that it has happened, I don’t see it going away.”

This year saw an unprecedented rise in medical consults over virtual platforms, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on in the United States and worldwide.

Statistics from major health care groups and payers underscore this effect. Polling 1,004 U.S. adults this fall, the American Psychiatric Association found that 31% had used telehealth services – with 72% reporting they had ventured into this mode of care over the last 6 months.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was a major catalyst, waiving geographic and Medicare telehealth payment restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. Medicare beneficiaries gained access to telehealth services – they could start seeing doctors via videoconferencing in their homes, regardless of location. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began paying doctors for telehealth services at the same rate as in-office visits for all diagnoses and issued a toolkit to promote adoption of telehealth coverage policies among state Medicaid agencies.

Most states responded, expanding telehealth in Medicaid programs and relaxing restrictions on provider licensing, online prescribing, and patient consent for telehealth, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May. Other federal agencies took actions during the public health emergency. The Drug Enforcement Administration allowed for the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights agreed not to impose penalties for noncompliance of HIPAA during video conferencing, provided that physicians were acting in the best interests of the patient.

“The benefits we’re seeing on both sides – for patients and for doctors – around convenience and access are wonderful,” Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of APA’s Committee on Innovation, said in an interview. Before COVID began, only a handful of clinicians were seeing patients via televideo at Stanford, said Dr. Vasan. “Now, almost everyone is. The forced uptake and change of behavior was something we’ve needed for years, and now that it has happened, I don’t see it going away.”

Risk factors for keratinocyte carcinomas, primarily pigment traits and sun sensitivity, were associated with the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an analysis of 92,097 women in France.

The presence of “many or very many nevi [moles]” was particularly associated with the risk of CLL among individuals in the E3N cohort, according to a report published online in Cancer Medicine. E3N is a prospective cohort of French women aged 40-65 years at inclusion in 1990. Researchers collected cancer data at baseline and every 2-3 years.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between patients pigmentary traits and sun exposure and their risk for CLL/NHL were estimated using Cox models, according to study author Louis-Marie Garcin, MD, of the Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, and colleagues.
 

Common etiology?

Among the 92,097 women included in the study, 622 incident cases of CLL/NHL were observed over a median of 24-years’ follow-up.

The presence of nevi was associated with CLL/NHL risk. The HR for “many or very many nevi” relative to “no nevi” was 1.56. The association with number of nevi was strongest for the risk of CLL, with an HR for “many or very many nevi” of 3.00 vs. 1.32 for NHL. In addition, the researchers found that women whose skin was highly sensitive to sunburn also had a higher risk of CLL (HR, 1.96), while no increased risk of NHL was observed. All HR values were within their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Relevant characteristics that were found to not be associated with added CLL/NHL risk were skin or hair color, number of freckles, and average daily UV dose during spring and summer in the location of residence at birth or at inclusion.

These observations suggest that CLL in particular may share some constitutional risk factors with keratinocyte cancers, according to the researchers.

“We report an association between nevi frequency and CLL/NHL risk, suggesting a partly common genetic etiology of these tumors. Future research should investigate common pathophysiological pathways that could promote the development of both skin carcinoma and CLL/NHL,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the French government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Garcin L-M et al. Cancer Med. 2020. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3586.

Risk factors for keratinocyte carcinomas, primarily pigment traits and sun sensitivity, were associated with the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an analysis of 92,097 women in France.

The presence of “many or very many nevi [moles]” was particularly associated with the risk of CLL among individuals in the E3N cohort, according to a report published online in Cancer Medicine. E3N is a prospective cohort of French women aged 40-65 years at inclusion in 1990. Researchers collected cancer data at baseline and every 2-3 years.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between patients pigmentary traits and sun exposure and their risk for CLL/NHL were estimated using Cox models, according to study author Louis-Marie Garcin, MD, of the Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, and colleagues.
 

Common etiology?

Among the 92,097 women included in the study, 622 incident cases of CLL/NHL were observed over a median of 24-years’ follow-up.

The presence of nevi was associated with CLL/NHL risk. The HR for “many or very many nevi” relative to “no nevi” was 1.56. The association with number of nevi was strongest for the risk of CLL, with an HR for “many or very many nevi” of 3.00 vs. 1.32 for NHL. In addition, the researchers found that women whose skin was highly sensitive to sunburn also had a higher risk of CLL (HR, 1.96), while no increased risk of NHL was observed. All HR values were within their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Relevant characteristics that were found to not be associated with added CLL/NHL risk were skin or hair color, number of freckles, and average daily UV dose during spring and summer in the location of residence at birth or at inclusion.

These observations suggest that CLL in particular may share some constitutional risk factors with keratinocyte cancers, according to the researchers.

“We report an association between nevi frequency and CLL/NHL risk, suggesting a partly common genetic etiology of these tumors. Future research should investigate common pathophysiological pathways that could promote the development of both skin carcinoma and CLL/NHL,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the French government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Garcin L-M et al. Cancer Med. 2020. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3586.

Risk factors for keratinocyte carcinomas, primarily pigment traits and sun sensitivity, were associated with the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an analysis of 92,097 women in France.

The presence of “many or very many nevi [moles]” was particularly associated with the risk of CLL among individuals in the E3N cohort, according to a report published online in Cancer Medicine. E3N is a prospective cohort of French women aged 40-65 years at inclusion in 1990. Researchers collected cancer data at baseline and every 2-3 years.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between patients pigmentary traits and sun exposure and their risk for CLL/NHL were estimated using Cox models, according to study author Louis-Marie Garcin, MD, of the Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, and colleagues.
 

Common etiology?

Among the 92,097 women included in the study, 622 incident cases of CLL/NHL were observed over a median of 24-years’ follow-up.

The presence of nevi was associated with CLL/NHL risk. The HR for “many or very many nevi” relative to “no nevi” was 1.56. The association with number of nevi was strongest for the risk of CLL, with an HR for “many or very many nevi” of 3.00 vs. 1.32 for NHL. In addition, the researchers found that women whose skin was highly sensitive to sunburn also had a higher risk of CLL (HR, 1.96), while no increased risk of NHL was observed. All HR values were within their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Relevant characteristics that were found to not be associated with added CLL/NHL risk were skin or hair color, number of freckles, and average daily UV dose during spring and summer in the location of residence at birth or at inclusion.

These observations suggest that CLL in particular may share some constitutional risk factors with keratinocyte cancers, according to the researchers.

“We report an association between nevi frequency and CLL/NHL risk, suggesting a partly common genetic etiology of these tumors. Future research should investigate common pathophysiological pathways that could promote the development of both skin carcinoma and CLL/NHL,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the French government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Garcin L-M et al. Cancer Med. 2020. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3586.

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

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

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

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

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Slowly tapering off – or remaining on – antimalarial medications can help prevent disease flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who’ve achieved clinical remission for at least a year, according to a new study that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Except in the setting of toxicity, cessation of antimalarial medication in patients with disease quiescence is feasible using a slow taper,” lead author Danaë Papachristos, MBBS, said during an oral abstract presentation at the online meeting. Dr. Papachristos conducted the research while a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto’s lupus clinic, but is now a consultant rheumatologist at the Wesley Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

To investigate flare in patients with SLE who were on or recently off antimalarial medications (AMs), the researchers identified 1,573 potential participants from a long-term observational cohort study at the university’s lupus clinic. From that larger group, 88 cases – patients who achieved clinical remission for at least a year and stopped taking AMs – were matched to at least one control – patients who also achieved remission and continued on medication. Most cases were also matched to a second control, bringing the total number to 173. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up.

Flare was defined as any increase in the SLEDAI-2K score, with major flare defined as an increase of 4 or more. Patients in the case group were roughly 44 years old, compared with an average age of 46 in the control group. Both groups were almost entirely female and largely white. Reasons for withdrawal in the case group included self-cessation, disease quiescence, and retinal, mucocutaneous, or cardiac toxicities. Twenty participants in the case group reported AM toxicity, compared with four controls.

Dr. Papachristos noted in her presentation that the toxicity disparity was expected, “because controls are those who continue their medication, and most patients who have toxicity will stop their medication.”

Disease flare occurred in 61.4% of cases, compared with 45.1% of controls (P = .002), with the most common types being cutaneous and musculoskeletal flares. After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than doubled for those who ceased AMs (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.11; P = .008). More than half of the cases (n = 46) restarted AMs after withdrawal, which was largely due to disease flare. Of the patients who restarted due to flare, 88% either recaptured control or improved, and the remaining 12% had further flares.

Of the 88 patients in the case group, 51 abruptly withdrew AMs while 37 tapered off. Patients who tapered had fewer flares (45.9%), compared with patients who withdrew abruptly (72.6%). After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than tripled for the abrupt withdrawal group (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.26-9.26; P = .016). Fewer patients who tapered later restarted AMs, compared with the abrupt withdrawal group (37.8% vs. 62.7%; P = .02).

When asked about other differences in medications between the two groups, Dr. Papachristos answered: “We didn’t look into that specifically. We did look at those patients who were on prednisone and on any immunosuppression, although we didn’t look at specific therapies. Those variables were adjusted for in the analysis, and it didn’t make any difference if patients were on immunosuppression or prednisone at the point of index date.

“But we would like to look into the different forms of immunosuppression,” she added, “just to see if that made any difference.”

Withdrawing hydroxychloroquine in older patients

Older patients with SLE who discontinue their use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are also not at increased risk of disease flare, according to a retrospective chart review from rheumatologists Ruth Fernandez-Ruiz, MD, and Peter M. Izmirly, MD, of New York University (Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:191. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02282-0).

“We wanted to focus on older patients who may have a lower risk of flaring and a higher risk of side effects from the drug,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz said in an interview.

The doctors embarked on the study after noticing eye and heart toxicities in certain older patients. They matched 26 lupus patients who had been on HCQ for at least 5 years before discontinuing the drug with 32 control patients who remained on HCQ, ultimately finding that withdrawal had no effect on their risk of lupus flares within a year.

“After starting a drug, the second question most people ask, after ‘What are the side effects?’ is ‘How long do I have to be on this?’ ” Dr. Izmirly said in an interview. “These patients are having side effects associated with long-term HCQ use. And we were noticing that, after you stop the drug, despite what you’re taught, they weren’t flaring.”

Only five patients from each group – 19.2% of the withdrawal group and 15.6% of the continuation group – experienced a flare (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.31-5.30; P = .73). Most of the flares were cutaneous and musculoskeletal in nature, and no severe flares occurred in either group.

“On each side, the overall flare rate was not that high, and they were all relatively mild,” Dr. Izmirly said.

The two doctors acknowledged their study’s smaller sample size, compared with the study by Papachristos and colleagues, along with the advanced age of their patient population, which limits the generalizability of their findings. “We selected patients who had a very low disease activity to begin with, and who were older,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz noted.

That said, they reinforced the scarcity of existing research on this subset of lupus patients, one that will only continue to grow.

“Older [patients with] lupus,” Dr. Izmirly said, are “an understudied demographic.”

One of the authors of the study presented at ACR 2020 acknowledged receiving research support and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The HCQ study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; its authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Papachristos D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). Abstract 0983.

Slowly tapering off – or remaining on – antimalarial medications can help prevent disease flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who’ve achieved clinical remission for at least a year, according to a new study that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Except in the setting of toxicity, cessation of antimalarial medication in patients with disease quiescence is feasible using a slow taper,” lead author Danaë Papachristos, MBBS, said during an oral abstract presentation at the online meeting. Dr. Papachristos conducted the research while a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto’s lupus clinic, but is now a consultant rheumatologist at the Wesley Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

To investigate flare in patients with SLE who were on or recently off antimalarial medications (AMs), the researchers identified 1,573 potential participants from a long-term observational cohort study at the university’s lupus clinic. From that larger group, 88 cases – patients who achieved clinical remission for at least a year and stopped taking AMs – were matched to at least one control – patients who also achieved remission and continued on medication. Most cases were also matched to a second control, bringing the total number to 173. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up.

Flare was defined as any increase in the SLEDAI-2K score, with major flare defined as an increase of 4 or more. Patients in the case group were roughly 44 years old, compared with an average age of 46 in the control group. Both groups were almost entirely female and largely white. Reasons for withdrawal in the case group included self-cessation, disease quiescence, and retinal, mucocutaneous, or cardiac toxicities. Twenty participants in the case group reported AM toxicity, compared with four controls.

Dr. Papachristos noted in her presentation that the toxicity disparity was expected, “because controls are those who continue their medication, and most patients who have toxicity will stop their medication.”

Disease flare occurred in 61.4% of cases, compared with 45.1% of controls (P = .002), with the most common types being cutaneous and musculoskeletal flares. After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than doubled for those who ceased AMs (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.11; P = .008). More than half of the cases (n = 46) restarted AMs after withdrawal, which was largely due to disease flare. Of the patients who restarted due to flare, 88% either recaptured control or improved, and the remaining 12% had further flares.

Of the 88 patients in the case group, 51 abruptly withdrew AMs while 37 tapered off. Patients who tapered had fewer flares (45.9%), compared with patients who withdrew abruptly (72.6%). After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than tripled for the abrupt withdrawal group (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.26-9.26; P = .016). Fewer patients who tapered later restarted AMs, compared with the abrupt withdrawal group (37.8% vs. 62.7%; P = .02).

When asked about other differences in medications between the two groups, Dr. Papachristos answered: “We didn’t look into that specifically. We did look at those patients who were on prednisone and on any immunosuppression, although we didn’t look at specific therapies. Those variables were adjusted for in the analysis, and it didn’t make any difference if patients were on immunosuppression or prednisone at the point of index date.

“But we would like to look into the different forms of immunosuppression,” she added, “just to see if that made any difference.”

Withdrawing hydroxychloroquine in older patients

Older patients with SLE who discontinue their use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are also not at increased risk of disease flare, according to a retrospective chart review from rheumatologists Ruth Fernandez-Ruiz, MD, and Peter M. Izmirly, MD, of New York University (Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:191. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02282-0).

“We wanted to focus on older patients who may have a lower risk of flaring and a higher risk of side effects from the drug,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz said in an interview.

The doctors embarked on the study after noticing eye and heart toxicities in certain older patients. They matched 26 lupus patients who had been on HCQ for at least 5 years before discontinuing the drug with 32 control patients who remained on HCQ, ultimately finding that withdrawal had no effect on their risk of lupus flares within a year.

“After starting a drug, the second question most people ask, after ‘What are the side effects?’ is ‘How long do I have to be on this?’ ” Dr. Izmirly said in an interview. “These patients are having side effects associated with long-term HCQ use. And we were noticing that, after you stop the drug, despite what you’re taught, they weren’t flaring.”

Only five patients from each group – 19.2% of the withdrawal group and 15.6% of the continuation group – experienced a flare (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.31-5.30; P = .73). Most of the flares were cutaneous and musculoskeletal in nature, and no severe flares occurred in either group.

“On each side, the overall flare rate was not that high, and they were all relatively mild,” Dr. Izmirly said.

The two doctors acknowledged their study’s smaller sample size, compared with the study by Papachristos and colleagues, along with the advanced age of their patient population, which limits the generalizability of their findings. “We selected patients who had a very low disease activity to begin with, and who were older,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz noted.

That said, they reinforced the scarcity of existing research on this subset of lupus patients, one that will only continue to grow.

“Older [patients with] lupus,” Dr. Izmirly said, are “an understudied demographic.”

One of the authors of the study presented at ACR 2020 acknowledged receiving research support and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The HCQ study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; its authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Papachristos D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). Abstract 0983.

Slowly tapering off – or remaining on – antimalarial medications can help prevent disease flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who’ve achieved clinical remission for at least a year, according to a new study that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Except in the setting of toxicity, cessation of antimalarial medication in patients with disease quiescence is feasible using a slow taper,” lead author Danaë Papachristos, MBBS, said during an oral abstract presentation at the online meeting. Dr. Papachristos conducted the research while a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto’s lupus clinic, but is now a consultant rheumatologist at the Wesley Hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

To investigate flare in patients with SLE who were on or recently off antimalarial medications (AMs), the researchers identified 1,573 potential participants from a long-term observational cohort study at the university’s lupus clinic. From that larger group, 88 cases – patients who achieved clinical remission for at least a year and stopped taking AMs – were matched to at least one control – patients who also achieved remission and continued on medication. Most cases were also matched to a second control, bringing the total number to 173. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up.

Flare was defined as any increase in the SLEDAI-2K score, with major flare defined as an increase of 4 or more. Patients in the case group were roughly 44 years old, compared with an average age of 46 in the control group. Both groups were almost entirely female and largely white. Reasons for withdrawal in the case group included self-cessation, disease quiescence, and retinal, mucocutaneous, or cardiac toxicities. Twenty participants in the case group reported AM toxicity, compared with four controls.

Dr. Papachristos noted in her presentation that the toxicity disparity was expected, “because controls are those who continue their medication, and most patients who have toxicity will stop their medication.”

Disease flare occurred in 61.4% of cases, compared with 45.1% of controls (P = .002), with the most common types being cutaneous and musculoskeletal flares. After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than doubled for those who ceased AMs (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.11; P = .008). More than half of the cases (n = 46) restarted AMs after withdrawal, which was largely due to disease flare. Of the patients who restarted due to flare, 88% either recaptured control or improved, and the remaining 12% had further flares.

Of the 88 patients in the case group, 51 abruptly withdrew AMs while 37 tapered off. Patients who tapered had fewer flares (45.9%), compared with patients who withdrew abruptly (72.6%). After multivariate analysis, the risk of flare more than tripled for the abrupt withdrawal group (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.26-9.26; P = .016). Fewer patients who tapered later restarted AMs, compared with the abrupt withdrawal group (37.8% vs. 62.7%; P = .02).

When asked about other differences in medications between the two groups, Dr. Papachristos answered: “We didn’t look into that specifically. We did look at those patients who were on prednisone and on any immunosuppression, although we didn’t look at specific therapies. Those variables were adjusted for in the analysis, and it didn’t make any difference if patients were on immunosuppression or prednisone at the point of index date.

“But we would like to look into the different forms of immunosuppression,” she added, “just to see if that made any difference.”

Withdrawing hydroxychloroquine in older patients

Older patients with SLE who discontinue their use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are also not at increased risk of disease flare, according to a retrospective chart review from rheumatologists Ruth Fernandez-Ruiz, MD, and Peter M. Izmirly, MD, of New York University (Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:191. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02282-0).

“We wanted to focus on older patients who may have a lower risk of flaring and a higher risk of side effects from the drug,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz said in an interview.

The doctors embarked on the study after noticing eye and heart toxicities in certain older patients. They matched 26 lupus patients who had been on HCQ for at least 5 years before discontinuing the drug with 32 control patients who remained on HCQ, ultimately finding that withdrawal had no effect on their risk of lupus flares within a year.

“After starting a drug, the second question most people ask, after ‘What are the side effects?’ is ‘How long do I have to be on this?’ ” Dr. Izmirly said in an interview. “These patients are having side effects associated with long-term HCQ use. And we were noticing that, after you stop the drug, despite what you’re taught, they weren’t flaring.”

Only five patients from each group – 19.2% of the withdrawal group and 15.6% of the continuation group – experienced a flare (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.31-5.30; P = .73). Most of the flares were cutaneous and musculoskeletal in nature, and no severe flares occurred in either group.

“On each side, the overall flare rate was not that high, and they were all relatively mild,” Dr. Izmirly said.

The two doctors acknowledged their study’s smaller sample size, compared with the study by Papachristos and colleagues, along with the advanced age of their patient population, which limits the generalizability of their findings. “We selected patients who had a very low disease activity to begin with, and who were older,” Dr. Fernandez-Ruiz noted.

That said, they reinforced the scarcity of existing research on this subset of lupus patients, one that will only continue to grow.

“Older [patients with] lupus,” Dr. Izmirly said, are “an understudied demographic.”

One of the authors of the study presented at ACR 2020 acknowledged receiving research support and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The HCQ study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; its authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Papachristos D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). Abstract 0983.

Recognizing the ongoing value of benzoyl peroxide, educating patients about the role of antibiotics, and embracing spironolactone are among the acne treatment pearls provided by Hilary Baldwin, MD, during a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Kinan Ayu/Creative Commons license

Benzoyl peroxide celebrates its 60th birthday and is still going strong as an acne treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, of the department of dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnston Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J. Benzoyl peroxide can be used as a stand-alone and has the added benefit of not being associated with antimicrobial resistance. In addition, “benzoyl peroxide is the heavy lifter in combinations,” she said. In fact, benzoyl peroxide can prevent the development of resistance to topical and oral antibiotics such as clindamycin, and can reverse resistance that has occurred, she noted.

However, patient compliance can be an issue. Benzoyl peroxide often is underused because of its tendency to bleach fabric, noted Dr. Baldwin, who is also medical director of The Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York. To help combat this problem and improve compliance, she advises patients to establish a dosing schedule for benzoyl peroxide, such as using it first thing in the morning, or applying in the afternoon and using a paper towel first, or a white towel, to wash their faces at bedtime, she said. When dealing with teenagers, “it sounds like a lot of work, but it makes the mothers much happier not to have their towels bleached.”

Although clinicians want to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in acne, there is a place for antibiotics, but not as monotherapy, Dr. Baldwin said. Instead, initiate topical therapy, such as a retinoid or benzoyl peroxide, simultaneously with antibiotics and evaluate the response in 6-8 weeks, she advised. At that point, the antibiotics can be stopped, even if 100% clearing has not been achieved, and “the topicals can carry you on for months and months,” she noted.

Also, in female patients, consider oral contraceptive pills or spironolactone at the same time as oral antibiotics, then discontinue the antibiotics and continue with the hormonal therapy, she added. “Plan your exit strategy early,” she said. Explain to patients that you will stop the oral antibiotics after 2 months, so they must continue with the topicals.

“Embrace spironolactone if you haven’t already,” said Dr. Baldwin, who noted that spironolactone has been underused in recent years. Spironolactone use for acne has not been well studied, “but consensus groups and expert opinions certainly favor its use,” she added.

Recognizing the ongoing value of benzoyl peroxide, educating patients about the role of antibiotics, and embracing spironolactone are among the acne treatment pearls provided by Hilary Baldwin, MD, during a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Kinan Ayu/Creative Commons license

Benzoyl peroxide celebrates its 60th birthday and is still going strong as an acne treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, of the department of dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnston Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J. Benzoyl peroxide can be used as a stand-alone and has the added benefit of not being associated with antimicrobial resistance. In addition, “benzoyl peroxide is the heavy lifter in combinations,” she said. In fact, benzoyl peroxide can prevent the development of resistance to topical and oral antibiotics such as clindamycin, and can reverse resistance that has occurred, she noted.

However, patient compliance can be an issue. Benzoyl peroxide often is underused because of its tendency to bleach fabric, noted Dr. Baldwin, who is also medical director of The Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York. To help combat this problem and improve compliance, she advises patients to establish a dosing schedule for benzoyl peroxide, such as using it first thing in the morning, or applying in the afternoon and using a paper towel first, or a white towel, to wash their faces at bedtime, she said. When dealing with teenagers, “it sounds like a lot of work, but it makes the mothers much happier not to have their towels bleached.”

Although clinicians want to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in acne, there is a place for antibiotics, but not as monotherapy, Dr. Baldwin said. Instead, initiate topical therapy, such as a retinoid or benzoyl peroxide, simultaneously with antibiotics and evaluate the response in 6-8 weeks, she advised. At that point, the antibiotics can be stopped, even if 100% clearing has not been achieved, and “the topicals can carry you on for months and months,” she noted.

Also, in female patients, consider oral contraceptive pills or spironolactone at the same time as oral antibiotics, then discontinue the antibiotics and continue with the hormonal therapy, she added. “Plan your exit strategy early,” she said. Explain to patients that you will stop the oral antibiotics after 2 months, so they must continue with the topicals.

“Embrace spironolactone if you haven’t already,” said Dr. Baldwin, who noted that spironolactone has been underused in recent years. Spironolactone use for acne has not been well studied, “but consensus groups and expert opinions certainly favor its use,” she added.

Recognizing the ongoing value of benzoyl peroxide, educating patients about the role of antibiotics, and embracing spironolactone are among the acne treatment pearls provided by Hilary Baldwin, MD, during a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Kinan Ayu/Creative Commons license

Benzoyl peroxide celebrates its 60th birthday and is still going strong as an acne treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, of the department of dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnston Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J. Benzoyl peroxide can be used as a stand-alone and has the added benefit of not being associated with antimicrobial resistance. In addition, “benzoyl peroxide is the heavy lifter in combinations,” she said. In fact, benzoyl peroxide can prevent the development of resistance to topical and oral antibiotics such as clindamycin, and can reverse resistance that has occurred, she noted.

However, patient compliance can be an issue. Benzoyl peroxide often is underused because of its tendency to bleach fabric, noted Dr. Baldwin, who is also medical director of The Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York. To help combat this problem and improve compliance, she advises patients to establish a dosing schedule for benzoyl peroxide, such as using it first thing in the morning, or applying in the afternoon and using a paper towel first, or a white towel, to wash their faces at bedtime, she said. When dealing with teenagers, “it sounds like a lot of work, but it makes the mothers much happier not to have their towels bleached.”

Although clinicians want to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in acne, there is a place for antibiotics, but not as monotherapy, Dr. Baldwin said. Instead, initiate topical therapy, such as a retinoid or benzoyl peroxide, simultaneously with antibiotics and evaluate the response in 6-8 weeks, she advised. At that point, the antibiotics can be stopped, even if 100% clearing has not been achieved, and “the topicals can carry you on for months and months,” she noted.

Also, in female patients, consider oral contraceptive pills or spironolactone at the same time as oral antibiotics, then discontinue the antibiotics and continue with the hormonal therapy, she added. “Plan your exit strategy early,” she said. Explain to patients that you will stop the oral antibiotics after 2 months, so they must continue with the topicals.

“Embrace spironolactone if you haven’t already,” said Dr. Baldwin, who noted that spironolactone has been underused in recent years. Spironolactone use for acne has not been well studied, “but consensus groups and expert opinions certainly favor its use,” she added.

Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 infection have shown resistance to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments. However, a meta-analysis of 34 research reports found that DAA combo treatment can be effective in achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients with HCV genotype 3, according to a study published online in Annals of Hepatology.

This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of four regimens: sofosbuvir (SOF)/daclatasvir (DCV) with or without ribavirin (RBV); SOF/velpatasvir (VEL) with or without RBV; SOF/VEL/voxilaprevir (VOX);and glecaprevir (GLE)/pibrentasvir (PIB) in the treatment of HCV genotype 3–infected patients in real-world situations, according to Liwei Zhuang, of Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, and colleagues.

A total of 34 studies, comprising 7,328 patients from 22 countries, met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis of the analysis.
 

Promising results

The pooled SVR rate after 12 or 24 weeks of treatment for the four regimens was 92.1%.

For each regimen, the SVR rate was 91.2% in patients treated with SOF/DCV with or without RBV; 95.1% in patients treated with SOF/VEL with or without RBV; 85.0% in patients treated with SOF/VEL/VOX; and 98.5% in patients treated with GLE/PIB.

In addition, the pooled SVR rate of the four regimens was 95.2% in patients without cirrhosis and 89.4% in patients with cirrhosis, and the pooled SVR rate was 94.4% in treatment-naive patients and 88.0% in treatment-experienced patients. All results were within 95% confidence intervals.

The researchers pointed out that their meta-analysis had limitations. “We think that no strong conclusions can be drawn due to high heterogeneity in four DAA regimens administration in real-world setting from 22 countries, as well as small numbers of patients treated with SOF + VEL + VOX and GLE + PIB. More studies are needed in the future in order to better analyze the antiviral effectiveness of DAAs in GT3 HCV patients in real-world studies,” they authors stated.

However, they also concluded that “the antiviral effectiveness of treatment regimens for HCV-GT3 [genotype 3] infection, including SOF + DCV ± RBV, SOF + VEL ± RBV, GLE + PIB, and SOF + VEL + VOX, was good. The SVR rate of GLE + PIB was higher, and the treatment duration was shorter than other regimens.”

The study was funded by the Chinese government and public institutions. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhuang L et al. Ann Hepatol. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.09.012.

Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 infection have shown resistance to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments. However, a meta-analysis of 34 research reports found that DAA combo treatment can be effective in achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients with HCV genotype 3, according to a study published online in Annals of Hepatology.

This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of four regimens: sofosbuvir (SOF)/daclatasvir (DCV) with or without ribavirin (RBV); SOF/velpatasvir (VEL) with or without RBV; SOF/VEL/voxilaprevir (VOX);and glecaprevir (GLE)/pibrentasvir (PIB) in the treatment of HCV genotype 3–infected patients in real-world situations, according to Liwei Zhuang, of Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, and colleagues.

A total of 34 studies, comprising 7,328 patients from 22 countries, met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis of the analysis.
 

Promising results

The pooled SVR rate after 12 or 24 weeks of treatment for the four regimens was 92.1%.

For each regimen, the SVR rate was 91.2% in patients treated with SOF/DCV with or without RBV; 95.1% in patients treated with SOF/VEL with or without RBV; 85.0% in patients treated with SOF/VEL/VOX; and 98.5% in patients treated with GLE/PIB.

In addition, the pooled SVR rate of the four regimens was 95.2% in patients without cirrhosis and 89.4% in patients with cirrhosis, and the pooled SVR rate was 94.4% in treatment-naive patients and 88.0% in treatment-experienced patients. All results were within 95% confidence intervals.

The researchers pointed out that their meta-analysis had limitations. “We think that no strong conclusions can be drawn due to high heterogeneity in four DAA regimens administration in real-world setting from 22 countries, as well as small numbers of patients treated with SOF + VEL + VOX and GLE + PIB. More studies are needed in the future in order to better analyze the antiviral effectiveness of DAAs in GT3 HCV patients in real-world studies,” they authors stated.

However, they also concluded that “the antiviral effectiveness of treatment regimens for HCV-GT3 [genotype 3] infection, including SOF + DCV ± RBV, SOF + VEL ± RBV, GLE + PIB, and SOF + VEL + VOX, was good. The SVR rate of GLE + PIB was higher, and the treatment duration was shorter than other regimens.”

The study was funded by the Chinese government and public institutions. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhuang L et al. Ann Hepatol. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.09.012.

Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 infection have shown resistance to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments. However, a meta-analysis of 34 research reports found that DAA combo treatment can be effective in achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients with HCV genotype 3, according to a study published online in Annals of Hepatology.

This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of four regimens: sofosbuvir (SOF)/daclatasvir (DCV) with or without ribavirin (RBV); SOF/velpatasvir (VEL) with or without RBV; SOF/VEL/voxilaprevir (VOX);and glecaprevir (GLE)/pibrentasvir (PIB) in the treatment of HCV genotype 3–infected patients in real-world situations, according to Liwei Zhuang, of Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, and colleagues.

A total of 34 studies, comprising 7,328 patients from 22 countries, met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis of the analysis.
 

Promising results

The pooled SVR rate after 12 or 24 weeks of treatment for the four regimens was 92.1%.

For each regimen, the SVR rate was 91.2% in patients treated with SOF/DCV with or without RBV; 95.1% in patients treated with SOF/VEL with or without RBV; 85.0% in patients treated with SOF/VEL/VOX; and 98.5% in patients treated with GLE/PIB.

In addition, the pooled SVR rate of the four regimens was 95.2% in patients without cirrhosis and 89.4% in patients with cirrhosis, and the pooled SVR rate was 94.4% in treatment-naive patients and 88.0% in treatment-experienced patients. All results were within 95% confidence intervals.

The researchers pointed out that their meta-analysis had limitations. “We think that no strong conclusions can be drawn due to high heterogeneity in four DAA regimens administration in real-world setting from 22 countries, as well as small numbers of patients treated with SOF + VEL + VOX and GLE + PIB. More studies are needed in the future in order to better analyze the antiviral effectiveness of DAAs in GT3 HCV patients in real-world studies,” they authors stated.

However, they also concluded that “the antiviral effectiveness of treatment regimens for HCV-GT3 [genotype 3] infection, including SOF + DCV ± RBV, SOF + VEL ± RBV, GLE + PIB, and SOF + VEL + VOX, was good. The SVR rate of GLE + PIB was higher, and the treatment duration was shorter than other regimens.”

The study was funded by the Chinese government and public institutions. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhuang L et al. Ann Hepatol. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.09.012.