69%: the percentage of hospitals that had perfect compliance with the Leapfrog Group employer coalition’s safe practices for hand hygiene in its 2013 annual quality survey of 1,437 U.S. hospitals.

The CDC estimates 2 million patients annually acquire hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), often spread by contaminated hands of healthcare workers.

Urban hospitals performed better than rural hospitals in compliance with Leapfrog’s standard.

69%: the percentage of hospitals that had perfect compliance with the Leapfrog Group employer coalition’s safe practices for hand hygiene in its 2013 annual quality survey of 1,437 U.S. hospitals.

The CDC estimates 2 million patients annually acquire hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), often spread by contaminated hands of healthcare workers.

Urban hospitals performed better than rural hospitals in compliance with Leapfrog’s standard.

69%: the percentage of hospitals that had perfect compliance with the Leapfrog Group employer coalition’s safe practices for hand hygiene in its 2013 annual quality survey of 1,437 U.S. hospitals.

The CDC estimates 2 million patients annually acquire hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), often spread by contaminated hands of healthcare workers.

Urban hospitals performed better than rural hospitals in compliance with Leapfrog’s standard.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a final rule requiring content and format changes to pregnancy and lactation labeling information for prescription drugs and biologic products.

The long-awaited “Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products; Requirements for Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling, or the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule”(PLLR) is part of broad effort by the FDA to improve the content and format of prescription drug labeling. The PLLR, which finalizes many of the provisions in a proposed rule issued in May 2008 after input from numerous stakeholders, calls for replacement of the current A, B, C, D, and X drug classification system with more detailed information about the risks and benefits of use during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The rule will take effect June 30, 2015.

 

© Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

Under the PLLR, labels will be required to include three detailed subsections entitled Pregnancy, Lactation, and Females and Males of Reproductive Potential. Each will include a risk summary, a discussion of the supporting data, and relevant information to help providers make prescribing and counseling decisions, according to the FDA. If no data are available to guide decision making, this must be stated.

The Pregnancy subsection combines the existing Pregnancy and Labor and Delivery subsections, and will address use of the drug during pregnancy as well as provide information about relevant registries that collect and maintain data on the use of the product in pregnant women. The Lactation subsection replaces the existing Nursing Mothers subsection, and will include information about use of the product during breastfeeding, including the amount of drug in breast milk and potential effects on the breastfed child. The new Females and Males of Reproductive Potential subsection will address pregnancy testing, contraception, and fertility issues as they relate to use of the product.

The existing A, B, C, D, and X categories were frequently misinterpreted as a grading system, giving an over simplified view of product risk, according to Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

The new, more detailed approach to labeling will better address the complex risk-benefit considerations inherent in prescribing decisions during pregnancy and lactation, she said during a press briefing.

“I’m excited because clinicians will, going forward, be able to rely on FDA-approved drug labeling for comprehensive, chronically relevant, and user-friendly information in this part of labeling – something that has been missing for many years,” she said, noting that the changes are particularly important, given that the more than 6 million women who become pregnant each year in the United States take an average of 3-5 different prescription products during the course of their pregnancy and while breastfeeding.

“It is our hope that this new system will help their health care professionals and these women as they discuss treatment options,” she said.

Importantly, the PLLR ensures that more robust and informative data about drugs will be provided than ever before – and in a manner that speaks directly to the concerns that are common among providers, she said.

In addition to the elimination of the letter categories and the addition of the three new subsections, the use of standardized risk statement also was eliminated, as these had the same limitations as the letter categories. A section on inadvertent exposure also was eliminated due to redundancy, as the risk would be the same as with intentional exposure.

The rule also requires that labels be updated as they become outdated.

Much of the information that will be included on the new labels, which will be phased in for existing drugs and required immediately for drugs approved after June 30, 2015, was already included, but was scattered and difficult to find. The new formatting requirements provides for consistency across labels by pulling this information together in one place, Dr. Kweder said.

In an official statement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists applauded the rule for “taking needed steps to increase understanding about the effect of prescription medicine on women during pregnancy and lactation.”

“The FDA’s updated method of presenting information about both risk and benefit will improve the ability of all physicians to treat their pregnant and breastfeeding patients, as well as women who may become pregnant. It will also help more women to understand and take part in their health care decision making,” according to the ACOG statement, which also noted that the organization hopes the new content on prescription drug and biological product labels will “provide added incentives for clinical research as well as participation in patient registries.”

 

Christina Chambers, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research for the department of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, also praised the new labeling rule, noting in an interview that “the final rule has been long awaited by many who work in the field of counseling pregnant and breastfeeding women about risks and safety of prescription medications, such as counselors with organizations like MotherToBaby, a service of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, which provides information about medication and other exposures during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and which was involved in development of the final rule.

“The MotherToBaby counselors located throughout the United States who answer questions about medication exposures for hundreds of women every day, have struggled for years with trying to explain the not-so-useful A, B, C, D, X pregnancy categories to patients and providers alike who commonly misinterpret their meaning. The new label format is much more content rich and evidence-based, and encompasses the larger picture of the safety data in the context of treatment (or lack of treatment) of the maternal condition. This is a huge step forward – and will make even more clear how critical the need is for more human pregnancy data for all medications likely to be used by women of reproductive age,” she said.

Dr. Chambers is the program director for MotherToBaby California, and director of the MotherToBaby research center at the University of California, San Diego. She reported having no relevant disclosures.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a final rule requiring content and format changes to pregnancy and lactation labeling information for prescription drugs and biologic products.

The long-awaited “Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products; Requirements for Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling, or the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule”(PLLR) is part of broad effort by the FDA to improve the content and format of prescription drug labeling. The PLLR, which finalizes many of the provisions in a proposed rule issued in May 2008 after input from numerous stakeholders, calls for replacement of the current A, B, C, D, and X drug classification system with more detailed information about the risks and benefits of use during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The rule will take effect June 30, 2015.

 

© Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

Under the PLLR, labels will be required to include three detailed subsections entitled Pregnancy, Lactation, and Females and Males of Reproductive Potential. Each will include a risk summary, a discussion of the supporting data, and relevant information to help providers make prescribing and counseling decisions, according to the FDA. If no data are available to guide decision making, this must be stated.

The Pregnancy subsection combines the existing Pregnancy and Labor and Delivery subsections, and will address use of the drug during pregnancy as well as provide information about relevant registries that collect and maintain data on the use of the product in pregnant women. The Lactation subsection replaces the existing Nursing Mothers subsection, and will include information about use of the product during breastfeeding, including the amount of drug in breast milk and potential effects on the breastfed child. The new Females and Males of Reproductive Potential subsection will address pregnancy testing, contraception, and fertility issues as they relate to use of the product.

The existing A, B, C, D, and X categories were frequently misinterpreted as a grading system, giving an over simplified view of product risk, according to Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

The new, more detailed approach to labeling will better address the complex risk-benefit considerations inherent in prescribing decisions during pregnancy and lactation, she said during a press briefing.

“I’m excited because clinicians will, going forward, be able to rely on FDA-approved drug labeling for comprehensive, chronically relevant, and user-friendly information in this part of labeling – something that has been missing for many years,” she said, noting that the changes are particularly important, given that the more than 6 million women who become pregnant each year in the United States take an average of 3-5 different prescription products during the course of their pregnancy and while breastfeeding.

“It is our hope that this new system will help their health care professionals and these women as they discuss treatment options,” she said.

Importantly, the PLLR ensures that more robust and informative data about drugs will be provided than ever before – and in a manner that speaks directly to the concerns that are common among providers, she said.

In addition to the elimination of the letter categories and the addition of the three new subsections, the use of standardized risk statement also was eliminated, as these had the same limitations as the letter categories. A section on inadvertent exposure also was eliminated due to redundancy, as the risk would be the same as with intentional exposure.

The rule also requires that labels be updated as they become outdated.

Much of the information that will be included on the new labels, which will be phased in for existing drugs and required immediately for drugs approved after June 30, 2015, was already included, but was scattered and difficult to find. The new formatting requirements provides for consistency across labels by pulling this information together in one place, Dr. Kweder said.

In an official statement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists applauded the rule for “taking needed steps to increase understanding about the effect of prescription medicine on women during pregnancy and lactation.”

“The FDA’s updated method of presenting information about both risk and benefit will improve the ability of all physicians to treat their pregnant and breastfeeding patients, as well as women who may become pregnant. It will also help more women to understand and take part in their health care decision making,” according to the ACOG statement, which also noted that the organization hopes the new content on prescription drug and biological product labels will “provide added incentives for clinical research as well as participation in patient registries.”

 

Christina Chambers, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research for the department of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, also praised the new labeling rule, noting in an interview that “the final rule has been long awaited by many who work in the field of counseling pregnant and breastfeeding women about risks and safety of prescription medications, such as counselors with organizations like MotherToBaby, a service of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, which provides information about medication and other exposures during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and which was involved in development of the final rule.

“The MotherToBaby counselors located throughout the United States who answer questions about medication exposures for hundreds of women every day, have struggled for years with trying to explain the not-so-useful A, B, C, D, X pregnancy categories to patients and providers alike who commonly misinterpret their meaning. The new label format is much more content rich and evidence-based, and encompasses the larger picture of the safety data in the context of treatment (or lack of treatment) of the maternal condition. This is a huge step forward – and will make even more clear how critical the need is for more human pregnancy data for all medications likely to be used by women of reproductive age,” she said.

Dr. Chambers is the program director for MotherToBaby California, and director of the MotherToBaby research center at the University of California, San Diego. She reported having no relevant disclosures.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a final rule requiring content and format changes to pregnancy and lactation labeling information for prescription drugs and biologic products.

The long-awaited “Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products; Requirements for Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling, or the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule”(PLLR) is part of broad effort by the FDA to improve the content and format of prescription drug labeling. The PLLR, which finalizes many of the provisions in a proposed rule issued in May 2008 after input from numerous stakeholders, calls for replacement of the current A, B, C, D, and X drug classification system with more detailed information about the risks and benefits of use during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

The rule will take effect June 30, 2015.

 

© Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

Under the PLLR, labels will be required to include three detailed subsections entitled Pregnancy, Lactation, and Females and Males of Reproductive Potential. Each will include a risk summary, a discussion of the supporting data, and relevant information to help providers make prescribing and counseling decisions, according to the FDA. If no data are available to guide decision making, this must be stated.

The Pregnancy subsection combines the existing Pregnancy and Labor and Delivery subsections, and will address use of the drug during pregnancy as well as provide information about relevant registries that collect and maintain data on the use of the product in pregnant women. The Lactation subsection replaces the existing Nursing Mothers subsection, and will include information about use of the product during breastfeeding, including the amount of drug in breast milk and potential effects on the breastfed child. The new Females and Males of Reproductive Potential subsection will address pregnancy testing, contraception, and fertility issues as they relate to use of the product.

The existing A, B, C, D, and X categories were frequently misinterpreted as a grading system, giving an over simplified view of product risk, according to Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

The new, more detailed approach to labeling will better address the complex risk-benefit considerations inherent in prescribing decisions during pregnancy and lactation, she said during a press briefing.

“I’m excited because clinicians will, going forward, be able to rely on FDA-approved drug labeling for comprehensive, chronically relevant, and user-friendly information in this part of labeling – something that has been missing for many years,” she said, noting that the changes are particularly important, given that the more than 6 million women who become pregnant each year in the United States take an average of 3-5 different prescription products during the course of their pregnancy and while breastfeeding.

“It is our hope that this new system will help their health care professionals and these women as they discuss treatment options,” she said.

Importantly, the PLLR ensures that more robust and informative data about drugs will be provided than ever before – and in a manner that speaks directly to the concerns that are common among providers, she said.

In addition to the elimination of the letter categories and the addition of the three new subsections, the use of standardized risk statement also was eliminated, as these had the same limitations as the letter categories. A section on inadvertent exposure also was eliminated due to redundancy, as the risk would be the same as with intentional exposure.

The rule also requires that labels be updated as they become outdated.

Much of the information that will be included on the new labels, which will be phased in for existing drugs and required immediately for drugs approved after June 30, 2015, was already included, but was scattered and difficult to find. The new formatting requirements provides for consistency across labels by pulling this information together in one place, Dr. Kweder said.

In an official statement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists applauded the rule for “taking needed steps to increase understanding about the effect of prescription medicine on women during pregnancy and lactation.”

“The FDA’s updated method of presenting information about both risk and benefit will improve the ability of all physicians to treat their pregnant and breastfeeding patients, as well as women who may become pregnant. It will also help more women to understand and take part in their health care decision making,” according to the ACOG statement, which also noted that the organization hopes the new content on prescription drug and biological product labels will “provide added incentives for clinical research as well as participation in patient registries.”

 

Christina Chambers, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research for the department of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, also praised the new labeling rule, noting in an interview that “the final rule has been long awaited by many who work in the field of counseling pregnant and breastfeeding women about risks and safety of prescription medications, such as counselors with organizations like MotherToBaby, a service of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, which provides information about medication and other exposures during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and which was involved in development of the final rule.

“The MotherToBaby counselors located throughout the United States who answer questions about medication exposures for hundreds of women every day, have struggled for years with trying to explain the not-so-useful A, B, C, D, X pregnancy categories to patients and providers alike who commonly misinterpret their meaning. The new label format is much more content rich and evidence-based, and encompasses the larger picture of the safety data in the context of treatment (or lack of treatment) of the maternal condition. This is a huge step forward – and will make even more clear how critical the need is for more human pregnancy data for all medications likely to be used by women of reproductive age,” she said.

Dr. Chambers is the program director for MotherToBaby California, and director of the MotherToBaby research center at the University of California, San Diego. She reported having no relevant disclosures.

$167 billion: Amount of federal Medicaid reimbursement payments that hospitals will forego between 2013 and 2022 in states that have opted not to expand their state programs under the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

For every $1 a state spends on expanding Medicaid, $13.41 in federal funding flows into the state, according to a new report from the Urban Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

$167 billion: Amount of federal Medicaid reimbursement payments that hospitals will forego between 2013 and 2022 in states that have opted not to expand their state programs under the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

For every $1 a state spends on expanding Medicaid, $13.41 in federal funding flows into the state, according to a new report from the Urban Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

$167 billion: Amount of federal Medicaid reimbursement payments that hospitals will forego between 2013 and 2022 in states that have opted not to expand their state programs under the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

For every $1 a state spends on expanding Medicaid, $13.41 in federal funding flows into the state, according to a new report from the Urban Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

UpToDate, a leading clinical decision support resource for physicians, in July added palliative care as the newest of its 22 medical specialties. The palliative care section covers a variety of topics focused on improving symptoms and providing best quality of life for patients with serious illnesses. The new service resulted from two years of extensive collaboration by a team of 100 leading palliative care specialists from around the world, led by Harvard Medical School palliative care physicians J. Andrew Billings, MD, and Susan D. Block, MD, reviewing and grading the body of research and scientific literature on palliative care.

UpToDate, a leading clinical decision support resource for physicians, in July added palliative care as the newest of its 22 medical specialties. The palliative care section covers a variety of topics focused on improving symptoms and providing best quality of life for patients with serious illnesses. The new service resulted from two years of extensive collaboration by a team of 100 leading palliative care specialists from around the world, led by Harvard Medical School palliative care physicians J. Andrew Billings, MD, and Susan D. Block, MD, reviewing and grading the body of research and scientific literature on palliative care.

UpToDate, a leading clinical decision support resource for physicians, in July added palliative care as the newest of its 22 medical specialties. The palliative care section covers a variety of topics focused on improving symptoms and providing best quality of life for patients with serious illnesses. The new service resulted from two years of extensive collaboration by a team of 100 leading palliative care specialists from around the world, led by Harvard Medical School palliative care physicians J. Andrew Billings, MD, and Susan D. Block, MD, reviewing and grading the body of research and scientific literature on palliative care.

A frequent referral to our pediatric infectious disease outpatient program at Boston Medical Center is the child with recurrent skin and soft tissue infection. Most often, the child is an infant, toddler, or adolescent; the child is otherwise well but has had two or three prior episodes of skin infection; the infections are typically peri-inguinal including the buttocks, but may involve the face, back, thighs, or scalp. The families are often frustrated and hoping for a solution. Are there effective strategies for reducing recurrences?

Several recent studies provide insights and can be helpful in forming an evidence-based approach that offers modest benefit for reducing the risk of recurrence. Most recently, Kaplan et al. (Clin. Inf. Dis. 2014;58:679-82) reported on a clinical trial of sodium hypochlorite bleach baths combined with hygienic measures (frequent hand washing with soap, cutting fingernails short, using towels or washcloths and clothing without sharing, and daily bathing or showering), compared with hygienic measures alone. The treatment group received twice-weekly hypochlorite baths with 5 mL household bleach (Clorox-Regular 6.0% hypochlorite) per gallon of bath water, followed by moisturizer. Most children were colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)(approximately 70%) or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA)(approximately 30%). In the 12-month follow-up, 20% of children had recurrent skin or soft tissue infection (SSTI). Risk factors for recurrence were young age (<6 years) and burden of colonization (number of colonized sites). A small, nonstatistically significant benefit was observed in the treatment group with a 17% incidence of SSTI, compared with 20.9% in controls (P = 0.15). The authors concluded a bleach bath plus hygiene measures was associated with about a 20% nonstatistically significant decrease in recurrent community-acquired SSTI. No adverse effects of bleach baths were identified.

A second open-label, randomized study by Fritz et al. (Clin. Inf. Dis. 2012;54:743-51) evaluated the value of individual decolonization, compared with household decolonization, in children 6 months through 20 years of age with prior community-acquired SSTI. Cases were randomized to individual decolonization regimens (hygiene, 2% mupirocin for 5 days and 4% chlorhexidine daily body washes) or to household decolonization. Staphylococcal colonization was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. No differences in the rate of eradication of S. aureus were observed between the two strategies, except at 3 months where a greater proportion of children randomized to household decolonization were culture negative. Despite the lack of impact on colonization, SSTI documented by a physician was less common in children where decolonization was householdwide. After 12 months, 36% of children in the household decolonization sites had recurrent SSTI, compared with 55% in the individual decolonization stratum (P = .03). The authors concluded that household decolonization reduces SSTI in both the individual and household contacts.

Another approach to decolonization has been the use of oral antibiotics in combination with mupirocin and hexachloradine. Although data are limited, Miller et al. (Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012;56:1084-6) reported on a small cohort of 31 prospectively evaluated patients with recurrent community-acquired MRSA skin infections. Individuals received nasal mupirocin, topical hexachlorophene body wash, and an oral antibiotic based on susceptibility testing (doxycycline, minocycline, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole). In the 6 months prior to enrollment, the mean rate of SSTI was three infections per person (range, 2-30). The mean number of MRSA infections after the intervention decreased significantly from 0.84 infections per month to 0.03 infections per month during the 5.2-month follow-up. In general, the regimens were well tolerated with minor gastrointestinal complaints. The authors concluded that the combination of systemic and topical antimicrobials was associated with subsequent decreases in community-acquired MRSA SSTI; however, they acknowledged that without a control group, they were unable to be certain that the decrease was due to the prescribed regimen.

Our current approach for children referred with recurrent SSTI is household decolonization with nasal mupirocin and daily hexachloradine baths or showers or hypochlorite baths. The mupirocin is prescribed for 5-10 days; the hexachloradine/hypochlorite baths, for several months. We also stress the need for hygiene, including washing towels and linens in hot water, and cleaning surfaces and items such as remote controls with hypochlorite solutions. Although the value of environmental decontamination is unknown, studies by Uhlemann et al. (PLOS ONE 2011;6: e22407) demonstrated excess contamination of household surfaces in homes of SSTI cases. If recurrences continue, the addition of an antimicrobial agent is considered. We reserve doxycycline for children over 8 years of age and prescribe trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for those younger than 8 years. We also will ask about pets although we are aware of only anecdotal reports where treating the family dog or cat has aborted recurrent disease in the patients.

 

In summary, recurrent SSTI is common, especially among young children. The burden of colonization appears related to both the risk for recurrent disease and the risk for transmission within the household. Reducing colonization is valuable for decreasing the incidence of recurrent SSTI both for the individual as well as the household members. The current strategies demonstrate modest success, but as many as 30%-40% of patients will continue to have recurrent SSTI. Education about the early signs of infection, early evaluation of SSTI, and appropriate management (topical treatment, incision and drainage, or systemic antibiotics) are successful strategies for limiting progression to invasive staphylococcal disease.

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Yildirim is a fellow in pediatric infectious disease and an epidemiologist, at Boston Medical Center. To comment, e-mail Dr. Pelton and Dr. Yildirim at [email protected].

A frequent referral to our pediatric infectious disease outpatient program at Boston Medical Center is the child with recurrent skin and soft tissue infection. Most often, the child is an infant, toddler, or adolescent; the child is otherwise well but has had two or three prior episodes of skin infection; the infections are typically peri-inguinal including the buttocks, but may involve the face, back, thighs, or scalp. The families are often frustrated and hoping for a solution. Are there effective strategies for reducing recurrences?

Several recent studies provide insights and can be helpful in forming an evidence-based approach that offers modest benefit for reducing the risk of recurrence. Most recently, Kaplan et al. (Clin. Inf. Dis. 2014;58:679-82) reported on a clinical trial of sodium hypochlorite bleach baths combined with hygienic measures (frequent hand washing with soap, cutting fingernails short, using towels or washcloths and clothing without sharing, and daily bathing or showering), compared with hygienic measures alone. The treatment group received twice-weekly hypochlorite baths with 5 mL household bleach (Clorox-Regular 6.0% hypochlorite) per gallon of bath water, followed by moisturizer. Most children were colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)(approximately 70%) or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA)(approximately 30%). In the 12-month follow-up, 20% of children had recurrent skin or soft tissue infection (SSTI). Risk factors for recurrence were young age (<6 years) and burden of colonization (number of colonized sites). A small, nonstatistically significant benefit was observed in the treatment group with a 17% incidence of SSTI, compared with 20.9% in controls (P = 0.15). The authors concluded a bleach bath plus hygiene measures was associated with about a 20% nonstatistically significant decrease in recurrent community-acquired SSTI. No adverse effects of bleach baths were identified.

A second open-label, randomized study by Fritz et al. (Clin. Inf. Dis. 2012;54:743-51) evaluated the value of individual decolonization, compared with household decolonization, in children 6 months through 20 years of age with prior community-acquired SSTI. Cases were randomized to individual decolonization regimens (hygiene, 2% mupirocin for 5 days and 4% chlorhexidine daily body washes) or to household decolonization. Staphylococcal colonization was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. No differences in the rate of eradication of S. aureus were observed between the two strategies, except at 3 months where a greater proportion of children randomized to household decolonization were culture negative. Despite the lack of impact on colonization, SSTI documented by a physician was less common in children where decolonization was householdwide. After 12 months, 36% of children in the household decolonization sites had recurrent SSTI, compared with 55% in the individual decolonization stratum (P = .03). The authors concluded that household decolonization reduces SSTI in both the individual and household contacts.

Another approach to decolonization has been the use of oral antibiotics in combination with mupirocin and hexachloradine. Although data are limited, Miller et al. (Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012;56:1084-6) reported on a small cohort of 31 prospectively evaluated patients with recurrent community-acquired MRSA skin infections. Individuals received nasal mupirocin, topical hexachlorophene body wash, and an oral antibiotic based on susceptibility testing (doxycycline, minocycline, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole). In the 6 months prior to enrollment, the mean rate of SSTI was three infections per person (range, 2-30). The mean number of MRSA infections after the intervention decreased significantly from 0.84 infections per month to 0.03 infections per month during the 5.2-month follow-up. In general, the regimens were well tolerated with minor gastrointestinal complaints. The authors concluded that the combination of systemic and topical antimicrobials was associated with subsequent decreases in community-acquired MRSA SSTI; however, they acknowledged that without a control group, they were unable to be certain that the decrease was due to the prescribed regimen.

Our current approach for children referred with recurrent SSTI is household decolonization with nasal mupirocin and daily hexachloradine baths or showers or hypochlorite baths. The mupirocin is prescribed for 5-10 days; the hexachloradine/hypochlorite baths, for several months. We also stress the need for hygiene, including washing towels and linens in hot water, and cleaning surfaces and items such as remote controls with hypochlorite solutions. Although the value of environmental decontamination is unknown, studies by Uhlemann et al. (PLOS ONE 2011;6: e22407) demonstrated excess contamination of household surfaces in homes of SSTI cases. If recurrences continue, the addition of an antimicrobial agent is considered. We reserve doxycycline for children over 8 years of age and prescribe trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for those younger than 8 years. We also will ask about pets although we are aware of only anecdotal reports where treating the family dog or cat has aborted recurrent disease in the patients.

 

In summary, recurrent SSTI is common, especially among young children. The burden of colonization appears related to both the risk for recurrent disease and the risk for transmission within the household. Reducing colonization is valuable for decreasing the incidence of recurrent SSTI both for the individual as well as the household members. The current strategies demonstrate modest success, but as many as 30%-40% of patients will continue to have recurrent SSTI. Education about the early signs of infection, early evaluation of SSTI, and appropriate management (topical treatment, incision and drainage, or systemic antibiotics) are successful strategies for limiting progression to invasive staphylococcal disease.

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Yildirim is a fellow in pediatric infectious disease and an epidemiologist, at Boston Medical Center. To comment, e-mail Dr. Pelton and Dr. Yildirim at [email protected].

A frequent referral to our pediatric infectious disease outpatient program at Boston Medical Center is the child with recurrent skin and soft tissue infection. Most often, the child is an infant, toddler, or adolescent; the child is otherwise well but has had two or three prior episodes of skin infection; the infections are typically peri-inguinal including the buttocks, but may involve the face, back, thighs, or scalp. The families are often frustrated and hoping for a solution. Are there effective strategies for reducing recurrences?

Several recent studies provide insights and can be helpful in forming an evidence-based approach that offers modest benefit for reducing the risk of recurrence. Most recently, Kaplan et al. (Clin. Inf. Dis. 2014;58:679-82) reported on a clinical trial of sodium hypochlorite bleach baths combined with hygienic measures (frequent hand washing with soap, cutting fingernails short, using towels or washcloths and clothing without sharing, and daily bathing or showering), compared with hygienic measures alone. The treatment group received twice-weekly hypochlorite baths with 5 mL household bleach (Clorox-Regular 6.0% hypochlorite) per gallon of bath water, followed by moisturizer. Most children were colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)(approximately 70%) or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA)(approximately 30%). In the 12-month follow-up, 20% of children had recurrent skin or soft tissue infection (SSTI). Risk factors for recurrence were young age (<6 years) and burden of colonization (number of colonized sites). A small, nonstatistically significant benefit was observed in the treatment group with a 17% incidence of SSTI, compared with 20.9% in controls (P = 0.15). The authors concluded a bleach bath plus hygiene measures was associated with about a 20% nonstatistically significant decrease in recurrent community-acquired SSTI. No adverse effects of bleach baths were identified.

A second open-label, randomized study by Fritz et al. (Clin. Inf. Dis. 2012;54:743-51) evaluated the value of individual decolonization, compared with household decolonization, in children 6 months through 20 years of age with prior community-acquired SSTI. Cases were randomized to individual decolonization regimens (hygiene, 2% mupirocin for 5 days and 4% chlorhexidine daily body washes) or to household decolonization. Staphylococcal colonization was evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. No differences in the rate of eradication of S. aureus were observed between the two strategies, except at 3 months where a greater proportion of children randomized to household decolonization were culture negative. Despite the lack of impact on colonization, SSTI documented by a physician was less common in children where decolonization was householdwide. After 12 months, 36% of children in the household decolonization sites had recurrent SSTI, compared with 55% in the individual decolonization stratum (P = .03). The authors concluded that household decolonization reduces SSTI in both the individual and household contacts.

Another approach to decolonization has been the use of oral antibiotics in combination with mupirocin and hexachloradine. Although data are limited, Miller et al. (Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012;56:1084-6) reported on a small cohort of 31 prospectively evaluated patients with recurrent community-acquired MRSA skin infections. Individuals received nasal mupirocin, topical hexachlorophene body wash, and an oral antibiotic based on susceptibility testing (doxycycline, minocycline, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole). In the 6 months prior to enrollment, the mean rate of SSTI was three infections per person (range, 2-30). The mean number of MRSA infections after the intervention decreased significantly from 0.84 infections per month to 0.03 infections per month during the 5.2-month follow-up. In general, the regimens were well tolerated with minor gastrointestinal complaints. The authors concluded that the combination of systemic and topical antimicrobials was associated with subsequent decreases in community-acquired MRSA SSTI; however, they acknowledged that without a control group, they were unable to be certain that the decrease was due to the prescribed regimen.

Our current approach for children referred with recurrent SSTI is household decolonization with nasal mupirocin and daily hexachloradine baths or showers or hypochlorite baths. The mupirocin is prescribed for 5-10 days; the hexachloradine/hypochlorite baths, for several months. We also stress the need for hygiene, including washing towels and linens in hot water, and cleaning surfaces and items such as remote controls with hypochlorite solutions. Although the value of environmental decontamination is unknown, studies by Uhlemann et al. (PLOS ONE 2011;6: e22407) demonstrated excess contamination of household surfaces in homes of SSTI cases. If recurrences continue, the addition of an antimicrobial agent is considered. We reserve doxycycline for children over 8 years of age and prescribe trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for those younger than 8 years. We also will ask about pets although we are aware of only anecdotal reports where treating the family dog or cat has aborted recurrent disease in the patients.

 

In summary, recurrent SSTI is common, especially among young children. The burden of colonization appears related to both the risk for recurrent disease and the risk for transmission within the household. Reducing colonization is valuable for decreasing the incidence of recurrent SSTI both for the individual as well as the household members. The current strategies demonstrate modest success, but as many as 30%-40% of patients will continue to have recurrent SSTI. Education about the early signs of infection, early evaluation of SSTI, and appropriate management (topical treatment, incision and drainage, or systemic antibiotics) are successful strategies for limiting progression to invasive staphylococcal disease.

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Yildirim is a fellow in pediatric infectious disease and an epidemiologist, at Boston Medical Center. To comment, e-mail Dr. Pelton and Dr. Yildirim at [email protected].

Hospitals and Health Networks in July presented its 16^th annual list of Most Wired Hospitals and Health Systems. Rigorous criteria were used to identify 375 hospitals that use technology to link up disparate care providers and patients. "Most Wired" hospitals are more likely to share critical information electronically with specialists, to use bar codes for matching medications to patients at the bedside, to use IT to reduce the likelihood of medical errors, to better manage care transitions, and to adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health records.

Meanwhile, Eric Wicklund, editor of mHealth News, called for nominations of the best wireless hospitals, which are moving toward a wireless landscape for mobile health technology and engaging an ever more connected consumer population.

“I’ve already got a few on my own list,” he writes, asking his readers to submit examples of programs and projects that are doing it right and using mobile health to make a difference.

MHADegree.org, a resource for students and professionals in health administration, named the top 50 most social media-friendly hospitals for 2013, led by Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.

Hospitals and Health Networks in July presented its 16^th annual list of Most Wired Hospitals and Health Systems. Rigorous criteria were used to identify 375 hospitals that use technology to link up disparate care providers and patients. "Most Wired" hospitals are more likely to share critical information electronically with specialists, to use bar codes for matching medications to patients at the bedside, to use IT to reduce the likelihood of medical errors, to better manage care transitions, and to adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health records.

Meanwhile, Eric Wicklund, editor of mHealth News, called for nominations of the best wireless hospitals, which are moving toward a wireless landscape for mobile health technology and engaging an ever more connected consumer population.

“I’ve already got a few on my own list,” he writes, asking his readers to submit examples of programs and projects that are doing it right and using mobile health to make a difference.

MHADegree.org, a resource for students and professionals in health administration, named the top 50 most social media-friendly hospitals for 2013, led by Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.

Hospitals and Health Networks in July presented its 16^th annual list of Most Wired Hospitals and Health Systems. Rigorous criteria were used to identify 375 hospitals that use technology to link up disparate care providers and patients. "Most Wired" hospitals are more likely to share critical information electronically with specialists, to use bar codes for matching medications to patients at the bedside, to use IT to reduce the likelihood of medical errors, to better manage care transitions, and to adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health records.

Meanwhile, Eric Wicklund, editor of mHealth News, called for nominations of the best wireless hospitals, which are moving toward a wireless landscape for mobile health technology and engaging an ever more connected consumer population.

“I’ve already got a few on my own list,” he writes, asking his readers to submit examples of programs and projects that are doing it right and using mobile health to make a difference.

MHADegree.org, a resource for students and professionals in health administration, named the top 50 most social media-friendly hospitals for 2013, led by Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.

So it’s your first day on the service. Mrs. Jones has been there for 21 days and has a long list of consultants to address her numerous complications. You see her twice before it’s time to pull it all together and package her up for an 11 a.m. transfer to rehab the next morning. But how do you effectively weed through weeks of documentation to come up with the salient points of the hospital stay, and do so in a reasonable amount of time considering you have 20 other patients (and a few inquisitive family members) who require your undivided attention that day as well?

A preliminary discharge summary, prepared the day before anticipated discharge, can make life a lot easier. If your EMR allows you to sort notes by author or service, you can dictate the hospital course by problem more seamlessly than by reviewing the hospitalization on a day-by-day basis, especially if there are multiple notes from PT/OT, pharmacy, and other ancillary services intermingled in the providers’ documentation.

If your EMR allows you to auto-populate diagnostic test results, discharge medications, and instructions directly into a note, you can create this note on the day of actual discharge, and then copy and paste the dictation of the hospital course into the body of the final discharge summary.

Alternatively, if the provider who is better acquainted with the patient does a discharge summary prior to going off service, the upcoming provider need only add an addendum to this summary on the day of discharge. When partners do these summaries for each other, it can be a tremendous time saver. Instead of spending 45-60 minutes drudging through every progress note and consultation on an unfamiliar patient, you are able to review the preliminary discharge summary and pick up the hospital course as you would for a patient admitted the day before who already has an H&P. The doctor going off service may only need to spend 5-10 minutes dictating the summary.

Of course, different groups have different practice styles. Some groups may consistently dictate summaries prior to going off service, while others may not choose this option. There may be other ways to streamline complicated discharge summaries within groups as well, but experimenting with new and innovative ways to improve care and make our lives more efficient in the process may prove to be a win-win for all.

Dr. Hester is a hospitalist at Baltimore-Washington Medical Center in Glen Burnie, Md. She is the creator of the Patient Whiz, a patient-engagement app for iOS. Reach her at [email protected].

So it’s your first day on the service. Mrs. Jones has been there for 21 days and has a long list of consultants to address her numerous complications. You see her twice before it’s time to pull it all together and package her up for an 11 a.m. transfer to rehab the next morning. But how do you effectively weed through weeks of documentation to come up with the salient points of the hospital stay, and do so in a reasonable amount of time considering you have 20 other patients (and a few inquisitive family members) who require your undivided attention that day as well?

A preliminary discharge summary, prepared the day before anticipated discharge, can make life a lot easier. If your EMR allows you to sort notes by author or service, you can dictate the hospital course by problem more seamlessly than by reviewing the hospitalization on a day-by-day basis, especially if there are multiple notes from PT/OT, pharmacy, and other ancillary services intermingled in the providers’ documentation.

If your EMR allows you to auto-populate diagnostic test results, discharge medications, and instructions directly into a note, you can create this note on the day of actual discharge, and then copy and paste the dictation of the hospital course into the body of the final discharge summary.

Alternatively, if the provider who is better acquainted with the patient does a discharge summary prior to going off service, the upcoming provider need only add an addendum to this summary on the day of discharge. When partners do these summaries for each other, it can be a tremendous time saver. Instead of spending 45-60 minutes drudging through every progress note and consultation on an unfamiliar patient, you are able to review the preliminary discharge summary and pick up the hospital course as you would for a patient admitted the day before who already has an H&P. The doctor going off service may only need to spend 5-10 minutes dictating the summary.

Of course, different groups have different practice styles. Some groups may consistently dictate summaries prior to going off service, while others may not choose this option. There may be other ways to streamline complicated discharge summaries within groups as well, but experimenting with new and innovative ways to improve care and make our lives more efficient in the process may prove to be a win-win for all.

Dr. Hester is a hospitalist at Baltimore-Washington Medical Center in Glen Burnie, Md. She is the creator of the Patient Whiz, a patient-engagement app for iOS. Reach her at [email protected].

So it’s your first day on the service. Mrs. Jones has been there for 21 days and has a long list of consultants to address her numerous complications. You see her twice before it’s time to pull it all together and package her up for an 11 a.m. transfer to rehab the next morning. But how do you effectively weed through weeks of documentation to come up with the salient points of the hospital stay, and do so in a reasonable amount of time considering you have 20 other patients (and a few inquisitive family members) who require your undivided attention that day as well?

A preliminary discharge summary, prepared the day before anticipated discharge, can make life a lot easier. If your EMR allows you to sort notes by author or service, you can dictate the hospital course by problem more seamlessly than by reviewing the hospitalization on a day-by-day basis, especially if there are multiple notes from PT/OT, pharmacy, and other ancillary services intermingled in the providers’ documentation.

If your EMR allows you to auto-populate diagnostic test results, discharge medications, and instructions directly into a note, you can create this note on the day of actual discharge, and then copy and paste the dictation of the hospital course into the body of the final discharge summary.

Alternatively, if the provider who is better acquainted with the patient does a discharge summary prior to going off service, the upcoming provider need only add an addendum to this summary on the day of discharge. When partners do these summaries for each other, it can be a tremendous time saver. Instead of spending 45-60 minutes drudging through every progress note and consultation on an unfamiliar patient, you are able to review the preliminary discharge summary and pick up the hospital course as you would for a patient admitted the day before who already has an H&P. The doctor going off service may only need to spend 5-10 minutes dictating the summary.

Of course, different groups have different practice styles. Some groups may consistently dictate summaries prior to going off service, while others may not choose this option. There may be other ways to streamline complicated discharge summaries within groups as well, but experimenting with new and innovative ways to improve care and make our lives more efficient in the process may prove to be a win-win for all.

Dr. Hester is a hospitalist at Baltimore-Washington Medical Center in Glen Burnie, Md. She is the creator of the Patient Whiz, a patient-engagement app for iOS. Reach her at [email protected].

Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, SFHM, medical director of the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine palliative care service, explains palliative care is not end-of-life care, and the role hospitalists should play in palliative cases.

 

 

Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, SFHM, medical director of the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine palliative care service, explains palliative care is not end-of-life care, and the role hospitalists should play in palliative cases.

 

 

Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, SFHM, medical director of the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine palliative care service, explains palliative care is not end-of-life care, and the role hospitalists should play in palliative cases.

 

 

Josiah Halm, MD, and Sahitya Gadiraju, DO, assistant professors of general internal medicine at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, discuss the breadth of care provided to cancer patients, a risk assessment being developed there on readmission risk, and factors in care that go beyond the medical.

Josiah Halm, MD, and Sahitya Gadiraju, DO, assistant professors of general internal medicine at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, discuss the breadth of care provided to cancer patients, a risk assessment being developed there on readmission risk, and factors in care that go beyond the medical.

Josiah Halm, MD, and Sahitya Gadiraju, DO, assistant professors of general internal medicine at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, discuss the breadth of care provided to cancer patients, a risk assessment being developed there on readmission risk, and factors in care that go beyond the medical.

Tough economic times and the unpredictable consequences of health care reform are making a growing number of solo practitioners and small private groups very nervous. I’ve received many inquiries about protective options, such as joining a multispecialty group, or merging two or more small practices into larger entities.

If becoming an employee of a large corporation does not appeal to you, a merger can offer significant advantages in stabilization of income and expenses; but careful planning, and a written agreement, are essential.

If you are considering this option, here are some things to think about:

What is the compensation formula? Will everyone be paid only for what they do individually, or will revenue be shared equally? I favor a combination; productivity is rewarded, but your income doesn’t drop to zero when you take time off.

Who will be in charge, and what percentage vote will be needed to approve important decisions? Typically, the majority rules, but you may wish to create a list of pivotal moves that will require unanimous approval, such as purchasing expensive equipment, borrowing money, or adding new partners.

Will you keep your retirement plans separate, or combine them? If the latter, you will have to agree on the terms of the new plan, which can be the same or different from any of the existing plans. You’ll probably need some legal guidance to ensure that assets from existing plans can be transferred into a new plan without tax issues.

Since most private practices are incorporated, there are two basic options for combining them: Corporation A can simply absorb corporation B; the latter ceases to exist, and corporation A, the so-called “surviving entity,” assumes all assets and liabilities of both old corporations. Corporation B shareholders exchange shares of its stock for shares of corporation A, with adjustments for any inequalities in stock value.

The second option is to start a completely new corporation. Both separate entities dissolve and distribute their equipment and charts to their shareholders, who then transfer the assets to the new corporation.

Option 2 is popular, but I am not a fan. It is billed as an opportunity to start fresh, shielding everyone from exposure to malpractice suits and other liabilities. However, the reality is that anyone looking to sue either old corporation will simply sue the new entity as the so-called “successor” corporation, on the grounds that it has assumed responsibility for its predecessors’ liabilities. You also will need new provider numbers, which may impede cash flow for months. Plus, the IRS treats corporate liquidations, even for merger purposes, as sales of assets, and taxes them.

In general, most experts that I’ve talked with favor outright merger of the corporations. This option is tax neutral, and while it may theoretically be less satisfactory liability-wise, you can minimize risk by examining financial and legal records, and by identifying any glaring flaws in charting or coding. Your lawyers can add “hold harmless” clauses to the merger agreement, indemnifying each party against the others’ liabilities. This area in particular is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

Another common sticking point is known as “equalization.” Ideally, each party brings an equal amount of assets to the table, but in the real world that is rarely the case. One party may contribute more equipment, for example, and the others are often asked to make up the difference (“equalize”) with something else, usually cash.

An alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end, in the form of buyout value; that is, physicians contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts when they leave or retire than those contributing less.

Non-compete provisions are always a difficult issue, mostly because they are so hard (and expensive) to enforce. An increasingly popular alternative is, once again, to deal with it at the other end, with a buyout penalty. An unhappy partner can leave, and compete, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it; and it compensates the remaining partners.

These are only some of the pivotal business and legal issues that must be settled in advance. A little planning and negotiation can prevent a lot of grief, regret, and legal expenses in the future. I’ll mention some other, more complicated merger options in a future column.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Skin & Allergy News. Additional columns are available online at edermatologynews.com.

Tough economic times and the unpredictable consequences of health care reform are making a growing number of solo practitioners and small private groups very nervous. I’ve received many inquiries about protective options, such as joining a multispecialty group, or merging two or more small practices into larger entities.

If becoming an employee of a large corporation does not appeal to you, a merger can offer significant advantages in stabilization of income and expenses; but careful planning, and a written agreement, are essential.

If you are considering this option, here are some things to think about:

What is the compensation formula? Will everyone be paid only for what they do individually, or will revenue be shared equally? I favor a combination; productivity is rewarded, but your income doesn’t drop to zero when you take time off.

Who will be in charge, and what percentage vote will be needed to approve important decisions? Typically, the majority rules, but you may wish to create a list of pivotal moves that will require unanimous approval, such as purchasing expensive equipment, borrowing money, or adding new partners.

Will you keep your retirement plans separate, or combine them? If the latter, you will have to agree on the terms of the new plan, which can be the same or different from any of the existing plans. You’ll probably need some legal guidance to ensure that assets from existing plans can be transferred into a new plan without tax issues.

Since most private practices are incorporated, there are two basic options for combining them: Corporation A can simply absorb corporation B; the latter ceases to exist, and corporation A, the so-called “surviving entity,” assumes all assets and liabilities of both old corporations. Corporation B shareholders exchange shares of its stock for shares of corporation A, with adjustments for any inequalities in stock value.

The second option is to start a completely new corporation. Both separate entities dissolve and distribute their equipment and charts to their shareholders, who then transfer the assets to the new corporation.

Option 2 is popular, but I am not a fan. It is billed as an opportunity to start fresh, shielding everyone from exposure to malpractice suits and other liabilities. However, the reality is that anyone looking to sue either old corporation will simply sue the new entity as the so-called “successor” corporation, on the grounds that it has assumed responsibility for its predecessors’ liabilities. You also will need new provider numbers, which may impede cash flow for months. Plus, the IRS treats corporate liquidations, even for merger purposes, as sales of assets, and taxes them.

In general, most experts that I’ve talked with favor outright merger of the corporations. This option is tax neutral, and while it may theoretically be less satisfactory liability-wise, you can minimize risk by examining financial and legal records, and by identifying any glaring flaws in charting or coding. Your lawyers can add “hold harmless” clauses to the merger agreement, indemnifying each party against the others’ liabilities. This area in particular is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

Another common sticking point is known as “equalization.” Ideally, each party brings an equal amount of assets to the table, but in the real world that is rarely the case. One party may contribute more equipment, for example, and the others are often asked to make up the difference (“equalize”) with something else, usually cash.

An alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end, in the form of buyout value; that is, physicians contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts when they leave or retire than those contributing less.

Non-compete provisions are always a difficult issue, mostly because they are so hard (and expensive) to enforce. An increasingly popular alternative is, once again, to deal with it at the other end, with a buyout penalty. An unhappy partner can leave, and compete, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it; and it compensates the remaining partners.

These are only some of the pivotal business and legal issues that must be settled in advance. A little planning and negotiation can prevent a lot of grief, regret, and legal expenses in the future. I’ll mention some other, more complicated merger options in a future column.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Skin & Allergy News. Additional columns are available online at edermatologynews.com.

Tough economic times and the unpredictable consequences of health care reform are making a growing number of solo practitioners and small private groups very nervous. I’ve received many inquiries about protective options, such as joining a multispecialty group, or merging two or more small practices into larger entities.

If becoming an employee of a large corporation does not appeal to you, a merger can offer significant advantages in stabilization of income and expenses; but careful planning, and a written agreement, are essential.

If you are considering this option, here are some things to think about:

What is the compensation formula? Will everyone be paid only for what they do individually, or will revenue be shared equally? I favor a combination; productivity is rewarded, but your income doesn’t drop to zero when you take time off.

Who will be in charge, and what percentage vote will be needed to approve important decisions? Typically, the majority rules, but you may wish to create a list of pivotal moves that will require unanimous approval, such as purchasing expensive equipment, borrowing money, or adding new partners.

Will you keep your retirement plans separate, or combine them? If the latter, you will have to agree on the terms of the new plan, which can be the same or different from any of the existing plans. You’ll probably need some legal guidance to ensure that assets from existing plans can be transferred into a new plan without tax issues.

Since most private practices are incorporated, there are two basic options for combining them: Corporation A can simply absorb corporation B; the latter ceases to exist, and corporation A, the so-called “surviving entity,” assumes all assets and liabilities of both old corporations. Corporation B shareholders exchange shares of its stock for shares of corporation A, with adjustments for any inequalities in stock value.

The second option is to start a completely new corporation. Both separate entities dissolve and distribute their equipment and charts to their shareholders, who then transfer the assets to the new corporation.

Option 2 is popular, but I am not a fan. It is billed as an opportunity to start fresh, shielding everyone from exposure to malpractice suits and other liabilities. However, the reality is that anyone looking to sue either old corporation will simply sue the new entity as the so-called “successor” corporation, on the grounds that it has assumed responsibility for its predecessors’ liabilities. You also will need new provider numbers, which may impede cash flow for months. Plus, the IRS treats corporate liquidations, even for merger purposes, as sales of assets, and taxes them.

In general, most experts that I’ve talked with favor outright merger of the corporations. This option is tax neutral, and while it may theoretically be less satisfactory liability-wise, you can minimize risk by examining financial and legal records, and by identifying any glaring flaws in charting or coding. Your lawyers can add “hold harmless” clauses to the merger agreement, indemnifying each party against the others’ liabilities. This area in particular is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

Another common sticking point is known as “equalization.” Ideally, each party brings an equal amount of assets to the table, but in the real world that is rarely the case. One party may contribute more equipment, for example, and the others are often asked to make up the difference (“equalize”) with something else, usually cash.

An alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end, in the form of buyout value; that is, physicians contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts when they leave or retire than those contributing less.

Non-compete provisions are always a difficult issue, mostly because they are so hard (and expensive) to enforce. An increasingly popular alternative is, once again, to deal with it at the other end, with a buyout penalty. An unhappy partner can leave, and compete, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it; and it compensates the remaining partners.

These are only some of the pivotal business and legal issues that must be settled in advance. A little planning and negotiation can prevent a lot of grief, regret, and legal expenses in the future. I’ll mention some other, more complicated merger options in a future column.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Skin & Allergy News. Additional columns are available online at edermatologynews.com.