Ob.Gyn. News

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Pregnancy-associated deaths, including drug-related deaths and homicide, were up 35% in 2020, compared with prepandemic 2019, new research indicates.

The data also show a 7.1% decrease in pregnancy-related suicides in 2020 from 2019.

The study, led by Claire E. Margerison, PhD, with the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State University, East Lansing, included 4,528 pregnancy-associated deaths. The rate of deaths per 100,000 live births from April to December 2020 was 66.9 (95% confidence interval, 63.9-70.1). The comparative rate from April to December 2019 was 49.6. Researchers looked at that time period because the pandemic started in March 2020.

The findings were published online in JAMA Open Network.
 

Drug-related deaths up 55.3%

During the study period, drug deaths increased 55.3% and deaths from homicide increased 41.2%. Deaths from obstetric and other causes (mainly vehicle crashes) increased 28.4% and 56.7%, respectively, according to Dr. Margerison's group.

“Although pregnancy-associated deaths increased over time, increases from 2019 to 2020 were substantially larger than increases from 2018 to 2019,” the authors wrote.

The findings align with deaths in the general population in that time frame, they added.

Another study – this one looking at all-cause and cause-specific mortality from 2019 to 2020 in recently pregnant women, also published in JAMA Network Open, found significant racial and ethnic disparities in rates and cause of death.

According to the study, “Compared with non-Hispanic White women, mortality rates were three- to fivefold higher among American Indian or Alaska Native women for every cause, including suicide. Likewise, these findings suggest that non-Hispanic Black women experienced significantly higher mortality rates across causes, with the highest rates for homicide.”

Dr. Margerison and colleagues did not try to answer what caused the increases but pointed to the fentanyl epidemic, the murder of George Floyd, and COVID-19–related economic strain as potential stressors. They also suggest fewer screenings during the pandemic may have played a role.
 

Prevention opportunities missed

“Although pregnancy is considered an opportunity for screening and prevention related to physical, mental, and behavioral health, our data suggest that such opportunities were missed for hundreds of pregnant people during the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

Researchers analyzed cross-sectional U.S. death certificates from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2020, for female U.S. residents ages 15-44 years. They then obtained the count for live births for the same population and time frame from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database.

They were able to identify pregnancy-associated deaths as the 2003 Revised Death Certificate contains a standardized pregnancy checkbox that asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death, or within 43 days to 1 year of death.

Researchers also included deaths with ICD-10 codes linked with death from obstetric causes.

Deaths from overdose, suicide, and homicide are making up large and growing proportions of all deaths during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum, the authors report.

Dr. Margerison and coauthors, in research published in 2022, reported that these causes account for more than one-fifth of all pregnancy-related deaths. They also reported that drug-related deaths and homicides in this population have increased over the past 10 years.

“Substantial racial and ethnic inequities in these deaths exist,” they wrote in that paper.

The authors concluded in the current research: “Our study findings suggest that there is a need for prevention and intervention efforts, including harm-reduction strategies, tailored to pregnant and postpartum women, particularly during times of population stress and decreased utilization of preventive care, such as a pandemic.”

Dr. Margerison and coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor received personal fees from the World Health Organization and Population Reference Bureau outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Mental Health during the study.

*This story was updated on 2/1.

Pregnancy-associated deaths, including drug-related deaths and homicide, were up 35% in 2020, compared with prepandemic 2019, new research indicates.

The data also show a 7.1% decrease in pregnancy-related suicides in 2020 from 2019.

The study, led by Claire E. Margerison, PhD, with the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State University, East Lansing, included 4,528 pregnancy-associated deaths. The rate of deaths per 100,000 live births from April to December 2020 was 66.9 (95% confidence interval, 63.9-70.1). The comparative rate from April to December 2019 was 49.6. Researchers looked at that time period because the pandemic started in March 2020.

The findings were published online in JAMA Open Network.
 

Drug-related deaths up 55.3%

During the study period, drug deaths increased 55.3% and deaths from homicide increased 41.2%. Deaths from obstetric and other causes (mainly vehicle crashes) increased 28.4% and 56.7%, respectively, according to Dr. Margerison's group.

“Although pregnancy-associated deaths increased over time, increases from 2019 to 2020 were substantially larger than increases from 2018 to 2019,” the authors wrote.

The findings align with deaths in the general population in that time frame, they added.

Another study – this one looking at all-cause and cause-specific mortality from 2019 to 2020 in recently pregnant women, also published in JAMA Network Open, found significant racial and ethnic disparities in rates and cause of death.

According to the study, “Compared with non-Hispanic White women, mortality rates were three- to fivefold higher among American Indian or Alaska Native women for every cause, including suicide. Likewise, these findings suggest that non-Hispanic Black women experienced significantly higher mortality rates across causes, with the highest rates for homicide.”

Dr. Margerison and colleagues did not try to answer what caused the increases but pointed to the fentanyl epidemic, the murder of George Floyd, and COVID-19–related economic strain as potential stressors. They also suggest fewer screenings during the pandemic may have played a role.
 

Prevention opportunities missed

“Although pregnancy is considered an opportunity for screening and prevention related to physical, mental, and behavioral health, our data suggest that such opportunities were missed for hundreds of pregnant people during the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

Researchers analyzed cross-sectional U.S. death certificates from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2020, for female U.S. residents ages 15-44 years. They then obtained the count for live births for the same population and time frame from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database.

They were able to identify pregnancy-associated deaths as the 2003 Revised Death Certificate contains a standardized pregnancy checkbox that asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death, or within 43 days to 1 year of death.

Researchers also included deaths with ICD-10 codes linked with death from obstetric causes.

Deaths from overdose, suicide, and homicide are making up large and growing proportions of all deaths during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum, the authors report.

Dr. Margerison and coauthors, in research published in 2022, reported that these causes account for more than one-fifth of all pregnancy-related deaths. They also reported that drug-related deaths and homicides in this population have increased over the past 10 years.

“Substantial racial and ethnic inequities in these deaths exist,” they wrote in that paper.

The authors concluded in the current research: “Our study findings suggest that there is a need for prevention and intervention efforts, including harm-reduction strategies, tailored to pregnant and postpartum women, particularly during times of population stress and decreased utilization of preventive care, such as a pandemic.”

Dr. Margerison and coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor received personal fees from the World Health Organization and Population Reference Bureau outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Mental Health during the study.

*This story was updated on 2/1.

Pregnancy-associated deaths, including drug-related deaths and homicide, were up 35% in 2020, compared with prepandemic 2019, new research indicates.

The data also show a 7.1% decrease in pregnancy-related suicides in 2020 from 2019.

The study, led by Claire E. Margerison, PhD, with the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State University, East Lansing, included 4,528 pregnancy-associated deaths. The rate of deaths per 100,000 live births from April to December 2020 was 66.9 (95% confidence interval, 63.9-70.1). The comparative rate from April to December 2019 was 49.6. Researchers looked at that time period because the pandemic started in March 2020.

The findings were published online in JAMA Open Network.
 

Drug-related deaths up 55.3%

During the study period, drug deaths increased 55.3% and deaths from homicide increased 41.2%. Deaths from obstetric and other causes (mainly vehicle crashes) increased 28.4% and 56.7%, respectively, according to Dr. Margerison's group.

“Although pregnancy-associated deaths increased over time, increases from 2019 to 2020 were substantially larger than increases from 2018 to 2019,” the authors wrote.

The findings align with deaths in the general population in that time frame, they added.

Another study – this one looking at all-cause and cause-specific mortality from 2019 to 2020 in recently pregnant women, also published in JAMA Network Open, found significant racial and ethnic disparities in rates and cause of death.

According to the study, “Compared with non-Hispanic White women, mortality rates were three- to fivefold higher among American Indian or Alaska Native women for every cause, including suicide. Likewise, these findings suggest that non-Hispanic Black women experienced significantly higher mortality rates across causes, with the highest rates for homicide.”

Dr. Margerison and colleagues did not try to answer what caused the increases but pointed to the fentanyl epidemic, the murder of George Floyd, and COVID-19–related economic strain as potential stressors. They also suggest fewer screenings during the pandemic may have played a role.
 

Prevention opportunities missed

“Although pregnancy is considered an opportunity for screening and prevention related to physical, mental, and behavioral health, our data suggest that such opportunities were missed for hundreds of pregnant people during the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

Researchers analyzed cross-sectional U.S. death certificates from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2020, for female U.S. residents ages 15-44 years. They then obtained the count for live births for the same population and time frame from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database.

They were able to identify pregnancy-associated deaths as the 2003 Revised Death Certificate contains a standardized pregnancy checkbox that asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death, or within 43 days to 1 year of death.

Researchers also included deaths with ICD-10 codes linked with death from obstetric causes.

Deaths from overdose, suicide, and homicide are making up large and growing proportions of all deaths during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum, the authors report.

Dr. Margerison and coauthors, in research published in 2022, reported that these causes account for more than one-fifth of all pregnancy-related deaths. They also reported that drug-related deaths and homicides in this population have increased over the past 10 years.

“Substantial racial and ethnic inequities in these deaths exist,” they wrote in that paper.

The authors concluded in the current research: “Our study findings suggest that there is a need for prevention and intervention efforts, including harm-reduction strategies, tailored to pregnant and postpartum women, particularly during times of population stress and decreased utilization of preventive care, such as a pandemic.”

Dr. Margerison and coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor received personal fees from the World Health Organization and Population Reference Bureau outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Mental Health during the study.

*This story was updated on 2/1.

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. The reality is grim: Health care workers across the globe experience violence while at work. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.

“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.

Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.

With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.

They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.

Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.

In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.

Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.

Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.

Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”

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

A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. The reality is grim: Health care workers across the globe experience violence while at work. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.

“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.

Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.

With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.

They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.

Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.

In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.

Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.

Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.

Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”

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

A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. The reality is grim: Health care workers across the globe experience violence while at work. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.

“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.

Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.

With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.

They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.

Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.

In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.

Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.

Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.

Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”

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

At least one state licensing agency is revoking nursing licenses allegedly obtained in a multistate fake diploma scheme.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced charges against 25 owners, operators, and employees of three Florida nursing schools in a fraud scheme in which they sold as many as 7,600 fake nursing degrees.

The purchasers in the diploma scheme paid $10,000 to $15,000 for degrees and transcripts and some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses (LPN/VNs) around the country, according to The New York Times.

Many of the degree recipients went on to work at hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Several national nursing organizations cooperated with the investigation, and the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation already annulled 26 licenses, according to the Delaware Nurses Association. Fake licenses were issued in five states, according to federal reports.

“We are deeply unsettled by this egregious act,” DNA President Stephanie McClellan, MSN, RN, CMSRN, said in the group’s press statement. “We want all Delaware nurses to be aware of this active issue and to speak up if there is a concern regarding capacity to practice safely by a colleague/peer,” she said.

The Oregon State Board of Nursing is also investigating at least a dozen nurses who may have paid for their degrees, according to a Portland CBS affiliate.

The National Council of State Boards of Nursing said in a statement that it had helped authorities identify and monitor the individuals who allegedly provided the false degrees.
 

Nursing community reacts

News of the fraud scheme spread through the nursing community, including social media. “The recent report on falsified nursing school degrees is both heartbreaking and serves as an eye-opener,” tweeted Usha Menon, PhD, RN, FAAN, dean and health professor of the University of South Florida Health College of Nursing. “There was enough of a need that prompted these bad actors to develop a scheme that could’ve endangered dozens of lives.”

Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, the new president of the American Nurses Association, also weighed in. “The accusation that personnel at once-accredited nursing schools allegedly participated in this scheme is simply deplorable. These unlawful and unethical acts disparage the reputation of actual nurses everywhere who have rightfully earned [their titles] through their education, hard work, dedication, and time.”

The false degrees and transcripts were issued by three once-accredited and now-shuttered nursing schools in South Florida: Palm Beach School of Nursing, Sacred Heart International Institute, and Sienna College.

The alleged co-conspirators reportedly made $114 million from the scheme, which dates back to 2016, according to several news reports. Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.

Most LPN programs charge $10,000 to $15,000 to complete a program, Robert Rosseter, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), told this news organization.

None were AACN members, and none were accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, which is AACN’s autonomous accrediting agency, Mr. Rosseter said. AACN membership is voluntary and is open to schools offering baccalaureate or higher degrees, he explained.

“What is disturbing about this investigation is that there are over 7,600 people around the country with fraudulent nursing credentials who are potentially in critical health care roles treating patients,” Chad Yarbrough, acting special agent in charge for the FBI in Miami, said in the federal justice department release.
 

‘Operation Nightingale’ based on tip

The federal action, dubbed “Operation Nightingale” after the nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale, began in 2019. It was based on a tip related to a case in Maryland, according to Nurse.org.

That case ensnared Palm Beach School of Nursing owner Johanah Napoleon, who reportedly was selling fake degrees for $6,000 to $18,000 each to two individuals in Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 and eventually pled guilty. The Florida Board of Nursing shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 owing to its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

Two participants in the bigger scheme who had also worked with Ms. Napoleon – Geralda Adrien and Woosvelt Predestin – were indicted in 2021. Ms. Adrien owned private education companies for people who at aspired to be nurses, and Mr. Predestin was an employee. They were sentenced to 27 months in prison last year and helped the federal officials build the larger case.

The 25 individuals who were charged Jan. 25 operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
 

Schemes lured immigrants

In the scheme involving Siena College, some of the individuals acted as recruiters to direct nurses who were looking for employment to the school, where they allegedly would then pay for an RN or LPN/VN degree. The recipients of the false documents then used them to obtain jobs, including at a hospital in Georgia and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Maryland, according to one indictment. The president of Siena and her co-conspirators sold more than 2,000 fake diplomas, according to charging documents.

At the Palm Beach College of Nursing, individuals at various nursing prep and education programs allegedly helped others obtain fake degrees and transcripts, which were then used to pass RN and LPN/VN licensing exams in states that included Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, according to the indictment.

Some individuals then secured employment with a nursing home in Ohio, a home health agency for pediatric patients in Massachusetts, and skilled nursing facilities in New York and New Jersey.

Prosecutors allege that the president of Sacred Heart International Institute and two other co-conspirators sold 588 fake diplomas.

The FBI said that some of the aspiring nurses who were talked into buying the degrees were LPNs who wanted to become RNs and that most of those lured into the scheme were from South Florida’s Haitian American immigrant community, Nurse.org reported.

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

At least one state licensing agency is revoking nursing licenses allegedly obtained in a multistate fake diploma scheme.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced charges against 25 owners, operators, and employees of three Florida nursing schools in a fraud scheme in which they sold as many as 7,600 fake nursing degrees.

The purchasers in the diploma scheme paid $10,000 to $15,000 for degrees and transcripts and some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses (LPN/VNs) around the country, according to The New York Times.

Many of the degree recipients went on to work at hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Several national nursing organizations cooperated with the investigation, and the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation already annulled 26 licenses, according to the Delaware Nurses Association. Fake licenses were issued in five states, according to federal reports.

“We are deeply unsettled by this egregious act,” DNA President Stephanie McClellan, MSN, RN, CMSRN, said in the group’s press statement. “We want all Delaware nurses to be aware of this active issue and to speak up if there is a concern regarding capacity to practice safely by a colleague/peer,” she said.

The Oregon State Board of Nursing is also investigating at least a dozen nurses who may have paid for their degrees, according to a Portland CBS affiliate.

The National Council of State Boards of Nursing said in a statement that it had helped authorities identify and monitor the individuals who allegedly provided the false degrees.
 

Nursing community reacts

News of the fraud scheme spread through the nursing community, including social media. “The recent report on falsified nursing school degrees is both heartbreaking and serves as an eye-opener,” tweeted Usha Menon, PhD, RN, FAAN, dean and health professor of the University of South Florida Health College of Nursing. “There was enough of a need that prompted these bad actors to develop a scheme that could’ve endangered dozens of lives.”

Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, the new president of the American Nurses Association, also weighed in. “The accusation that personnel at once-accredited nursing schools allegedly participated in this scheme is simply deplorable. These unlawful and unethical acts disparage the reputation of actual nurses everywhere who have rightfully earned [their titles] through their education, hard work, dedication, and time.”

The false degrees and transcripts were issued by three once-accredited and now-shuttered nursing schools in South Florida: Palm Beach School of Nursing, Sacred Heart International Institute, and Sienna College.

The alleged co-conspirators reportedly made $114 million from the scheme, which dates back to 2016, according to several news reports. Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.

Most LPN programs charge $10,000 to $15,000 to complete a program, Robert Rosseter, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), told this news organization.

None were AACN members, and none were accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, which is AACN’s autonomous accrediting agency, Mr. Rosseter said. AACN membership is voluntary and is open to schools offering baccalaureate or higher degrees, he explained.

“What is disturbing about this investigation is that there are over 7,600 people around the country with fraudulent nursing credentials who are potentially in critical health care roles treating patients,” Chad Yarbrough, acting special agent in charge for the FBI in Miami, said in the federal justice department release.
 

‘Operation Nightingale’ based on tip

The federal action, dubbed “Operation Nightingale” after the nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale, began in 2019. It was based on a tip related to a case in Maryland, according to Nurse.org.

That case ensnared Palm Beach School of Nursing owner Johanah Napoleon, who reportedly was selling fake degrees for $6,000 to $18,000 each to two individuals in Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 and eventually pled guilty. The Florida Board of Nursing shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 owing to its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

Two participants in the bigger scheme who had also worked with Ms. Napoleon – Geralda Adrien and Woosvelt Predestin – were indicted in 2021. Ms. Adrien owned private education companies for people who at aspired to be nurses, and Mr. Predestin was an employee. They were sentenced to 27 months in prison last year and helped the federal officials build the larger case.

The 25 individuals who were charged Jan. 25 operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
 

Schemes lured immigrants

In the scheme involving Siena College, some of the individuals acted as recruiters to direct nurses who were looking for employment to the school, where they allegedly would then pay for an RN or LPN/VN degree. The recipients of the false documents then used them to obtain jobs, including at a hospital in Georgia and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Maryland, according to one indictment. The president of Siena and her co-conspirators sold more than 2,000 fake diplomas, according to charging documents.

At the Palm Beach College of Nursing, individuals at various nursing prep and education programs allegedly helped others obtain fake degrees and transcripts, which were then used to pass RN and LPN/VN licensing exams in states that included Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, according to the indictment.

Some individuals then secured employment with a nursing home in Ohio, a home health agency for pediatric patients in Massachusetts, and skilled nursing facilities in New York and New Jersey.

Prosecutors allege that the president of Sacred Heart International Institute and two other co-conspirators sold 588 fake diplomas.

The FBI said that some of the aspiring nurses who were talked into buying the degrees were LPNs who wanted to become RNs and that most of those lured into the scheme were from South Florida’s Haitian American immigrant community, Nurse.org reported.

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

At least one state licensing agency is revoking nursing licenses allegedly obtained in a multistate fake diploma scheme.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced charges against 25 owners, operators, and employees of three Florida nursing schools in a fraud scheme in which they sold as many as 7,600 fake nursing degrees.

The purchasers in the diploma scheme paid $10,000 to $15,000 for degrees and transcripts and some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses (LPN/VNs) around the country, according to The New York Times.

Many of the degree recipients went on to work at hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Several national nursing organizations cooperated with the investigation, and the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation already annulled 26 licenses, according to the Delaware Nurses Association. Fake licenses were issued in five states, according to federal reports.

“We are deeply unsettled by this egregious act,” DNA President Stephanie McClellan, MSN, RN, CMSRN, said in the group’s press statement. “We want all Delaware nurses to be aware of this active issue and to speak up if there is a concern regarding capacity to practice safely by a colleague/peer,” she said.

The Oregon State Board of Nursing is also investigating at least a dozen nurses who may have paid for their degrees, according to a Portland CBS affiliate.

The National Council of State Boards of Nursing said in a statement that it had helped authorities identify and monitor the individuals who allegedly provided the false degrees.
 

Nursing community reacts

News of the fraud scheme spread through the nursing community, including social media. “The recent report on falsified nursing school degrees is both heartbreaking and serves as an eye-opener,” tweeted Usha Menon, PhD, RN, FAAN, dean and health professor of the University of South Florida Health College of Nursing. “There was enough of a need that prompted these bad actors to develop a scheme that could’ve endangered dozens of lives.”

Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, the new president of the American Nurses Association, also weighed in. “The accusation that personnel at once-accredited nursing schools allegedly participated in this scheme is simply deplorable. These unlawful and unethical acts disparage the reputation of actual nurses everywhere who have rightfully earned [their titles] through their education, hard work, dedication, and time.”

The false degrees and transcripts were issued by three once-accredited and now-shuttered nursing schools in South Florida: Palm Beach School of Nursing, Sacred Heart International Institute, and Sienna College.

The alleged co-conspirators reportedly made $114 million from the scheme, which dates back to 2016, according to several news reports. Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.

Most LPN programs charge $10,000 to $15,000 to complete a program, Robert Rosseter, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), told this news organization.

None were AACN members, and none were accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, which is AACN’s autonomous accrediting agency, Mr. Rosseter said. AACN membership is voluntary and is open to schools offering baccalaureate or higher degrees, he explained.

“What is disturbing about this investigation is that there are over 7,600 people around the country with fraudulent nursing credentials who are potentially in critical health care roles treating patients,” Chad Yarbrough, acting special agent in charge for the FBI in Miami, said in the federal justice department release.
 

‘Operation Nightingale’ based on tip

The federal action, dubbed “Operation Nightingale” after the nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale, began in 2019. It was based on a tip related to a case in Maryland, according to Nurse.org.

That case ensnared Palm Beach School of Nursing owner Johanah Napoleon, who reportedly was selling fake degrees for $6,000 to $18,000 each to two individuals in Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 and eventually pled guilty. The Florida Board of Nursing shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 owing to its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

Two participants in the bigger scheme who had also worked with Ms. Napoleon – Geralda Adrien and Woosvelt Predestin – were indicted in 2021. Ms. Adrien owned private education companies for people who at aspired to be nurses, and Mr. Predestin was an employee. They were sentenced to 27 months in prison last year and helped the federal officials build the larger case.

The 25 individuals who were charged Jan. 25 operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
 

Schemes lured immigrants

In the scheme involving Siena College, some of the individuals acted as recruiters to direct nurses who were looking for employment to the school, where they allegedly would then pay for an RN or LPN/VN degree. The recipients of the false documents then used them to obtain jobs, including at a hospital in Georgia and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Maryland, according to one indictment. The president of Siena and her co-conspirators sold more than 2,000 fake diplomas, according to charging documents.

At the Palm Beach College of Nursing, individuals at various nursing prep and education programs allegedly helped others obtain fake degrees and transcripts, which were then used to pass RN and LPN/VN licensing exams in states that included Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, according to the indictment.

Some individuals then secured employment with a nursing home in Ohio, a home health agency for pediatric patients in Massachusetts, and skilled nursing facilities in New York and New Jersey.

Prosecutors allege that the president of Sacred Heart International Institute and two other co-conspirators sold 588 fake diplomas.

The FBI said that some of the aspiring nurses who were talked into buying the degrees were LPNs who wanted to become RNs and that most of those lured into the scheme were from South Florida’s Haitian American immigrant community, Nurse.org reported.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

In 2021, Eugene Kim, MD, division director of pediatric surgery and vice chair in the department of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, gave his presidential address to the Association for Academic Surgery.

“Presidents tend to give a message of hope or inspiration; I probably took it in a different way,” he said.

Dr. Kim told the story of one of his clinical partners, Eveline Shue, who, after five rounds of in vitro fertilization (IVF), became pregnant with twins. A high-achiever in her field, Ms. Shue continued working the grueling hours required by her job throughout pregnancy until she noticed concerning symptoms – musculoskeletal issues, extreme swelling, and more. She and her group decided that she should step back from work in her third trimester. A few days later, Ms. Shue suffered a stroke. She was rushed to the hospital where her babies were delivered by emergency C-section. Ms. Shue underwent brain surgery but later recovered and is still practicing in Southern California.

“I remember being at her bedside thinking, ‘How could we have let this happen? How could we have prevented this?’ ”

Dr. Kim’s speech kicked off a firestorm of awareness about pregnancy complications among physicians. “I got scores of emails from women around the country, surgeons in particular, who felt like their issues had been seen. The conversation was long overdue,” he said.

Family planning issues, pregnancy complications, infertility, and pregnancy loss are common, pervasive, and often silent issues in medicine. In July 2021, Dr. Kim and a group of other researchers published a study in JAMA Surgery. It revealed staggering truths: When compared to non-surgeons, female surgeons were more likely to delay pregnancy, use assisted reproductive technology such as IVF, have non-elective C-sections, and suffer pregnancy loss. In the study, 42% of surgeons had experienced pregnancy loss – more than double the rate of the general population. Almost half had serious pregnancy complications.

Research has found that female physicians in general have a significantly greater incidence of miscarriage, infertility, and pregnancy complications than the general population. According to a 2016 survey in the Journal of Women’s Health, the infertility rate for physicians is nearly 1 in 4, about double the rate of the general public.
 

The barriers to starting a family

Physicians face significant professional barriers that impact family planning. Demanding jobs with exhausting and often unpredictable hours contribute to a culture that, traditionally, has been far from family friendly. As a result, many physicians start families later. “For a pediatric surgeon, you finish training at age 35 – minimum,” says Dr. Kim. “Simply being a surgeon makes you a high-risk pregnancy candidate just because of the career.”

In 2020, Ariela L. Marshall, MD, an associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman school of medicine, co-authored a commentary article in Academic Medicine titled “Physician Fertility: A Call to Action” which was based on her own experiences with infertility. Dr. Marshall was 34 when she and her husband decided to start a family, and she says her infertility diagnosis “came as a shock.”

“I never stopped to think about the consequences of a career path where I’m not going to be established until my 30s,” Dr. Marshall says. “I never thought about how long hours, overnight shifts, or working all the time could impact my fertility.”

It would take four cycles of IVF egg retrieval to create embryos and one failed implantation before Dr. Marshall became pregnant with her son.

When it comes to the timing of pregnancy, medical culture also plays a role. “There’s a lot of messaging around when it’s appropriate to carry a baby – and it’s not until after training is done,” says Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, a clinical associate professor and special advisor for DEI programs at Stanford (Calif.) University’s department of medicine.

There are always exceptions. Some institutions are more flexible than others about pregnancy during residency. But Dr. Salles notes that this attitude is “not universal,” partly because of the lack of a comprehensive approach to pregnancy or parenthood in the United States. “There’s no federal paid parental leave in this country,” reminds Dr. Salles. “That signals that we don’t value parenting.”

The trickle-down effect of this in medicine is more like a waterfall. Some physicians complain when other physicians are out on leave. There’s an additional burden of work when people take time away, and there are often no support structures in place for backup or fill-in care. Dr. Salles said doctors often tell her that they were responsible for finding coverage for any time off during pregnancy or after becoming a parent. A paper of hers published in JAMA Surgery found that, for physicians, a fear of burdening others was a major barrier to getting pregnant during residency in the first place.
 

The physical consequences

Although research supports the benefits of physical activity throughout pregnancy, a job such as surgery that requires being on your feet for long periods of time “is not the same as exercise,” explains Erika Lu Rangel, MD, a gastrointestinal surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Dr. Kim’s lead author on the JAMA Surgery article.

Surgeons operating for more than 12 hours a week are at higher risk for pregnancy complications, the study found. Dr. Rangel also cites data suggesting that night shifts or swing shifts (the hours between day and night) put women at higher risk for pregnancy complications.

Equally alarming: Medical trainees appear to have “almost as high a rate of pregnancy complications as surgeons who have already completed their training,” said Dr. Rangel. It is a concerning finding since, as a younger cohort, they should have lower complication rates based on their age. But doctors in training may be on their feet even more than surgeons during long shifts.

Like Dr. Salles, Dr. Rangel sees these issues as part of a pervasive culture of “presenteeism” in medicine, and she points out that many surgeons don’t even take time off to grieve pregnancy loss or physically recover from it. “We work even when we’re sick and even when it’s not good for our health,” she said. “I think that’s an unhealthy behavior that we cultivate from the time that we’re trainees, and we carry it on through when we’re in practice.”

Penn Medicine’s Dr. Marshall remembers that her own maternity leave was “not an easy process to navigate.” From her hospital room on a magnesium drip for preeclampsia, she still attended Zoom meetings with her colleagues. “Nobody says, ‘Oh, you have to do this,’ ” Dr. Marshall explains, “but you wind up feeling guilty if you’re not there at all moments for everyone. That’s also something that needs to change.” 

Dr. Rangel was pregnant with her oldest son as a fourth-year surgery resident. The day she gave birth to him she remembers waking up with a flu-like illness and a fever. She went to work anyway, because “you don’t call in sick as a resident.” She was barely able to complete her rounds and then had to lie down between cases. A co-resident found her and took her to labor and delivery. She had gone into premature labor at 37 weeks, and her son went into the NICU with complications.

“I remember feeling this enormous guilt,” says Dr. Rangel. “I’d been a mom for just a few minutes, and I felt like I had already failed him because I had prioritized what the residency thought of me above what I knew was necessary for his health.”
 

Hope for the future

Disturbed by the status quo, many physicians are pushing for change. “I think there’s a really important and positive conversation going on in the medical community right now about ways that we need to support new parent physicians,” said Dr. Rangel.

Parental leave is a key part of that support. Last year, The American Board of Medical Specialties enacted a mandate that all specialty boards 2 years or more in duration must provide at least 6 weeks of parental and caregiver leave. In 2023, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) required that all training programs match that policy. “This sends a message to policymakers and leaders in American medicine that this is a priority,” said Dr. Rangel.

In January 2022, a group from the University of Michigan also published an article in the Annals of Surgery called “Safe and Supported Pregnancy: A Call to Action for Surgery Chairs and Program Directors”. The essay urged leading groups such as the ACGME and the American Board of Surgery to “directly address the health and safety of pregnant trainees” and specifically, to “allow for further flexibility during training for pregnancy and peripartum periods,” calling these “fundamental necessities for cultural progress.”

Others have recommended allowing pregnant trainees more flexibility in their schedules or front-loading certain parts of the training that may be more difficult as a pregnancy progresses. Insurance coverage for fertility preservation and reproductive endocrinology services, and support for reentry (including lactation and childcare) are also issues that must be addressed, says Dr. Salles.

A new paper of Dr. Rangel’s, published in JAMA Surgery, suggests that things like mentorship for residents from faculty can also be important pieces of the puzzle.

Education about reproductive health must start earlier, too – as early as medical school. Research suggests only 8% of physicians receive education on the risks of delaying pregnancy. Those who do are significantly less likely to experience pregnancy loss or seek infertility treatment.

Dr. Salles recalls sitting in a classroom learning about advanced maternal age at a time when age 35 seemed unimaginably distant. “It was never taught – at least to my recollection – in a way that was like, ‘this could be your future,’ ” Dr. Salles says.” It was more like this abstract patient who might have advanced maternal age and what the consequences would be. Maybe some of my colleagues put two and two together, but I definitely didn’t.”

Dr. Marshall is the curriculum chair for the IGNITEMed Initiative, which aims to educate medical students about issues not discussed in traditional medical school curricula. Dr. Marshall and her colleague Julia Files, MD, talk with IGNITEMed students about reproductive life planning.

“Raising awareness is a very big thing. That’s not just true for medical students but for professionals at every level of medicine,” Dr. Marshall said. “Residency and fellowship training program directors, department chairs, and hospital CEOs all need to understand that these issues are very common in the people they oversee – and that they are medical issues, like any other medical issue, where people need time off and support.”

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

In 2021, Eugene Kim, MD, division director of pediatric surgery and vice chair in the department of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, gave his presidential address to the Association for Academic Surgery.

“Presidents tend to give a message of hope or inspiration; I probably took it in a different way,” he said.

Dr. Kim told the story of one of his clinical partners, Eveline Shue, who, after five rounds of in vitro fertilization (IVF), became pregnant with twins. A high-achiever in her field, Ms. Shue continued working the grueling hours required by her job throughout pregnancy until she noticed concerning symptoms – musculoskeletal issues, extreme swelling, and more. She and her group decided that she should step back from work in her third trimester. A few days later, Ms. Shue suffered a stroke. She was rushed to the hospital where her babies were delivered by emergency C-section. Ms. Shue underwent brain surgery but later recovered and is still practicing in Southern California.

“I remember being at her bedside thinking, ‘How could we have let this happen? How could we have prevented this?’ ”

Dr. Kim’s speech kicked off a firestorm of awareness about pregnancy complications among physicians. “I got scores of emails from women around the country, surgeons in particular, who felt like their issues had been seen. The conversation was long overdue,” he said.

Family planning issues, pregnancy complications, infertility, and pregnancy loss are common, pervasive, and often silent issues in medicine. In July 2021, Dr. Kim and a group of other researchers published a study in JAMA Surgery. It revealed staggering truths: When compared to non-surgeons, female surgeons were more likely to delay pregnancy, use assisted reproductive technology such as IVF, have non-elective C-sections, and suffer pregnancy loss. In the study, 42% of surgeons had experienced pregnancy loss – more than double the rate of the general population. Almost half had serious pregnancy complications.

Research has found that female physicians in general have a significantly greater incidence of miscarriage, infertility, and pregnancy complications than the general population. According to a 2016 survey in the Journal of Women’s Health, the infertility rate for physicians is nearly 1 in 4, about double the rate of the general public.
 

The barriers to starting a family

Physicians face significant professional barriers that impact family planning. Demanding jobs with exhausting and often unpredictable hours contribute to a culture that, traditionally, has been far from family friendly. As a result, many physicians start families later. “For a pediatric surgeon, you finish training at age 35 – minimum,” says Dr. Kim. “Simply being a surgeon makes you a high-risk pregnancy candidate just because of the career.”

In 2020, Ariela L. Marshall, MD, an associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman school of medicine, co-authored a commentary article in Academic Medicine titled “Physician Fertility: A Call to Action” which was based on her own experiences with infertility. Dr. Marshall was 34 when she and her husband decided to start a family, and she says her infertility diagnosis “came as a shock.”

“I never stopped to think about the consequences of a career path where I’m not going to be established until my 30s,” Dr. Marshall says. “I never thought about how long hours, overnight shifts, or working all the time could impact my fertility.”

It would take four cycles of IVF egg retrieval to create embryos and one failed implantation before Dr. Marshall became pregnant with her son.

When it comes to the timing of pregnancy, medical culture also plays a role. “There’s a lot of messaging around when it’s appropriate to carry a baby – and it’s not until after training is done,” says Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, a clinical associate professor and special advisor for DEI programs at Stanford (Calif.) University’s department of medicine.

There are always exceptions. Some institutions are more flexible than others about pregnancy during residency. But Dr. Salles notes that this attitude is “not universal,” partly because of the lack of a comprehensive approach to pregnancy or parenthood in the United States. “There’s no federal paid parental leave in this country,” reminds Dr. Salles. “That signals that we don’t value parenting.”

The trickle-down effect of this in medicine is more like a waterfall. Some physicians complain when other physicians are out on leave. There’s an additional burden of work when people take time away, and there are often no support structures in place for backup or fill-in care. Dr. Salles said doctors often tell her that they were responsible for finding coverage for any time off during pregnancy or after becoming a parent. A paper of hers published in JAMA Surgery found that, for physicians, a fear of burdening others was a major barrier to getting pregnant during residency in the first place.
 

The physical consequences

Although research supports the benefits of physical activity throughout pregnancy, a job such as surgery that requires being on your feet for long periods of time “is not the same as exercise,” explains Erika Lu Rangel, MD, a gastrointestinal surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Dr. Kim’s lead author on the JAMA Surgery article.

Surgeons operating for more than 12 hours a week are at higher risk for pregnancy complications, the study found. Dr. Rangel also cites data suggesting that night shifts or swing shifts (the hours between day and night) put women at higher risk for pregnancy complications.

Equally alarming: Medical trainees appear to have “almost as high a rate of pregnancy complications as surgeons who have already completed their training,” said Dr. Rangel. It is a concerning finding since, as a younger cohort, they should have lower complication rates based on their age. But doctors in training may be on their feet even more than surgeons during long shifts.

Like Dr. Salles, Dr. Rangel sees these issues as part of a pervasive culture of “presenteeism” in medicine, and she points out that many surgeons don’t even take time off to grieve pregnancy loss or physically recover from it. “We work even when we’re sick and even when it’s not good for our health,” she said. “I think that’s an unhealthy behavior that we cultivate from the time that we’re trainees, and we carry it on through when we’re in practice.”

Penn Medicine’s Dr. Marshall remembers that her own maternity leave was “not an easy process to navigate.” From her hospital room on a magnesium drip for preeclampsia, she still attended Zoom meetings with her colleagues. “Nobody says, ‘Oh, you have to do this,’ ” Dr. Marshall explains, “but you wind up feeling guilty if you’re not there at all moments for everyone. That’s also something that needs to change.” 

Dr. Rangel was pregnant with her oldest son as a fourth-year surgery resident. The day she gave birth to him she remembers waking up with a flu-like illness and a fever. She went to work anyway, because “you don’t call in sick as a resident.” She was barely able to complete her rounds and then had to lie down between cases. A co-resident found her and took her to labor and delivery. She had gone into premature labor at 37 weeks, and her son went into the NICU with complications.

“I remember feeling this enormous guilt,” says Dr. Rangel. “I’d been a mom for just a few minutes, and I felt like I had already failed him because I had prioritized what the residency thought of me above what I knew was necessary for his health.”
 

Hope for the future

Disturbed by the status quo, many physicians are pushing for change. “I think there’s a really important and positive conversation going on in the medical community right now about ways that we need to support new parent physicians,” said Dr. Rangel.

Parental leave is a key part of that support. Last year, The American Board of Medical Specialties enacted a mandate that all specialty boards 2 years or more in duration must provide at least 6 weeks of parental and caregiver leave. In 2023, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) required that all training programs match that policy. “This sends a message to policymakers and leaders in American medicine that this is a priority,” said Dr. Rangel.

In January 2022, a group from the University of Michigan also published an article in the Annals of Surgery called “Safe and Supported Pregnancy: A Call to Action for Surgery Chairs and Program Directors”. The essay urged leading groups such as the ACGME and the American Board of Surgery to “directly address the health and safety of pregnant trainees” and specifically, to “allow for further flexibility during training for pregnancy and peripartum periods,” calling these “fundamental necessities for cultural progress.”

Others have recommended allowing pregnant trainees more flexibility in their schedules or front-loading certain parts of the training that may be more difficult as a pregnancy progresses. Insurance coverage for fertility preservation and reproductive endocrinology services, and support for reentry (including lactation and childcare) are also issues that must be addressed, says Dr. Salles.

A new paper of Dr. Rangel’s, published in JAMA Surgery, suggests that things like mentorship for residents from faculty can also be important pieces of the puzzle.

Education about reproductive health must start earlier, too – as early as medical school. Research suggests only 8% of physicians receive education on the risks of delaying pregnancy. Those who do are significantly less likely to experience pregnancy loss or seek infertility treatment.

Dr. Salles recalls sitting in a classroom learning about advanced maternal age at a time when age 35 seemed unimaginably distant. “It was never taught – at least to my recollection – in a way that was like, ‘this could be your future,’ ” Dr. Salles says.” It was more like this abstract patient who might have advanced maternal age and what the consequences would be. Maybe some of my colleagues put two and two together, but I definitely didn’t.”

Dr. Marshall is the curriculum chair for the IGNITEMed Initiative, which aims to educate medical students about issues not discussed in traditional medical school curricula. Dr. Marshall and her colleague Julia Files, MD, talk with IGNITEMed students about reproductive life planning.

“Raising awareness is a very big thing. That’s not just true for medical students but for professionals at every level of medicine,” Dr. Marshall said. “Residency and fellowship training program directors, department chairs, and hospital CEOs all need to understand that these issues are very common in the people they oversee – and that they are medical issues, like any other medical issue, where people need time off and support.”

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

In 2021, Eugene Kim, MD, division director of pediatric surgery and vice chair in the department of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, gave his presidential address to the Association for Academic Surgery.

“Presidents tend to give a message of hope or inspiration; I probably took it in a different way,” he said.

Dr. Kim told the story of one of his clinical partners, Eveline Shue, who, after five rounds of in vitro fertilization (IVF), became pregnant with twins. A high-achiever in her field, Ms. Shue continued working the grueling hours required by her job throughout pregnancy until she noticed concerning symptoms – musculoskeletal issues, extreme swelling, and more. She and her group decided that she should step back from work in her third trimester. A few days later, Ms. Shue suffered a stroke. She was rushed to the hospital where her babies were delivered by emergency C-section. Ms. Shue underwent brain surgery but later recovered and is still practicing in Southern California.

“I remember being at her bedside thinking, ‘How could we have let this happen? How could we have prevented this?’ ”

Dr. Kim’s speech kicked off a firestorm of awareness about pregnancy complications among physicians. “I got scores of emails from women around the country, surgeons in particular, who felt like their issues had been seen. The conversation was long overdue,” he said.

Family planning issues, pregnancy complications, infertility, and pregnancy loss are common, pervasive, and often silent issues in medicine. In July 2021, Dr. Kim and a group of other researchers published a study in JAMA Surgery. It revealed staggering truths: When compared to non-surgeons, female surgeons were more likely to delay pregnancy, use assisted reproductive technology such as IVF, have non-elective C-sections, and suffer pregnancy loss. In the study, 42% of surgeons had experienced pregnancy loss – more than double the rate of the general population. Almost half had serious pregnancy complications.

Research has found that female physicians in general have a significantly greater incidence of miscarriage, infertility, and pregnancy complications than the general population. According to a 2016 survey in the Journal of Women’s Health, the infertility rate for physicians is nearly 1 in 4, about double the rate of the general public.
 

The barriers to starting a family

Physicians face significant professional barriers that impact family planning. Demanding jobs with exhausting and often unpredictable hours contribute to a culture that, traditionally, has been far from family friendly. As a result, many physicians start families later. “For a pediatric surgeon, you finish training at age 35 – minimum,” says Dr. Kim. “Simply being a surgeon makes you a high-risk pregnancy candidate just because of the career.”

In 2020, Ariela L. Marshall, MD, an associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman school of medicine, co-authored a commentary article in Academic Medicine titled “Physician Fertility: A Call to Action” which was based on her own experiences with infertility. Dr. Marshall was 34 when she and her husband decided to start a family, and she says her infertility diagnosis “came as a shock.”

“I never stopped to think about the consequences of a career path where I’m not going to be established until my 30s,” Dr. Marshall says. “I never thought about how long hours, overnight shifts, or working all the time could impact my fertility.”

It would take four cycles of IVF egg retrieval to create embryos and one failed implantation before Dr. Marshall became pregnant with her son.

When it comes to the timing of pregnancy, medical culture also plays a role. “There’s a lot of messaging around when it’s appropriate to carry a baby – and it’s not until after training is done,” says Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, a clinical associate professor and special advisor for DEI programs at Stanford (Calif.) University’s department of medicine.

There are always exceptions. Some institutions are more flexible than others about pregnancy during residency. But Dr. Salles notes that this attitude is “not universal,” partly because of the lack of a comprehensive approach to pregnancy or parenthood in the United States. “There’s no federal paid parental leave in this country,” reminds Dr. Salles. “That signals that we don’t value parenting.”

The trickle-down effect of this in medicine is more like a waterfall. Some physicians complain when other physicians are out on leave. There’s an additional burden of work when people take time away, and there are often no support structures in place for backup or fill-in care. Dr. Salles said doctors often tell her that they were responsible for finding coverage for any time off during pregnancy or after becoming a parent. A paper of hers published in JAMA Surgery found that, for physicians, a fear of burdening others was a major barrier to getting pregnant during residency in the first place.
 

The physical consequences

Although research supports the benefits of physical activity throughout pregnancy, a job such as surgery that requires being on your feet for long periods of time “is not the same as exercise,” explains Erika Lu Rangel, MD, a gastrointestinal surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Dr. Kim’s lead author on the JAMA Surgery article.

Surgeons operating for more than 12 hours a week are at higher risk for pregnancy complications, the study found. Dr. Rangel also cites data suggesting that night shifts or swing shifts (the hours between day and night) put women at higher risk for pregnancy complications.

Equally alarming: Medical trainees appear to have “almost as high a rate of pregnancy complications as surgeons who have already completed their training,” said Dr. Rangel. It is a concerning finding since, as a younger cohort, they should have lower complication rates based on their age. But doctors in training may be on their feet even more than surgeons during long shifts.

Like Dr. Salles, Dr. Rangel sees these issues as part of a pervasive culture of “presenteeism” in medicine, and she points out that many surgeons don’t even take time off to grieve pregnancy loss or physically recover from it. “We work even when we’re sick and even when it’s not good for our health,” she said. “I think that’s an unhealthy behavior that we cultivate from the time that we’re trainees, and we carry it on through when we’re in practice.”

Penn Medicine’s Dr. Marshall remembers that her own maternity leave was “not an easy process to navigate.” From her hospital room on a magnesium drip for preeclampsia, she still attended Zoom meetings with her colleagues. “Nobody says, ‘Oh, you have to do this,’ ” Dr. Marshall explains, “but you wind up feeling guilty if you’re not there at all moments for everyone. That’s also something that needs to change.” 

Dr. Rangel was pregnant with her oldest son as a fourth-year surgery resident. The day she gave birth to him she remembers waking up with a flu-like illness and a fever. She went to work anyway, because “you don’t call in sick as a resident.” She was barely able to complete her rounds and then had to lie down between cases. A co-resident found her and took her to labor and delivery. She had gone into premature labor at 37 weeks, and her son went into the NICU with complications.

“I remember feeling this enormous guilt,” says Dr. Rangel. “I’d been a mom for just a few minutes, and I felt like I had already failed him because I had prioritized what the residency thought of me above what I knew was necessary for his health.”
 

Hope for the future

Disturbed by the status quo, many physicians are pushing for change. “I think there’s a really important and positive conversation going on in the medical community right now about ways that we need to support new parent physicians,” said Dr. Rangel.

Parental leave is a key part of that support. Last year, The American Board of Medical Specialties enacted a mandate that all specialty boards 2 years or more in duration must provide at least 6 weeks of parental and caregiver leave. In 2023, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) required that all training programs match that policy. “This sends a message to policymakers and leaders in American medicine that this is a priority,” said Dr. Rangel.

In January 2022, a group from the University of Michigan also published an article in the Annals of Surgery called “Safe and Supported Pregnancy: A Call to Action for Surgery Chairs and Program Directors”. The essay urged leading groups such as the ACGME and the American Board of Surgery to “directly address the health and safety of pregnant trainees” and specifically, to “allow for further flexibility during training for pregnancy and peripartum periods,” calling these “fundamental necessities for cultural progress.”

Others have recommended allowing pregnant trainees more flexibility in their schedules or front-loading certain parts of the training that may be more difficult as a pregnancy progresses. Insurance coverage for fertility preservation and reproductive endocrinology services, and support for reentry (including lactation and childcare) are also issues that must be addressed, says Dr. Salles.

A new paper of Dr. Rangel’s, published in JAMA Surgery, suggests that things like mentorship for residents from faculty can also be important pieces of the puzzle.

Education about reproductive health must start earlier, too – as early as medical school. Research suggests only 8% of physicians receive education on the risks of delaying pregnancy. Those who do are significantly less likely to experience pregnancy loss or seek infertility treatment.

Dr. Salles recalls sitting in a classroom learning about advanced maternal age at a time when age 35 seemed unimaginably distant. “It was never taught – at least to my recollection – in a way that was like, ‘this could be your future,’ ” Dr. Salles says.” It was more like this abstract patient who might have advanced maternal age and what the consequences would be. Maybe some of my colleagues put two and two together, but I definitely didn’t.”

Dr. Marshall is the curriculum chair for the IGNITEMed Initiative, which aims to educate medical students about issues not discussed in traditional medical school curricula. Dr. Marshall and her colleague Julia Files, MD, talk with IGNITEMed students about reproductive life planning.

“Raising awareness is a very big thing. That’s not just true for medical students but for professionals at every level of medicine,” Dr. Marshall said. “Residency and fellowship training program directors, department chairs, and hospital CEOs all need to understand that these issues are very common in the people they oversee – and that they are medical issues, like any other medical issue, where people need time off and support.”

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

Montrouge, France – Whether you are a cisgender woman or a transgender man who has kept his uterus, regardless of the sex of your partner, and even if you are a woman who is no longer sexually active, you must take part in cervical cancer screening. This is the reminder issued by Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, at a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical-Vaginal Diseases Society (SFCPCV).

Cervical screening currently targets asymptomatic, immunocompetent, and sexually active women between ages 25 and 65 years. During her presentation, Dr. Maruani insisted that screening should not discriminate based on a patient’s sexual activity.
 

Sex between women

There is a widely held belief that only men can transmit human papillomavirus (HPV). “If you are in a sexual relationship with a man, then yes, you can get HPV from him. But it’s also possible for HPV to be transmitted in a sexual relationship between two women via touch, bodily fluids, or sex toys,” said Dr. Maruani, who pointed out that 20% of lesbians and 30% of bisexual women are HPV carriers.

Because women who have sexual relationships with other women have the mistaken view that their demographic is less affected, they are less likely to take part in cervical screening. They also present more often with advanced lesions and with cancer because of the lack of screening in this group.
 

Transgender men

Dr. Maruani defines transgender men as “women who have changed gender and who have become men.” Why are they affected by cervical screening? Not all of them are. Those who’ve had their uterus removed no longer have a cervix, so this screening doesn’t affect them. But hysterectomies are rarely performed, as they’re not required in most European countries to legally change gender.

The figures are concerning: 27% of transgender men are screened versus 60% of cisgender females.

“For this demographic, specialist gynecology appointments are hard to come by. Sitting in a women’s waiting room is not easy,” said Dr. Maruani, recalling that often discussion about the transition phase takes up the entire appointment time. It’s also usually the case that any medical problems or health care prevention issues not related to the topic of transitioning are not discussed.

Moreover, the online appointment-booking software doesn’t allow transgender men who have kept their cervix and legally identify as men to make an appointment. “Gynecologists must disable this default option,” said Dr. Maruani.

Likewise, transgender men will not receive an invitation to take part in cervical or breast cancer screening, as they are identified as male by social security services and screening sites. Furthermore, in what Dr. Maruani referred to as an “administrative head-scratcher that needs to change,” some medical procedures are not funded for men.

Yet the risk of contracting HPV is higher among transgender men than in the rest of the population because of different sexual practices in this demographic, as well as the propensity to have multiple sexual partners. The risk of finding abnormalities on cytology screening is greater.

Although data regarding cancer are lacking, “if screening is inadequate but the risk of infection with HPV is great, logic tells us that there will be more lesions, more cancer” in this demographic, said Dr. Maruani.
 

Celibate women

Nowadays, screening drops with age in women, especially after menopause. This is especially true for women who are no longer sexually active. Another preconceived notion to be addressed is that women who are no longer sexually active no longer need screening. But this concept completely goes against the natural history of HPV infection. “There are years, at least 5, between infection and the development of precancerous lesions. There is a further 5 years between a precancerous lesion and cancer,” said Dr. Maruani.

A woman could still be at risk even 20 years after contracting HPV. Approximately 80% of women are exposed to HPV, and 5%-10% have a persistent infection that could lead to the development of precancerous lesions.

“So, a woman who is no longer sexually active can’t stop participating in cervical screening, especially since there aren’t any symptoms until a fairly advanced stage of cancer.” No longer having sex does not mean that screening can be stopped.

What treatment is appropriate for partners of a woman who is no longer sexually active? None. During the press conference, the specialists agreed that a positive HPV test would be of importance to her partner. Even so, they recalled that the infection would generally be an old one and that the woman’s partner (whether male or female) would therefore have probably already been exposed to it. Patients should also be reminded that, in the past, cytology testing did not look for HPV, so the virus could already have been there. According to these specialists, you don’t need to change your sexual habits, just continue to monitor yourself.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version first appeared on Medscape.com.

Montrouge, France – Whether you are a cisgender woman or a transgender man who has kept his uterus, regardless of the sex of your partner, and even if you are a woman who is no longer sexually active, you must take part in cervical cancer screening. This is the reminder issued by Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, at a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical-Vaginal Diseases Society (SFCPCV).

Cervical screening currently targets asymptomatic, immunocompetent, and sexually active women between ages 25 and 65 years. During her presentation, Dr. Maruani insisted that screening should not discriminate based on a patient’s sexual activity.
 

Sex between women

There is a widely held belief that only men can transmit human papillomavirus (HPV). “If you are in a sexual relationship with a man, then yes, you can get HPV from him. But it’s also possible for HPV to be transmitted in a sexual relationship between two women via touch, bodily fluids, or sex toys,” said Dr. Maruani, who pointed out that 20% of lesbians and 30% of bisexual women are HPV carriers.

Because women who have sexual relationships with other women have the mistaken view that their demographic is less affected, they are less likely to take part in cervical screening. They also present more often with advanced lesions and with cancer because of the lack of screening in this group.
 

Transgender men

Dr. Maruani defines transgender men as “women who have changed gender and who have become men.” Why are they affected by cervical screening? Not all of them are. Those who’ve had their uterus removed no longer have a cervix, so this screening doesn’t affect them. But hysterectomies are rarely performed, as they’re not required in most European countries to legally change gender.

The figures are concerning: 27% of transgender men are screened versus 60% of cisgender females.

“For this demographic, specialist gynecology appointments are hard to come by. Sitting in a women’s waiting room is not easy,” said Dr. Maruani, recalling that often discussion about the transition phase takes up the entire appointment time. It’s also usually the case that any medical problems or health care prevention issues not related to the topic of transitioning are not discussed.

Moreover, the online appointment-booking software doesn’t allow transgender men who have kept their cervix and legally identify as men to make an appointment. “Gynecologists must disable this default option,” said Dr. Maruani.

Likewise, transgender men will not receive an invitation to take part in cervical or breast cancer screening, as they are identified as male by social security services and screening sites. Furthermore, in what Dr. Maruani referred to as an “administrative head-scratcher that needs to change,” some medical procedures are not funded for men.

Yet the risk of contracting HPV is higher among transgender men than in the rest of the population because of different sexual practices in this demographic, as well as the propensity to have multiple sexual partners. The risk of finding abnormalities on cytology screening is greater.

Although data regarding cancer are lacking, “if screening is inadequate but the risk of infection with HPV is great, logic tells us that there will be more lesions, more cancer” in this demographic, said Dr. Maruani.
 

Celibate women

Nowadays, screening drops with age in women, especially after menopause. This is especially true for women who are no longer sexually active. Another preconceived notion to be addressed is that women who are no longer sexually active no longer need screening. But this concept completely goes against the natural history of HPV infection. “There are years, at least 5, between infection and the development of precancerous lesions. There is a further 5 years between a precancerous lesion and cancer,” said Dr. Maruani.

A woman could still be at risk even 20 years after contracting HPV. Approximately 80% of women are exposed to HPV, and 5%-10% have a persistent infection that could lead to the development of precancerous lesions.

“So, a woman who is no longer sexually active can’t stop participating in cervical screening, especially since there aren’t any symptoms until a fairly advanced stage of cancer.” No longer having sex does not mean that screening can be stopped.

What treatment is appropriate for partners of a woman who is no longer sexually active? None. During the press conference, the specialists agreed that a positive HPV test would be of importance to her partner. Even so, they recalled that the infection would generally be an old one and that the woman’s partner (whether male or female) would therefore have probably already been exposed to it. Patients should also be reminded that, in the past, cytology testing did not look for HPV, so the virus could already have been there. According to these specialists, you don’t need to change your sexual habits, just continue to monitor yourself.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version first appeared on Medscape.com.

Montrouge, France – Whether you are a cisgender woman or a transgender man who has kept his uterus, regardless of the sex of your partner, and even if you are a woman who is no longer sexually active, you must take part in cervical cancer screening. This is the reminder issued by Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, at a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical-Vaginal Diseases Society (SFCPCV).

Cervical screening currently targets asymptomatic, immunocompetent, and sexually active women between ages 25 and 65 years. During her presentation, Dr. Maruani insisted that screening should not discriminate based on a patient’s sexual activity.
 

Sex between women

There is a widely held belief that only men can transmit human papillomavirus (HPV). “If you are in a sexual relationship with a man, then yes, you can get HPV from him. But it’s also possible for HPV to be transmitted in a sexual relationship between two women via touch, bodily fluids, or sex toys,” said Dr. Maruani, who pointed out that 20% of lesbians and 30% of bisexual women are HPV carriers.

Because women who have sexual relationships with other women have the mistaken view that their demographic is less affected, they are less likely to take part in cervical screening. They also present more often with advanced lesions and with cancer because of the lack of screening in this group.
 

Transgender men

Dr. Maruani defines transgender men as “women who have changed gender and who have become men.” Why are they affected by cervical screening? Not all of them are. Those who’ve had their uterus removed no longer have a cervix, so this screening doesn’t affect them. But hysterectomies are rarely performed, as they’re not required in most European countries to legally change gender.

The figures are concerning: 27% of transgender men are screened versus 60% of cisgender females.

“For this demographic, specialist gynecology appointments are hard to come by. Sitting in a women’s waiting room is not easy,” said Dr. Maruani, recalling that often discussion about the transition phase takes up the entire appointment time. It’s also usually the case that any medical problems or health care prevention issues not related to the topic of transitioning are not discussed.

Moreover, the online appointment-booking software doesn’t allow transgender men who have kept their cervix and legally identify as men to make an appointment. “Gynecologists must disable this default option,” said Dr. Maruani.

Likewise, transgender men will not receive an invitation to take part in cervical or breast cancer screening, as they are identified as male by social security services and screening sites. Furthermore, in what Dr. Maruani referred to as an “administrative head-scratcher that needs to change,” some medical procedures are not funded for men.

Yet the risk of contracting HPV is higher among transgender men than in the rest of the population because of different sexual practices in this demographic, as well as the propensity to have multiple sexual partners. The risk of finding abnormalities on cytology screening is greater.

Although data regarding cancer are lacking, “if screening is inadequate but the risk of infection with HPV is great, logic tells us that there will be more lesions, more cancer” in this demographic, said Dr. Maruani.
 

Celibate women

Nowadays, screening drops with age in women, especially after menopause. This is especially true for women who are no longer sexually active. Another preconceived notion to be addressed is that women who are no longer sexually active no longer need screening. But this concept completely goes against the natural history of HPV infection. “There are years, at least 5, between infection and the development of precancerous lesions. There is a further 5 years between a precancerous lesion and cancer,” said Dr. Maruani.

A woman could still be at risk even 20 years after contracting HPV. Approximately 80% of women are exposed to HPV, and 5%-10% have a persistent infection that could lead to the development of precancerous lesions.

“So, a woman who is no longer sexually active can’t stop participating in cervical screening, especially since there aren’t any symptoms until a fairly advanced stage of cancer.” No longer having sex does not mean that screening can be stopped.

What treatment is appropriate for partners of a woman who is no longer sexually active? None. During the press conference, the specialists agreed that a positive HPV test would be of importance to her partner. Even so, they recalled that the infection would generally be an old one and that the woman’s partner (whether male or female) would therefore have probably already been exposed to it. Patients should also be reminded that, in the past, cytology testing did not look for HPV, so the virus could already have been there. According to these specialists, you don’t need to change your sexual habits, just continue to monitor yourself.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite improvements in access to health coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), racial disparities in breast cancer mortality rates persist and the underuse of advanced breast imaging may be one culprit, experts say.
 

In a recent position statement, researchers highlighted the disproportionally high breast cancer mortality rates among Black women in Louisiana – a state that has one of the highest breast cancer mortality rates in the nation. In 2019, the breast cancer mortality rate among Black women in Louisiana was 29.3 per 100,000 women compared with the national rate of 19.4 per 100,000.

Although Louisiana has made strides in improving access to breast cancer screening in recent years, the use of advanced imaging – specifically breast MRI – remains underused in this high-risk population. A major barrier to wider use of breast MRI has been cost, and ACA expansion led to higher, not lower, out-of-pocket costs for this screening modality.

“Breast MRI is a powerful imaging tool for early detection and for screening women at high risk for breast cancer,” wrote the researchers, led by Brooke L. Morrell, MD, of Louisiana State University Health and Sciences Center, New Orleans.

However, greater access to health care has not necessarily translated to increased breast MRI screening or improved survival among Black women. Even years after the adoption of the ACA, “Black women in Louisiana continue to die of breast cancer at rates significantly greater than the national average,” the authors wrote.

The position statement was published in Cancer.

Breast MRI is known to provide the highest rate of breast cancer detection among commonly used imaging options, with a sensitivity ranging from 81% to 100%. That’s about twice as high as the sensitivity range for mammography after factoring in breast density.

“This is of particular importance when we consider the risk‐based screening of younger populations, in which dense breasts are more prevalent,” the authors explained.

For Black women in particular, studies show nearly a quarter (23%) who develop breast cancer are diagnosed under the age of 50, compared with 16% of White women. Black women are also more likely to develop more aggressive, premenopausal breast cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, that are more easily detected on MRI.

“Adding supplemental screening breast MRI to annual mammography in higher risk women has been shown to detect up to 18 additional cancers out of 1,000 patients,” Dr. Morrell said. And “many of these cancers are detected much earlier than with mammography alone.”

Still, with ACA expansion, out-of-pocket costs for breast MRI actually increased. This increase likely occurred, in part, because the financial protections outlined in the ACA’s Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines covered mammograms but not breast MRI.

More specifically, under the ACA, Medicaid and most private health insurance plans are required to provide coverage for mammograms at no cost to the patient. The percentage of health plans providing zero cost sharing for mammograms increased under the ACA from 81.9% to 96.8%, but the corresponding rates of zero cost sharing for breast MRI screening went in the opposite direction – from 43.1% in 2009 to only 26.2% in 2017, a 2022 study found.

This study also highlighted geographic variations in zero cost sharing and out-of-pocket costs for screening breast MRI, with a higher financial burden observed for women living in the South. In addition, studies have demonstrated that race and socioeconomic factors, including education and income, play a role in the underuse of screening, including breast MRI.

These factors all likely contribute to screening breast MRI remaining inaccessible to many women, Dr. Morrell and colleagues said.

The authors also outlined three key action items that could help address barriers to MRI breast screening, which include reducing the high cost of breast MRI, lobbying to include breast MRI in ACA protections, and addressing knowledge gaps among patients and clinicians to better identify women who might benefit from breast MRI.

On the financial front, the team explained that a central driver for high costs is the scan time for breast MRI, which could be substantially reduced from 30 to 5 minutes, using an abbreviated protocol.

“Widespread use of low‐cost breast abbreviated MRI screening could remove the cost barrier of adding breast MRI screening to ACA coverage,” without compromising diagnostic accuracy, the authors noted.

Further efforts should focus on overcoming cultural barriers, including fear and mistrust of the health care system among Black women. Outreach efforts could include public campaigns or town hall and church gatherings that enlist patient navigators, advocates, or community members.

“Our visibility in the community builds trust and affords us the opportunity to share knowledge that may empower women to be their own health advocates,” the authors wrote.

In terms of the feasibility of revising ACA policies to improve breast MRI access and affordability, Dr. Morrell pointed to improvements made in colon cancer screening.

“Studies have demonstrated that after ACA policy changes lowering out-of-pocket cost for colonoscopies, screening colonoscopy rates significantly increased among men, predominantly in socioeconomically disadvantaged population,” she noted. “Similarly, we should investigate how to this can be applied to screening breast MRI.”

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

Despite improvements in access to health coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), racial disparities in breast cancer mortality rates persist and the underuse of advanced breast imaging may be one culprit, experts say.
 

In a recent position statement, researchers highlighted the disproportionally high breast cancer mortality rates among Black women in Louisiana – a state that has one of the highest breast cancer mortality rates in the nation. In 2019, the breast cancer mortality rate among Black women in Louisiana was 29.3 per 100,000 women compared with the national rate of 19.4 per 100,000.

Although Louisiana has made strides in improving access to breast cancer screening in recent years, the use of advanced imaging – specifically breast MRI – remains underused in this high-risk population. A major barrier to wider use of breast MRI has been cost, and ACA expansion led to higher, not lower, out-of-pocket costs for this screening modality.

“Breast MRI is a powerful imaging tool for early detection and for screening women at high risk for breast cancer,” wrote the researchers, led by Brooke L. Morrell, MD, of Louisiana State University Health and Sciences Center, New Orleans.

However, greater access to health care has not necessarily translated to increased breast MRI screening or improved survival among Black women. Even years after the adoption of the ACA, “Black women in Louisiana continue to die of breast cancer at rates significantly greater than the national average,” the authors wrote.

The position statement was published in Cancer.

Breast MRI is known to provide the highest rate of breast cancer detection among commonly used imaging options, with a sensitivity ranging from 81% to 100%. That’s about twice as high as the sensitivity range for mammography after factoring in breast density.

“This is of particular importance when we consider the risk‐based screening of younger populations, in which dense breasts are more prevalent,” the authors explained.

For Black women in particular, studies show nearly a quarter (23%) who develop breast cancer are diagnosed under the age of 50, compared with 16% of White women. Black women are also more likely to develop more aggressive, premenopausal breast cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, that are more easily detected on MRI.

“Adding supplemental screening breast MRI to annual mammography in higher risk women has been shown to detect up to 18 additional cancers out of 1,000 patients,” Dr. Morrell said. And “many of these cancers are detected much earlier than with mammography alone.”

Still, with ACA expansion, out-of-pocket costs for breast MRI actually increased. This increase likely occurred, in part, because the financial protections outlined in the ACA’s Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines covered mammograms but not breast MRI.

More specifically, under the ACA, Medicaid and most private health insurance plans are required to provide coverage for mammograms at no cost to the patient. The percentage of health plans providing zero cost sharing for mammograms increased under the ACA from 81.9% to 96.8%, but the corresponding rates of zero cost sharing for breast MRI screening went in the opposite direction – from 43.1% in 2009 to only 26.2% in 2017, a 2022 study found.

This study also highlighted geographic variations in zero cost sharing and out-of-pocket costs for screening breast MRI, with a higher financial burden observed for women living in the South. In addition, studies have demonstrated that race and socioeconomic factors, including education and income, play a role in the underuse of screening, including breast MRI.

These factors all likely contribute to screening breast MRI remaining inaccessible to many women, Dr. Morrell and colleagues said.

The authors also outlined three key action items that could help address barriers to MRI breast screening, which include reducing the high cost of breast MRI, lobbying to include breast MRI in ACA protections, and addressing knowledge gaps among patients and clinicians to better identify women who might benefit from breast MRI.

On the financial front, the team explained that a central driver for high costs is the scan time for breast MRI, which could be substantially reduced from 30 to 5 minutes, using an abbreviated protocol.

“Widespread use of low‐cost breast abbreviated MRI screening could remove the cost barrier of adding breast MRI screening to ACA coverage,” without compromising diagnostic accuracy, the authors noted.

Further efforts should focus on overcoming cultural barriers, including fear and mistrust of the health care system among Black women. Outreach efforts could include public campaigns or town hall and church gatherings that enlist patient navigators, advocates, or community members.

“Our visibility in the community builds trust and affords us the opportunity to share knowledge that may empower women to be their own health advocates,” the authors wrote.

In terms of the feasibility of revising ACA policies to improve breast MRI access and affordability, Dr. Morrell pointed to improvements made in colon cancer screening.

“Studies have demonstrated that after ACA policy changes lowering out-of-pocket cost for colonoscopies, screening colonoscopy rates significantly increased among men, predominantly in socioeconomically disadvantaged population,” she noted. “Similarly, we should investigate how to this can be applied to screening breast MRI.”