Ob.Gyn. News

A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.

Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.

But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.

The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.

“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”

For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.

The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.

The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.

Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.

Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
 

Restrictions looming

Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.

The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.

“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”

Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.

“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
 

Pivot to telehealth?

Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.

Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.

The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.

“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”

Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.

As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.

“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”

Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.

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

A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.

Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.

But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.

The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.

“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”

For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.

The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.

The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.

Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.

Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
 

Restrictions looming

Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.

The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.

“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”

Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.

“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
 

Pivot to telehealth?

Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.

Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.

The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.

“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”

Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.

As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.

“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”

Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.

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

A small, and likely decreasing, number of health care providers in the United States perform abortions, and there is a risk that the count will be shrinking in the face of legislative attacks on the service, researchers have found.

Until now, producing an accurate count of abortion service providers in the United States has been difficult, leaving researchers to rely on indirect assessments of abortion clinics rather than counts of physicians who perform the procedure.

But the authors of a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine have come up with a number: Roughly 3,550 clinicians provide procedural and medication abortions, while 22,001 manage pregnancy loss with the same procedures and medications. More than half of all abortions in the United States now are achieved by medication.

The small number of providers is a cause for concern as a growing number of states move to restrict access to abortions, experts say.

“Abortions are only available if clinicians provide them,” said Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, senior research scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the research. “This study finds that a variety of clinician types provide abortion care. But the number of abortion providers is low, and increasing restrictions will only make this worse.”

For their census, Dr. Strasser and her colleagues evaluated medical claims covering a full year from a private data company. They focused on two sets of services: medications (misoprostol and mifepristone) used in abortion care and pregnancy loss and procedures such as dilation and curettage and dilation and evacuation. Services were categorized as induced abortion or management by pregnancy loss on the basis of medical coding.

The researchers found that there were 3,550 abortion providers and 22,001 clinicians who managed pregnancy loss. Of those who induced abortions, 88% were physicians and 12% were advanced practice clinicians.

The clinicians who most frequently provided induced abortions were ob/gyns (72%), followed by family physicians (9%), advanced practice registered nurses (8%), and nurse midwives (3%). Several other specialists performed about 1% of abortions each.

Dr. Strasser said that 3,550 is an undercount because many providers do offer abortions but cannot or do not bill for them. Even so, the number likely will fall because fewer medical students are being trained for abortion procedures, according to Kaiser Health News.

Despite recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for standardized training on abortion care during medical residency, the number of programs that prohibit that training has surged in recent years, the report notes.
 

Restrictions looming

Compounding the problem, the researchers say, is the recent spate of state-level legislation regarding access to abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule soon on a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks’ gestational age, except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormalities.

Last May, Texas passed a law outlawing termination of pregnancy after 6 weeks of gestation – before many women know they’re pregnant. The law created a bounty system that permits essentially anyone in the United States to sue a woman in the state who seeks an abortion outside the law or anyone who assists her – including health care professionals. The Supreme Court in December refused to overturn the law – which reportedly has triggered a surge in women seeking abortion services in neighboring Oklahoma.

The legal environment is greatly increasing the risk that more clinicians will drop out of the workforce, Dr. Strasser told this news organization.

“As this happens, abortion care will undoubtedly become harder to access, especially for vulnerable populations,” she said. “Patients will have to travel farther, pay more money, or forgo necessary care.”

Another major variable is insurance coverage, the researchers found. Abortion coverage is highly restricted under private insurance and Medicaid, they note. Beyond increasingly restrictive payment issues, policies seen as punitive toward clinicians may cause many to stop offering medication and procedural services, Dr. Strasser said.

“The national political climate will likely see more barriers and less access to care in the coming months and years,” she told this news organization. “However, some states are taking concrete steps to protect abortion access for their residents and for others out of state. In supportive environments like these, enhanced training, expanded scope of practice, and improved reimbursement policies can increase access.”

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Kaiser Health News reported, 26 states would likely ban abortion, triggering a flood of patients to states where the procedure remains more widely available.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have expanded access are Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Another 12 states offer protected access, in which abortion is likely to remain legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, since in many of them, abortion is protected under their state constitutions.
 

Pivot to telehealth?

Another study, published in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, evaluated health outcomes for 3,779 women. That study found that eligibility screening for medical abortions by history alone, without pelvic examination or ultrasonography, was safe and effective. That study found that medications were either dispensed in person or through the mail.

Taken together, the two studies suggest that more abortion services may shift toward telehealth, which could expand the number of health care professionals performing such services. Providers could include nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants, said Melissa Grant, chief operating officer of carafem, a reproductive health and abortion service provider.

The service, which has offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Nashville, and Washington, D.C., has found that many patients prefer online appointments, especially if they live in rural areas, Ms. Grant said. The pandemic created a push toward online services.

“Even before the current breadth of restrictive legislation, we were seeing in increase because of COVID,” she said. “Most likely, abortion providers will continue to be pushed out of the profession, so having an option that’s widely available no matter where you live is essential. The United States is moving toward a system where the ZIP code you live in will foretell what care you get. That’s chilling.”

Those who currently provide abortion care have two advantages over what was available previously, Ms. Grant said. First, medical abortion is much more common, and data show that it is safe and effective for most pregnant people, as long as they undergo a health screening. Second, the boom in telehealth during the pandemic means providers are much more experienced in this type of service than before.

As more services such as carafem crop up, costs will drop, since a telehealth clinic – even one that uses health care professionals – has fewer expenses, such as for rent and equipment, than a physical facility.

“Because of the stigma around abortion, this is not likely to prompt a big rush of start-ups, but I do think we’re going to see a shake-up in the way services are being offered, and both patients and providers will likely turn toward technology,” Ms. Grant said. “An environment like this will require flexibility, innovation, and some real grit. We may take some time to get there, but it’s possible this moment is a pivot point in how abortion care is provided.”

Some of the researchers received grants from the Susan T. Buffett Foundation.

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

The past several weeks have been rather tumultuous for LGBTQ Americans, particularly transgender youth. The Texas attorney general penned a legal opinion stating that hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender youth constitute “child abuse” under Texas law. Following the statement, Texas governor Greg Abbott swiftly issued a directive to protective services to launch investigations into families providing such services to their children. Almost simultaneously, the Florida Senate approved the Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents), which limits how sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in the classroom.

Despite the benefits of gender-affirming care for gender-diverse youth, 22 states have introduced legislation that bans the provision of gender-affirming medical care under the age of 18, even with the consent of parents or legal guardians.¹ Unfortunately, gender-diverse youth are more likely than are their cisgender peers to experience poverty, homelessness, depression, suicide, and violence.¹ As a result of ongoing stigma, many gender-diverse patients are hesitant to seek out professional medical care, which includes mental health care, routine health care, and gender-affirming therapies. The positive effects of gender-affirming care for transgender youth are clear, and life saving for many. Gender-affirming medical interventions improve social and mental health outcomes, such as decreased suicidal ideation, depression, and improved peer relations that last until adulthood.¹

As with all aspects in medicine, providers and families of gender-diverse youth need to balance the four ethical principles that guide decision-making and informed consent. For practitioners working with the pediatric/adolescent populations, the age at which pediatric or adolescent patients can truly provide consent or assent is still not determined.² This presents a unique set of challenges in the realm of gender-affirming care particularly when children/adolescents and their parents have differing perspectives on proposed treatment plans. For example, when discussing fertility preservation, a 16-year-old patient is much more likely to understand implications of future fertility than a 9-year-old patient. Furthermore, providers must find the delicate balance between maximizing treatment benefits (beneficence) while minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), while also discussing the uncertainty about the long-term risks of gender-affirming treatments.² The final obligation for health care providers is ensuring all patients have equitable access to care (justice) – which is why we must all oppose legislation that criminalizes treatment for gender-diverse youth, regardless of our individual opinions on gender-affirming care for patients.

Opponents of gender-affirming care for transgender youth often cite concern about permanent effects or psychological distress if a child begins gender-affirming therapy and then chooses to discontinue. While the medical community should be, and is alarmed about patients who detransition, the solution to limiting the number of patients who experience regret or detransition is most certainly not criminalizing or universally banning gender-affirming care for all patients.³ Experts in transgender medicine and surgery (some of whom are transgender themselves) have expressed apprehension regarding the evaluation of gender-diverse children and youth. The concern is not whether gender-diverse youth should receive gender-affirming treatments, but rather they questioned the assessments made by providers who may be less fully qualified to deliver treatment and who deviate from well-established standards of care.⁴ The logical solution would be to further improve upon the current standards of care, ensure providers have appropriate training, and to expand multidisciplinary models of gender-affirming centers for youth.

If politicians were truly worried about the welfare of gender-diverse children, there would be a shift in the allocation of funds or resources to improve research endeavors and establish effective multidisciplinary clinics to meet the needs of this marginalized patient population. While the medical community should carefully examine gender-affirming care in transgender youth, criminalizing care is unconscionable. Our community needs more evidence-based research, providers, and centers, not politics.

The LGBTQ community and providers are rightfully fearful of the repercussions of such legislation. And the politicians and supporters of such bills should be equally apprehensive of the negative consequences this legislation will have on the mental health of transgender youth.

While the model for gender-affirming medicine and surgery needs continual assessment to ensure all patients, regardless of age and goals of transition, are receiving evidence-based, quality care, these discussions and subsequent decision-making should occur among medical professionals, not among politicians and the lay press.⁴

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Hughes LD et al. ‘These laws will be devastating’: Provider perspectives on legislation banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. J Adol Health;2021;69:976-82.

2. Kimberly LL et al. Ethical issues in gender-affirming care for youth. Pediatrics. Pediatrics;018;142(6)e20181537.

3. Ashley F. Psychol Sexual Orient Gender Divers. APA PsycNet. 2021.

4. Ault A. Transgender docs warn about gender-affirmative care for youth. WebMD. 2021 Nov. Accessed March 14, 2022.

The past several weeks have been rather tumultuous for LGBTQ Americans, particularly transgender youth. The Texas attorney general penned a legal opinion stating that hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender youth constitute “child abuse” under Texas law. Following the statement, Texas governor Greg Abbott swiftly issued a directive to protective services to launch investigations into families providing such services to their children. Almost simultaneously, the Florida Senate approved the Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents), which limits how sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in the classroom.

Despite the benefits of gender-affirming care for gender-diverse youth, 22 states have introduced legislation that bans the provision of gender-affirming medical care under the age of 18, even with the consent of parents or legal guardians.¹ Unfortunately, gender-diverse youth are more likely than are their cisgender peers to experience poverty, homelessness, depression, suicide, and violence.¹ As a result of ongoing stigma, many gender-diverse patients are hesitant to seek out professional medical care, which includes mental health care, routine health care, and gender-affirming therapies. The positive effects of gender-affirming care for transgender youth are clear, and life saving for many. Gender-affirming medical interventions improve social and mental health outcomes, such as decreased suicidal ideation, depression, and improved peer relations that last until adulthood.¹

As with all aspects in medicine, providers and families of gender-diverse youth need to balance the four ethical principles that guide decision-making and informed consent. For practitioners working with the pediatric/adolescent populations, the age at which pediatric or adolescent patients can truly provide consent or assent is still not determined.² This presents a unique set of challenges in the realm of gender-affirming care particularly when children/adolescents and their parents have differing perspectives on proposed treatment plans. For example, when discussing fertility preservation, a 16-year-old patient is much more likely to understand implications of future fertility than a 9-year-old patient. Furthermore, providers must find the delicate balance between maximizing treatment benefits (beneficence) while minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), while also discussing the uncertainty about the long-term risks of gender-affirming treatments.² The final obligation for health care providers is ensuring all patients have equitable access to care (justice) – which is why we must all oppose legislation that criminalizes treatment for gender-diverse youth, regardless of our individual opinions on gender-affirming care for patients.

Opponents of gender-affirming care for transgender youth often cite concern about permanent effects or psychological distress if a child begins gender-affirming therapy and then chooses to discontinue. While the medical community should be, and is alarmed about patients who detransition, the solution to limiting the number of patients who experience regret or detransition is most certainly not criminalizing or universally banning gender-affirming care for all patients.³ Experts in transgender medicine and surgery (some of whom are transgender themselves) have expressed apprehension regarding the evaluation of gender-diverse children and youth. The concern is not whether gender-diverse youth should receive gender-affirming treatments, but rather they questioned the assessments made by providers who may be less fully qualified to deliver treatment and who deviate from well-established standards of care.⁴ The logical solution would be to further improve upon the current standards of care, ensure providers have appropriate training, and to expand multidisciplinary models of gender-affirming centers for youth.

If politicians were truly worried about the welfare of gender-diverse children, there would be a shift in the allocation of funds or resources to improve research endeavors and establish effective multidisciplinary clinics to meet the needs of this marginalized patient population. While the medical community should carefully examine gender-affirming care in transgender youth, criminalizing care is unconscionable. Our community needs more evidence-based research, providers, and centers, not politics.

The LGBTQ community and providers are rightfully fearful of the repercussions of such legislation. And the politicians and supporters of such bills should be equally apprehensive of the negative consequences this legislation will have on the mental health of transgender youth.

While the model for gender-affirming medicine and surgery needs continual assessment to ensure all patients, regardless of age and goals of transition, are receiving evidence-based, quality care, these discussions and subsequent decision-making should occur among medical professionals, not among politicians and the lay press.⁴

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Hughes LD et al. ‘These laws will be devastating’: Provider perspectives on legislation banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. J Adol Health;2021;69:976-82.

2. Kimberly LL et al. Ethical issues in gender-affirming care for youth. Pediatrics. Pediatrics;018;142(6)e20181537.

3. Ashley F. Psychol Sexual Orient Gender Divers. APA PsycNet. 2021.

4. Ault A. Transgender docs warn about gender-affirmative care for youth. WebMD. 2021 Nov. Accessed March 14, 2022.

The past several weeks have been rather tumultuous for LGBTQ Americans, particularly transgender youth. The Texas attorney general penned a legal opinion stating that hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender youth constitute “child abuse” under Texas law. Following the statement, Texas governor Greg Abbott swiftly issued a directive to protective services to launch investigations into families providing such services to their children. Almost simultaneously, the Florida Senate approved the Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents), which limits how sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in the classroom.

Despite the benefits of gender-affirming care for gender-diverse youth, 22 states have introduced legislation that bans the provision of gender-affirming medical care under the age of 18, even with the consent of parents or legal guardians.¹ Unfortunately, gender-diverse youth are more likely than are their cisgender peers to experience poverty, homelessness, depression, suicide, and violence.¹ As a result of ongoing stigma, many gender-diverse patients are hesitant to seek out professional medical care, which includes mental health care, routine health care, and gender-affirming therapies. The positive effects of gender-affirming care for transgender youth are clear, and life saving for many. Gender-affirming medical interventions improve social and mental health outcomes, such as decreased suicidal ideation, depression, and improved peer relations that last until adulthood.¹

As with all aspects in medicine, providers and families of gender-diverse youth need to balance the four ethical principles that guide decision-making and informed consent. For practitioners working with the pediatric/adolescent populations, the age at which pediatric or adolescent patients can truly provide consent or assent is still not determined.² This presents a unique set of challenges in the realm of gender-affirming care particularly when children/adolescents and their parents have differing perspectives on proposed treatment plans. For example, when discussing fertility preservation, a 16-year-old patient is much more likely to understand implications of future fertility than a 9-year-old patient. Furthermore, providers must find the delicate balance between maximizing treatment benefits (beneficence) while minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), while also discussing the uncertainty about the long-term risks of gender-affirming treatments.² The final obligation for health care providers is ensuring all patients have equitable access to care (justice) – which is why we must all oppose legislation that criminalizes treatment for gender-diverse youth, regardless of our individual opinions on gender-affirming care for patients.

Opponents of gender-affirming care for transgender youth often cite concern about permanent effects or psychological distress if a child begins gender-affirming therapy and then chooses to discontinue. While the medical community should be, and is alarmed about patients who detransition, the solution to limiting the number of patients who experience regret or detransition is most certainly not criminalizing or universally banning gender-affirming care for all patients.³ Experts in transgender medicine and surgery (some of whom are transgender themselves) have expressed apprehension regarding the evaluation of gender-diverse children and youth. The concern is not whether gender-diverse youth should receive gender-affirming treatments, but rather they questioned the assessments made by providers who may be less fully qualified to deliver treatment and who deviate from well-established standards of care.⁴ The logical solution would be to further improve upon the current standards of care, ensure providers have appropriate training, and to expand multidisciplinary models of gender-affirming centers for youth.

If politicians were truly worried about the welfare of gender-diverse children, there would be a shift in the allocation of funds or resources to improve research endeavors and establish effective multidisciplinary clinics to meet the needs of this marginalized patient population. While the medical community should carefully examine gender-affirming care in transgender youth, criminalizing care is unconscionable. Our community needs more evidence-based research, providers, and centers, not politics.

The LGBTQ community and providers are rightfully fearful of the repercussions of such legislation. And the politicians and supporters of such bills should be equally apprehensive of the negative consequences this legislation will have on the mental health of transgender youth.

While the model for gender-affirming medicine and surgery needs continual assessment to ensure all patients, regardless of age and goals of transition, are receiving evidence-based, quality care, these discussions and subsequent decision-making should occur among medical professionals, not among politicians and the lay press.⁴

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Hughes LD et al. ‘These laws will be devastating’: Provider perspectives on legislation banning gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. J Adol Health;2021;69:976-82.

2. Kimberly LL et al. Ethical issues in gender-affirming care for youth. Pediatrics. Pediatrics;018;142(6)e20181537.

3. Ashley F. Psychol Sexual Orient Gender Divers. APA PsycNet. 2021.

4. Ault A. Transgender docs warn about gender-affirmative care for youth. WebMD. 2021 Nov. Accessed March 14, 2022.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Can you keep it down? I’m trying to be boring

He chides his friends for not looking both ways before crossing the road. He is never questioned by the police because they fall asleep listening to him talk. He has won the office’s coveted perfect attendance award 10 years running. Look out, Dos Equis guy, you’ve got some new competition. That’s right, it’s the most boring man in the world.

For this boring study (sorry, study on boredom) conducted by English researchers and published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, people were surveyed on various jobs and hobbies, ranking them by how exciting or boring they are, as well as how competent someone with those jobs/hobbies would be, their willingness to avoid someone with those jobs/hobbies, and how much they’d need to be paid to spend time with someone who had an undesirable job/hobby.

Courtesy Mohamed Hassan/pxhere

According to the British public, the most boring person in the world is a religious data analyst who likes to sleep and lives in a small town. In fact, spending time with this person is almost a full-time job on its own: To make it worth their while, survey subjects wanted 35 pounds a day. The boring person also was viewed as less competent, as is anyone with a boring job.

Now, there probably aren’t a lot of religious data analysts out there, but don’t worry, there are plenty of other boring jobs – accounting, tax/insurance, cleaning, and banking rounded out the top five (apparently people don’t like finances) – and hobbies – watching TV, observing animals, and mathematics filled out the top five. In case you’re curious, performing artists, scientists, journalists, health professionals, and teachers were viewed as having exciting jobs; exciting hobbies included gaming, reading, domestic tasks (really?), gardening, and writing.

Lead researcher Wijnand Van Tilburg, PhD, made an excellent point about people with boring jobs: They “have power in society – perhaps we should try not to upset them and stereotype them as boring!”

We think they should lean into it and make The Most Boring Man in the World ads: “When I drive a car off the lot, its value increases because I used the correct lending association. Batman trusts me with his Batmobile insurance. I can make those Cuban cigars tax exempt. Stay financially solvent, my friends.”
 

Fungi, but make it fashion

Fashion is an expensive and costly industry to sustain. Cotton production takes a toll on the environment, leather production comes with environmental and ethical/moral conundrums, and thanks to fast fashion, about 85% of textiles are being thrown away in the United States.

Courtesy Akram Zamani

Researchers at the University of Borås in Sweden, however, have found a newish solution to create leather, cotton, and other textiles. And as with so many of the finer things, it starts with unsold bread from the grocery store.

Akram Zamani, PhD, and her team take that bread and turn it into breadcrumbs, then combine it with water and Rhizopus delemar, a fungus typically found in decaying food. After a couple of days of feasting on the bread, the fungus produces natural fibers made of chitin and chitosan that accumulate in the cell walls. After proteins, lipids, and other byproducts are removed, the team is left with a jelly-like substance made of those fibrous cell walls that can be spun into a fabric.

The researchers started small with very thin nonpliable sheets, but with a little layering by using tree tannins for softness and alkali for strength, their fungal leather is more like real leather than competing fungal leathers. Not to mention its being able to be produced in a fraction of the time.

This new fungal leather is fast to produce, it’s biodegradable, and it uses only natural ingredients to treat the materials. It’s the ultimate environmental fashion statement.
 

Who’s afraid of cancer? Not C. elegans

And now, we bring you part 2 of our ongoing series: Creatures that can diagnose cancer. Last week, we discovered that ants are well on their way to replacing dogs in our medical labs and in our hearts. This week, we present the even-more-lovable nematode.

Courtesy Nari Jang

The soil-dwelling nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, which is less than 1 mm long, is known to be “attracted or repelled by certain odors, so we came up with an idea that the roundworm could be used to detect lung cancer,” Shin Sik Choi, PhD, of Myongji University in South Korea, who is the project’s principal investigator, said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Dr. Choi’s team created a “worm-on-a-chip” that allowed the nematodes to choose between a drop of culture media from lung cancer cells and media from normal lung fibroblasts. An hour after being placed in the chip’s central chamber, more nematodes had crawled toward the lung cancer media than the normal-cell sample.

The investigators estimate that the device is about 70% effective at detecting cancer cells, but “they hope to increase both the accuracy and sensitivity of the method by using worms that were previously exposed to cancer cell media and therefore have a ‘memory’ of cancer-specific odor molecules,” according to the statement from the American Chemical Society.

Since C. elegans is easy to grow in a lab and, apparently, easy to train, the researchers hope that the worm-on-a-chip can become a quick, easy, economical, and noninvasive cancer screen.

So watch out cancer, because we never bet against the creepy crawlies.
 

Mosquitoes have us figured out

We are nearing mosquito season; quite possibly the most annoying and itchy time of the year. We stock up on bottles of bug spray, but somehow we still get bite after bite. It appears that mosquitoes are basically able to ignore our bug sprays, which explains why we’re still covered in bites after the Fourth of July fireworks. It turns out mosquitoes are more complex than we thought for such tiny creatures.

Courtesy Jim Gathany/CDC

There’s plenty of research on the best ways to keep mosquitoes away, because not only are they incredibly annoying, but they also carry potentially harmful diseases. In a recent experiment, researchers used mosquitoes that were genetically modified to have an excessive amount of an odor receptor called AgOR2, which responds to the smell of humans.

“AgOR2 overexpression threw a wrench in the whole system by inactivating olfactory receptors in these mosquitoes,” Christopher Potter, PhD, associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, said in a written statement.

After testing how these genetically modified mosquitoes reacted to some of the common smells of bug spray such as lemongrass, they discovered that it’s easy for the mosquitoes to ignore the smell. We wish it were that easy for us to ignore that chemically fruity smell.

Researchers continue to work hard to figure out how to repel mosquitoes and we’re rooting for them as summer approaches, despite the mosquito’s status as a creepy crawly.

Can you keep it down? I’m trying to be boring

He chides his friends for not looking both ways before crossing the road. He is never questioned by the police because they fall asleep listening to him talk. He has won the office’s coveted perfect attendance award 10 years running. Look out, Dos Equis guy, you’ve got some new competition. That’s right, it’s the most boring man in the world.

For this boring study (sorry, study on boredom) conducted by English researchers and published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, people were surveyed on various jobs and hobbies, ranking them by how exciting or boring they are, as well as how competent someone with those jobs/hobbies would be, their willingness to avoid someone with those jobs/hobbies, and how much they’d need to be paid to spend time with someone who had an undesirable job/hobby.

Courtesy Mohamed Hassan/pxhere

According to the British public, the most boring person in the world is a religious data analyst who likes to sleep and lives in a small town. In fact, spending time with this person is almost a full-time job on its own: To make it worth their while, survey subjects wanted 35 pounds a day. The boring person also was viewed as less competent, as is anyone with a boring job.

Now, there probably aren’t a lot of religious data analysts out there, but don’t worry, there are plenty of other boring jobs – accounting, tax/insurance, cleaning, and banking rounded out the top five (apparently people don’t like finances) – and hobbies – watching TV, observing animals, and mathematics filled out the top five. In case you’re curious, performing artists, scientists, journalists, health professionals, and teachers were viewed as having exciting jobs; exciting hobbies included gaming, reading, domestic tasks (really?), gardening, and writing.

Lead researcher Wijnand Van Tilburg, PhD, made an excellent point about people with boring jobs: They “have power in society – perhaps we should try not to upset them and stereotype them as boring!”

We think they should lean into it and make The Most Boring Man in the World ads: “When I drive a car off the lot, its value increases because I used the correct lending association. Batman trusts me with his Batmobile insurance. I can make those Cuban cigars tax exempt. Stay financially solvent, my friends.”
 

Fungi, but make it fashion

Fashion is an expensive and costly industry to sustain. Cotton production takes a toll on the environment, leather production comes with environmental and ethical/moral conundrums, and thanks to fast fashion, about 85% of textiles are being thrown away in the United States.

Courtesy Akram Zamani

Researchers at the University of Borås in Sweden, however, have found a newish solution to create leather, cotton, and other textiles. And as with so many of the finer things, it starts with unsold bread from the grocery store.

Akram Zamani, PhD, and her team take that bread and turn it into breadcrumbs, then combine it with water and Rhizopus delemar, a fungus typically found in decaying food. After a couple of days of feasting on the bread, the fungus produces natural fibers made of chitin and chitosan that accumulate in the cell walls. After proteins, lipids, and other byproducts are removed, the team is left with a jelly-like substance made of those fibrous cell walls that can be spun into a fabric.

The researchers started small with very thin nonpliable sheets, but with a little layering by using tree tannins for softness and alkali for strength, their fungal leather is more like real leather than competing fungal leathers. Not to mention its being able to be produced in a fraction of the time.

This new fungal leather is fast to produce, it’s biodegradable, and it uses only natural ingredients to treat the materials. It’s the ultimate environmental fashion statement.
 

Who’s afraid of cancer? Not C. elegans

And now, we bring you part 2 of our ongoing series: Creatures that can diagnose cancer. Last week, we discovered that ants are well on their way to replacing dogs in our medical labs and in our hearts. This week, we present the even-more-lovable nematode.

Courtesy Nari Jang

The soil-dwelling nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, which is less than 1 mm long, is known to be “attracted or repelled by certain odors, so we came up with an idea that the roundworm could be used to detect lung cancer,” Shin Sik Choi, PhD, of Myongji University in South Korea, who is the project’s principal investigator, said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Dr. Choi’s team created a “worm-on-a-chip” that allowed the nematodes to choose between a drop of culture media from lung cancer cells and media from normal lung fibroblasts. An hour after being placed in the chip’s central chamber, more nematodes had crawled toward the lung cancer media than the normal-cell sample.

The investigators estimate that the device is about 70% effective at detecting cancer cells, but “they hope to increase both the accuracy and sensitivity of the method by using worms that were previously exposed to cancer cell media and therefore have a ‘memory’ of cancer-specific odor molecules,” according to the statement from the American Chemical Society.

Since C. elegans is easy to grow in a lab and, apparently, easy to train, the researchers hope that the worm-on-a-chip can become a quick, easy, economical, and noninvasive cancer screen.

So watch out cancer, because we never bet against the creepy crawlies.
 

Mosquitoes have us figured out

We are nearing mosquito season; quite possibly the most annoying and itchy time of the year. We stock up on bottles of bug spray, but somehow we still get bite after bite. It appears that mosquitoes are basically able to ignore our bug sprays, which explains why we’re still covered in bites after the Fourth of July fireworks. It turns out mosquitoes are more complex than we thought for such tiny creatures.

Courtesy Jim Gathany/CDC

There’s plenty of research on the best ways to keep mosquitoes away, because not only are they incredibly annoying, but they also carry potentially harmful diseases. In a recent experiment, researchers used mosquitoes that were genetically modified to have an excessive amount of an odor receptor called AgOR2, which responds to the smell of humans.

“AgOR2 overexpression threw a wrench in the whole system by inactivating olfactory receptors in these mosquitoes,” Christopher Potter, PhD, associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, said in a written statement.

After testing how these genetically modified mosquitoes reacted to some of the common smells of bug spray such as lemongrass, they discovered that it’s easy for the mosquitoes to ignore the smell. We wish it were that easy for us to ignore that chemically fruity smell.

Researchers continue to work hard to figure out how to repel mosquitoes and we’re rooting for them as summer approaches, despite the mosquito’s status as a creepy crawly.

Can you keep it down? I’m trying to be boring

He chides his friends for not looking both ways before crossing the road. He is never questioned by the police because they fall asleep listening to him talk. He has won the office’s coveted perfect attendance award 10 years running. Look out, Dos Equis guy, you’ve got some new competition. That’s right, it’s the most boring man in the world.

For this boring study (sorry, study on boredom) conducted by English researchers and published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, people were surveyed on various jobs and hobbies, ranking them by how exciting or boring they are, as well as how competent someone with those jobs/hobbies would be, their willingness to avoid someone with those jobs/hobbies, and how much they’d need to be paid to spend time with someone who had an undesirable job/hobby.

Courtesy Mohamed Hassan/pxhere

According to the British public, the most boring person in the world is a religious data analyst who likes to sleep and lives in a small town. In fact, spending time with this person is almost a full-time job on its own: To make it worth their while, survey subjects wanted 35 pounds a day. The boring person also was viewed as less competent, as is anyone with a boring job.

Now, there probably aren’t a lot of religious data analysts out there, but don’t worry, there are plenty of other boring jobs – accounting, tax/insurance, cleaning, and banking rounded out the top five (apparently people don’t like finances) – and hobbies – watching TV, observing animals, and mathematics filled out the top five. In case you’re curious, performing artists, scientists, journalists, health professionals, and teachers were viewed as having exciting jobs; exciting hobbies included gaming, reading, domestic tasks (really?), gardening, and writing.

Lead researcher Wijnand Van Tilburg, PhD, made an excellent point about people with boring jobs: They “have power in society – perhaps we should try not to upset them and stereotype them as boring!”

We think they should lean into it and make The Most Boring Man in the World ads: “When I drive a car off the lot, its value increases because I used the correct lending association. Batman trusts me with his Batmobile insurance. I can make those Cuban cigars tax exempt. Stay financially solvent, my friends.”
 

Fungi, but make it fashion

Fashion is an expensive and costly industry to sustain. Cotton production takes a toll on the environment, leather production comes with environmental and ethical/moral conundrums, and thanks to fast fashion, about 85% of textiles are being thrown away in the United States.

Courtesy Akram Zamani

Researchers at the University of Borås in Sweden, however, have found a newish solution to create leather, cotton, and other textiles. And as with so many of the finer things, it starts with unsold bread from the grocery store.

Akram Zamani, PhD, and her team take that bread and turn it into breadcrumbs, then combine it with water and Rhizopus delemar, a fungus typically found in decaying food. After a couple of days of feasting on the bread, the fungus produces natural fibers made of chitin and chitosan that accumulate in the cell walls. After proteins, lipids, and other byproducts are removed, the team is left with a jelly-like substance made of those fibrous cell walls that can be spun into a fabric.

The researchers started small with very thin nonpliable sheets, but with a little layering by using tree tannins for softness and alkali for strength, their fungal leather is more like real leather than competing fungal leathers. Not to mention its being able to be produced in a fraction of the time.

This new fungal leather is fast to produce, it’s biodegradable, and it uses only natural ingredients to treat the materials. It’s the ultimate environmental fashion statement.
 

Who’s afraid of cancer? Not C. elegans

And now, we bring you part 2 of our ongoing series: Creatures that can diagnose cancer. Last week, we discovered that ants are well on their way to replacing dogs in our medical labs and in our hearts. This week, we present the even-more-lovable nematode.

Courtesy Nari Jang

The soil-dwelling nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, which is less than 1 mm long, is known to be “attracted or repelled by certain odors, so we came up with an idea that the roundworm could be used to detect lung cancer,” Shin Sik Choi, PhD, of Myongji University in South Korea, who is the project’s principal investigator, said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Dr. Choi’s team created a “worm-on-a-chip” that allowed the nematodes to choose between a drop of culture media from lung cancer cells and media from normal lung fibroblasts. An hour after being placed in the chip’s central chamber, more nematodes had crawled toward the lung cancer media than the normal-cell sample.

The investigators estimate that the device is about 70% effective at detecting cancer cells, but “they hope to increase both the accuracy and sensitivity of the method by using worms that were previously exposed to cancer cell media and therefore have a ‘memory’ of cancer-specific odor molecules,” according to the statement from the American Chemical Society.

Since C. elegans is easy to grow in a lab and, apparently, easy to train, the researchers hope that the worm-on-a-chip can become a quick, easy, economical, and noninvasive cancer screen.

So watch out cancer, because we never bet against the creepy crawlies.
 

Mosquitoes have us figured out

We are nearing mosquito season; quite possibly the most annoying and itchy time of the year. We stock up on bottles of bug spray, but somehow we still get bite after bite. It appears that mosquitoes are basically able to ignore our bug sprays, which explains why we’re still covered in bites after the Fourth of July fireworks. It turns out mosquitoes are more complex than we thought for such tiny creatures.

Courtesy Jim Gathany/CDC

There’s plenty of research on the best ways to keep mosquitoes away, because not only are they incredibly annoying, but they also carry potentially harmful diseases. In a recent experiment, researchers used mosquitoes that were genetically modified to have an excessive amount of an odor receptor called AgOR2, which responds to the smell of humans.

“AgOR2 overexpression threw a wrench in the whole system by inactivating olfactory receptors in these mosquitoes,” Christopher Potter, PhD, associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, said in a written statement.

After testing how these genetically modified mosquitoes reacted to some of the common smells of bug spray such as lemongrass, they discovered that it’s easy for the mosquitoes to ignore the smell. We wish it were that easy for us to ignore that chemically fruity smell.

Researchers continue to work hard to figure out how to repel mosquitoes and we’re rooting for them as summer approaches, despite the mosquito’s status as a creepy crawly.

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

Note: In this article, “women” refers to ciswomen – those who identify as women and were assigned female sex at birth. Menopause also affects transmen and nonbinary people, but published research on the menopause experience has included only ciswomen participants.

Gina Brown was boarding an early morning flight in 2016 when suddenly she started to overheat. “As soon as I stepped on the plane, I immediately was drenched in sweat,” she said. Not knowing what to do, she stood still until a fellow female passenger noticed her alarm and asked a flight attendant to grab her a cup of ice. “Is this the first time this has happened to you?” the woman asked, and Ms. Brown nodded. “It’s called a hot flash,” the woman continued, “and you’re going to be okay.”

As soon as Ms. Brown returned from her trip, she visited her doctor for blood work and learned that her hormone levels were decreasing. “I knew something was going on, but [my provider and I] didn’t have a conversation about menopause,” she said. Ms. Brown, who is 56 years old, has been living with HIV for nearly 28 years, and is part of a growing group of women with HIV now entering menopause.

In 1996, a person diagnosed with HIV at 20 years of age could expect to live only to age 39. Because of antiretroviral therapy (ART), an HIV diagnosis is not nearly so dire. Now, someone with HIV who adheres to the ART regimen is estimated to have a lifespan close to that of the general population.

For women with HIV, this means going through menopause. Though this transition can be challenging for any woman, experiencing menopause with HIV adds another level of complication. On top of adhering to daily ART regimens, the woman must also deal with the hormonal changes of menopause and the symptoms that come with it. And the limited research in this area suggests that women with HIV and their clinicians may not be prepared.

“Those of us long-term survivors who have been around for a while never expected to be here, and I don’t think providers or the health care system expected us to be here,” said Vickie A. Lynn, PhD, 56, who has been living with HIV for 37 years and received an AIDS diagnosis in 1991. Her work focuses on health care interventions for people with HIV. “So now that we’re here, I don’t know that we have enough information or research to inform some of our treatment options.” Instead, these women are met with a series of unknowns due to limited studies and conflicting findings.
 

Earlier menopause?

The onset of menopause can be difficult to determine in women living with HIV, said Sara Looby, PhD, ANP-BC, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Her research focuses on metabolic disorders, including bone loss, cardiovascular disease risk, and menopause in women living with HIV. This population is at an increased risk for amenorrhea, due to both behavioral and clinical factors, and sometimes this amenorrhea is mistakenly assumed to be menopause, she explained. A history of smoking, low weight, methadone use, or use of other psychotropic medications are common in women with HIV and can lead to missed periods. Some factors specific to HIV – including a low CD4 count and a history of an AIDS diagnosis – have also been linked to amenorrhea.

This is likely why research studies on the age of onset of menopause with women with HIV can reach conflicting conclusions. Some studies suggest that women with HIV tend to go through menopause 3-5 years earlier than women without HIV. Other studies suggest no difference in the age of onset in menopause between women living with and without HIV. But how menopause status has been accessed can vary from study to study, Dr. Looby said. Future research needs to consider participants’ complete menstrual and reproductive history, as well as relevant medical, social, and behavioral factors, she added, so that the findings are reliably capturing the age of onset of menopause rather than amenorrhea from other causes.

If menopause does occur earlier in women with HIV, there could be additional health implications. Estrogen regulates bone mass, and some research suggests the hormone may be cardioprotective. Estrogen is also thought to increase production of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which could affect mood and cognition. Women with HIV are already at higher risk for bone loss, cardiovascular disease, and depressed mood compared to women without HIV, Dr. Looby said, and as estrogen levels fall during menopause, these conditions may be deleteriously affected.

“If it is determined that women with HIV experience menopause at an earlier age, maybe early to mid-40s instead of 51 and older, they may be at increased risk for cardiovascular and bone conditions as well as mood symptoms associated with estrogen loss at an earlier age than women without HIV, which could be highly detrimental to their physical and mental health,” Dr. Looby said.
 

More frequent and severe menopausal symptoms?

Women with HIV may not only go through menopause earlier than women without HIV, but their symptoms may also be more frequent and more severe. In a 2017 study of both HIV-positive and HIV-negative Nigerian women, participants with HIV had more menopause symptoms overall and were three times as likely to report severe symptoms compared to women without HIV. A 2005 study conducted in New York found HIV-positive women were 24% more likely to report menopause symptoms compared to HIV-negative women in the study.

Looby’s own research has also found a similar pattern. In a study comparing 33 women with HIV to 33 women without HIV – all were close to menopause and matched for age, race, body mass index, and menstrual patterns – women with HIV reported more severe hot flashes and more days with hot flashes. These women also reported that their hot flashes interfered to a much greater degree with daily activities and quality of life compared to participants without HIV.

But studies of women with HIV who are entering menopause are rare, and most include only small numbers of women. As a result, many women with HIV do not know what to expect entering menopause. “I always say, I wish somebody would do some real research on HIV and menopause, because I want to know if it is worse for us or if it is the same,” said Ms. Brown, who works as the director of strategic partnership and community engagement at the Southern Aids Coalition in Powder Springs, Ga. “I would think it’s worse for me.”

More frequent and severe symptoms can have downstream effects, with some evidence suggesting that women with HIV who experience severe menopause symptoms are less likely to stick to their ART regimen. “There’s a clear picture emerging that menopausal symptoms in this group really matter,” said Shema Tariq, PhD, FRCP, an HIV physician-scientist at the University College London Institute for Global Health in England. “They really impact women’s well-being, as well as impacting their ability to look after their long-term condition.”
 

Providers wary of treating menopause symptoms in women with HIV

The little research we do have about women with HIV experiencing menopause suggests that this population could greatly benefit from treatment prescribed in women without HIV for menopause symptoms and conditions, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Women with HIV regularly experience night sweats and hot flashes during the menopause transition and may have more severe symptoms than women not living with the virus. If women with HIV also frequently enter early menopause (entering menopause before the age of 45), then this group meets two indications for hormone replacement therapy.

Despite the potential benefits of HRT in this population, some studies suggest this intervention is underutilized. In Dr. Tariq’s Positive Transitions through Menopause (PRIME) study, which explores how menopause affects more than 800 women living with HIV, only 8% of respondents reported using HRT. In a Canadian study that has not yet gone through peer review, 11.8% of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women reported ever using HRT, about half the rate of women in North America without HIV.

Provider discomfort with managing menopause-related care in women with HIV is one reason for such low HRT use in this population, Dr. Tariq said. In a survey of 88 general practitioners in the United Kingdom, nearly all (> 95%) respondents said they were comfortable managing menopause in a general population, but just 46% said they felt comfortable managing menopause in women with HIV. Their top concerns included the potential for drug-to-drug interactions between ART and HRT, missing an HIV-related diagnosis, and risks of menopausal hormone therapy in HIV. Nearly half of respondents (46%) said only specialists should be providing menopause-related care for women with HIV.

But specialists may also feel conflicted about managing menopause-related care in women with HIV, said Dr. Tariq. “If you’re looking at people who manage HIV, you’re looking primarily at infectious disease physicians and HIV physicians. We’re not trained as gynecologists. We’re not used to prescribing HRT,” she said. “And the problem is gynecologists aren’t used to managing HIV. They get nervous about prescribing anything when they see antiretroviral medication because all that people think of is a drug-drug interaction.”

This leaves women with HIV seeking care and treatment for menopause in a difficult situation, where they are “just being ping-ponged around between different health care providers,” said Susan Cole-Haley, 53, an HIV-activist in London who has been living with the virus for 23 years. “So many women with HIV have multiple health conditions and multiple health care providers, which can just make it really problematic and really exhausting in terms of getting help.”
 

Many unknowns

Providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing hormone therapy because of alarming research in the early 2000s, which found that hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Later analyses have found no increased cardiovascular disease risk in women who were younger than 60 or were less than 10 years beyond the onset of menopause. Still, the “media frenzy” around the initial findings “has put off a whole load of patients and a whole load of clinicians from even thinking of HRT,” Dr. Tariq said.

Providers may be even more hesitant because people with HIV already have a higher risk for heart disease, due to behaviors such as smoking and HIV-specific factors. (Research has yet to tease out whether these cardiovascular effects are a result of the virus, a result of the antiretroviral therapy, or a result of both factors.) In addition, there have been no prospective studies looking directly at the efficacy and safety of hormone replacement therapy in women with HIV, so providers generally rely on the guidelines for the use of menopausal hormone therapy for women without HIV. While researchers from Canada and the United Kingdom have compiled recommendations for HRT in women with HIV, there is great need for a large-scale clinical trial to establish consistent guidelines for the use of HRT for women with HIV globally, Dr. Looby said.

There are also hormonal preparations and drug-to-drug interactions to consider, though none of the interactions identified so far rise to the level of contraindications. Because of how the liver metabolizes ART and HRT, hormone doses may need to be adjusted, or perhaps administered transdermally via a patch versus a pill form. (Estrogen delivered via skin patch may have reduced cardiovascular disease risk compared to other methods of delivery, some studies in women without HIV suggest.) These expected interactions are based on data from contraceptives, noted Elizabeth King, MD, whose research at the Women’s Health Research Institute at BC Women’s Hospital in Vancouver, B.C., focuses on menopause and HIV. Studies have not been done on drug-drug interactions between ART and HRT specifically, she said, and formulations for HRT are a bit different from contraceptives.

While these unknowns do need to be discussed in shared decision-making around starting HRT in women with HIV, they should not dissuade providers from considering the treatment, Dr. King said. “If women are having extremely troublesome symptoms, then withholding therapy that is potentially beneficial because of worries about some of the things we do not know – I don’t know if that is any better,” she said.

Many women with HIV may not want to start HRT – as was the case for Dr. Lynn. “I’ve taken a lot of medication in my time, and I really try to avoid it as much as possible,” she said. Uncertainties around drug interactions were the main concern for Dawn Averitt, 53, founder of the Well Project, an HIV nonprofit focused on women and girls. Ms. Averitt has lived with HIV for 34 years. “What if some of the things that I’m dealing with could be managed by HRT?” she said. “Or what if taking it exacerbates problems in a way that nobody knows to look for?” In this case, providers may work with patients to discuss nonhormonal treatment options for menopause symptom management.

While some women with HIV may not want HRT, “It’s important that women have that option, and from what we are seeing right now, not a lot of women are even being offered the therapy,” Dr. King said.

There are other nonhormonal treatments available for managing menopause symptoms, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as well as nonmedicinal interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, but these also have not been studied specifically in women with HIV.