Ob.Gyn. News

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that younger breast cancer survivors with a germline pathogenic variant or those with an initial diagnosis of in situ vs invasive primary breast cancer have a significantly higher risk for a second primary breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger are about two to three times more likely to develop second primary breast cancer compared with women who are older when first diagnosed.
• However, data are lacking on whether certain factors increase a woman’s risk for a second primary breast cancer.
• To classify the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer, the researchers evaluated a main cohort of 685 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer who were diagnosed at age 40 years or younger and had undergone unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as primary surgery between August 2006 and June 2015. The team also analyzed data on 547 younger women who had a bilateral mastectomy.
• The researchers assessed various breast cancer risk factors, including self-reported ethnicity, race, age, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, germline genetics, tumor stage, grade, and receptor status.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of a second primary breast cancer that occurred at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 685 main study participants, 17 (2.5%) developed a second primary breast cancer (15 contralateral and 2 ipsilateral) over a median of 4.2 years since their primary diagnosis. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer was 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively.
• Overall, only 33 women were positive for a germline pathogenic variant, and having a pathogenic variant was associated with a fourfold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with noncarriers at 5 years (5.5% vs 1.3%) and at 10 years (8.9% vs 2.2%). These findings were held in multivariate models.
• Patients initially diagnosed with in situ disease had more than a fivefold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with those initially diagnosed with invasive disease — 6.2% vs 1.2% at 5 years and 10.4% vs 2.1% at 10 years (hazard ratio, 5.25; P = .004). These findings were held in multivariate models (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR], 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70) and among women without a pathogenic variant (adjusted sHR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.54-20.90).
• The researchers also found a low risk for contralateral breast cancer among women without pathogenic variants, which could inform surgical decision-making.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the number of women positive for a germline pathogenic variant was small (n = 33) and “results should be interpreted cautiously,” the analysis signals “the importance of genetic testing” in younger breast cancer survivors to gauge their risk for a second primary breast cancer, the authors concluded. The authors added that their “finding of a higher risk of [second primary breast cancer] among those diagnosed with in situ primary [breast cancer] merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kristen D. Brantley, PhD, from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small number of second breast cancer events limited the authors’ ability to assess the effects of multiple risk factors together. Data on risk factors might be incomplete. About 9% of participants completed abbreviated questionnaires that did not include information on body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and family history. Frequencies of pathogenic variants besides BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be underestimated.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received no external funding. Four authors reported receiving grants or royalties outside this work. Other reported no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that younger breast cancer survivors with a germline pathogenic variant or those with an initial diagnosis of in situ vs invasive primary breast cancer have a significantly higher risk for a second primary breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger are about two to three times more likely to develop second primary breast cancer compared with women who are older when first diagnosed.
• However, data are lacking on whether certain factors increase a woman’s risk for a second primary breast cancer.
• To classify the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer, the researchers evaluated a main cohort of 685 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer who were diagnosed at age 40 years or younger and had undergone unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as primary surgery between August 2006 and June 2015. The team also analyzed data on 547 younger women who had a bilateral mastectomy.
• The researchers assessed various breast cancer risk factors, including self-reported ethnicity, race, age, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, germline genetics, tumor stage, grade, and receptor status.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of a second primary breast cancer that occurred at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 685 main study participants, 17 (2.5%) developed a second primary breast cancer (15 contralateral and 2 ipsilateral) over a median of 4.2 years since their primary diagnosis. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer was 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively.
• Overall, only 33 women were positive for a germline pathogenic variant, and having a pathogenic variant was associated with a fourfold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with noncarriers at 5 years (5.5% vs 1.3%) and at 10 years (8.9% vs 2.2%). These findings were held in multivariate models.
• Patients initially diagnosed with in situ disease had more than a fivefold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with those initially diagnosed with invasive disease — 6.2% vs 1.2% at 5 years and 10.4% vs 2.1% at 10 years (hazard ratio, 5.25; P = .004). These findings were held in multivariate models (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR], 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70) and among women without a pathogenic variant (adjusted sHR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.54-20.90).
• The researchers also found a low risk for contralateral breast cancer among women without pathogenic variants, which could inform surgical decision-making.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the number of women positive for a germline pathogenic variant was small (n = 33) and “results should be interpreted cautiously,” the analysis signals “the importance of genetic testing” in younger breast cancer survivors to gauge their risk for a second primary breast cancer, the authors concluded. The authors added that their “finding of a higher risk of [second primary breast cancer] among those diagnosed with in situ primary [breast cancer] merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kristen D. Brantley, PhD, from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small number of second breast cancer events limited the authors’ ability to assess the effects of multiple risk factors together. Data on risk factors might be incomplete. About 9% of participants completed abbreviated questionnaires that did not include information on body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and family history. Frequencies of pathogenic variants besides BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be underestimated.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received no external funding. Four authors reported receiving grants or royalties outside this work. Other reported no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that younger breast cancer survivors with a germline pathogenic variant or those with an initial diagnosis of in situ vs invasive primary breast cancer have a significantly higher risk for a second primary breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger are about two to three times more likely to develop second primary breast cancer compared with women who are older when first diagnosed.
• However, data are lacking on whether certain factors increase a woman’s risk for a second primary breast cancer.
• To classify the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer, the researchers evaluated a main cohort of 685 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer who were diagnosed at age 40 years or younger and had undergone unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as primary surgery between August 2006 and June 2015. The team also analyzed data on 547 younger women who had a bilateral mastectomy.
• The researchers assessed various breast cancer risk factors, including self-reported ethnicity, race, age, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, germline genetics, tumor stage, grade, and receptor status.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of a second primary breast cancer that occurred at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 685 main study participants, 17 (2.5%) developed a second primary breast cancer (15 contralateral and 2 ipsilateral) over a median of 4.2 years since their primary diagnosis. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer was 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively.
• Overall, only 33 women were positive for a germline pathogenic variant, and having a pathogenic variant was associated with a fourfold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with noncarriers at 5 years (5.5% vs 1.3%) and at 10 years (8.9% vs 2.2%). These findings were held in multivariate models.
• Patients initially diagnosed with in situ disease had more than a fivefold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with those initially diagnosed with invasive disease — 6.2% vs 1.2% at 5 years and 10.4% vs 2.1% at 10 years (hazard ratio, 5.25; P = .004). These findings were held in multivariate models (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR], 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70) and among women without a pathogenic variant (adjusted sHR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.54-20.90).
• The researchers also found a low risk for contralateral breast cancer among women without pathogenic variants, which could inform surgical decision-making.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the number of women positive for a germline pathogenic variant was small (n = 33) and “results should be interpreted cautiously,” the analysis signals “the importance of genetic testing” in younger breast cancer survivors to gauge their risk for a second primary breast cancer, the authors concluded. The authors added that their “finding of a higher risk of [second primary breast cancer] among those diagnosed with in situ primary [breast cancer] merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kristen D. Brantley, PhD, from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small number of second breast cancer events limited the authors’ ability to assess the effects of multiple risk factors together. Data on risk factors might be incomplete. About 9% of participants completed abbreviated questionnaires that did not include information on body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and family history. Frequencies of pathogenic variants besides BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be underestimated.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received no external funding. Four authors reported receiving grants or royalties outside this work. Other reported no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Patients who have complications after dermatologic cosmetic procedures are prone to high rates of a host of mental health issues, ranging from anxiety disorder and depression to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a survey-based study of patients with dermatology-related complications. 

The study used an anonymous 40-question survey circulated to a Facebook cosmetic complication support group. Seventy-one of 100 individuals completed the questionnaire, reporting significantly higher rates of mental health issues after their complications than before. Results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). Almost all the survey respondents (99%) were female, with 61% aged 25-44 years and 34% aged 45-64 years.

Taryn Murray, MD

“Cosmetic procedures have increased over the past decade, with procedures being increasingly performed by an evolving variety of providers,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, told this news organization. “Appropriate patient assessment and counseling and proper procedure technique are important for obtaining safe and effective results. Complications may not only impact patients physically but can also be harmful to their mental health.”
 

Rise in Mental Health Issues

The study found that before respondents had the treatment that led to their complications, 16% reported a history of generalized anxiety disorder, 15% a history of depression, and 1% a history of either BDD or PTSD. Following the complication, 50% reported a positive depression screening, 63% a positive BDD Questionnaire – Dermatology Version, and 63% a positive Primary Care PTSD screen, Dr. Murray said. “Almost half of respondents (46%) reported thinking about their complication for more than 3 hours a day,” she said in presenting the results. 

Dr. Murray said the idea for the study grew out of her experience as a fellow working with Paul Friedman, MD, at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center at University of Texas Health in Houston.

“We were seeing a lot of complications,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. “Some of these were local. Some of these patients were flying in from out-of-state looking for help with the complication, and we could see what a mental and emotional burden this put on these patients. They were routinely in the office in tears saying it was interfering with their daily life, it was interfering with their job, saying they were going to lose their job, all because they were so distressed over what was happening to them.”

Yet, the research into psychological distress in patients with dermatologic complications is minimal, Dr. Murray added. “We think that body dysmorphic disorder is prevalent for patients seeking dermatology or plastic surgery services, but I don’t think either of the specialties do a great job in screening people for that when they come for treatment, so I think a lot of it goes undiagnosed. There’s been a trend looking at more at complications lately, but there’s been a gap in the literature.”

The treatments the patients in the survey had were microneedling with radiofrequency (29%), laser (24%), ultrasound for skin tightening (11%), radiofrequency for skin tightening (11%), microneedling (4%), chemical peel (3%), body contouring/sculpting (1%), and “other” (17%).

The study found that the largest share of procedures, 47%, were done by an esthetician/laser technician, followed by a nondermatologist physician (17%), a board-certified dermatologist (14%), an advanced practice provider (12%), and “other” (10%).

Self-reported complications included scarring (38%), hyperpigmentation (26%), erythema (24%), burn (23%), blisters (11%), and hypopigmentation (3%); 71% characterized their complications as “other,” and one respondent reported multiple complications.

“Respondents said they were satisfied with the previous cosmetic care they received,” Dr. Murray said during her presentation at the meeting. “And there was a consensus among the respondents that they did not feel adequately counseled on the risks of the procedure and that it did not meet their expectations and anticipated outcome.”
 

Take-Home Lesson

The lesson here is that practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures should be well-versed in the task and potential complications, Dr. Murray said in the interview. “If you’re going to be doing a procedure, make sure you know the proper techniques, the proper endpoints, and how to treat if you’re to have a complication,” she said. “If you don’t know how to treat a complication from the device, then you should think twice about using it.”

She also suggested screening patients for potentially undiagnosed mental health disorders. “It can play a role in the initial consultation and potentially any after-care they might need if there is a complication,” she said. “We may not have the adequate tools at this time to know how to best handle these patients and these scenarios, but hopefully my abstract will shed a little more light on it.”

She said she hopes her findings lead to more research in the future.

Asked to comment on the study, Jennifer Lin, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said one finding of the study stood out to her. “ I was very surprised from her dataset that patients think about it more than 3 hours a day,” she told this news organization. “That’s really significant. We talk about the side effects, but we don’t necessarily talk about the burden of how long the recovery will be or the psychological burden of potentially dealing with it.”

She noted that “there’s a bit of movement” toward developing guidelines for laser treatments, which would address the risk of complications. “That’s the goal: To have better guidelines to avoid these complications in the first place,” Dr. Lin said.

The study findings also point to a need for “premonitoring” individuals before procedures, she added. “We talked about patient selection and make sure someone doesn’t have body dysmorphic disorder, but we don’t formally screen for it,” she said. “We don’t our train our residents to screen for it. And I think doing more pre- and post-testing of how people are affected by laser treatment is going to become more important.”

Dr. Murray disclosed relationships with R2 Technologies. Dr. Lin had no relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Patients who have complications after dermatologic cosmetic procedures are prone to high rates of a host of mental health issues, ranging from anxiety disorder and depression to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a survey-based study of patients with dermatology-related complications. 

The study used an anonymous 40-question survey circulated to a Facebook cosmetic complication support group. Seventy-one of 100 individuals completed the questionnaire, reporting significantly higher rates of mental health issues after their complications than before. Results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). Almost all the survey respondents (99%) were female, with 61% aged 25-44 years and 34% aged 45-64 years.

Taryn Murray, MD

“Cosmetic procedures have increased over the past decade, with procedures being increasingly performed by an evolving variety of providers,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, told this news organization. “Appropriate patient assessment and counseling and proper procedure technique are important for obtaining safe and effective results. Complications may not only impact patients physically but can also be harmful to their mental health.”
 

Rise in Mental Health Issues

The study found that before respondents had the treatment that led to their complications, 16% reported a history of generalized anxiety disorder, 15% a history of depression, and 1% a history of either BDD or PTSD. Following the complication, 50% reported a positive depression screening, 63% a positive BDD Questionnaire – Dermatology Version, and 63% a positive Primary Care PTSD screen, Dr. Murray said. “Almost half of respondents (46%) reported thinking about their complication for more than 3 hours a day,” she said in presenting the results. 

Dr. Murray said the idea for the study grew out of her experience as a fellow working with Paul Friedman, MD, at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center at University of Texas Health in Houston.

“We were seeing a lot of complications,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. “Some of these were local. Some of these patients were flying in from out-of-state looking for help with the complication, and we could see what a mental and emotional burden this put on these patients. They were routinely in the office in tears saying it was interfering with their daily life, it was interfering with their job, saying they were going to lose their job, all because they were so distressed over what was happening to them.”

Yet, the research into psychological distress in patients with dermatologic complications is minimal, Dr. Murray added. “We think that body dysmorphic disorder is prevalent for patients seeking dermatology or plastic surgery services, but I don’t think either of the specialties do a great job in screening people for that when they come for treatment, so I think a lot of it goes undiagnosed. There’s been a trend looking at more at complications lately, but there’s been a gap in the literature.”

The treatments the patients in the survey had were microneedling with radiofrequency (29%), laser (24%), ultrasound for skin tightening (11%), radiofrequency for skin tightening (11%), microneedling (4%), chemical peel (3%), body contouring/sculpting (1%), and “other” (17%).

The study found that the largest share of procedures, 47%, were done by an esthetician/laser technician, followed by a nondermatologist physician (17%), a board-certified dermatologist (14%), an advanced practice provider (12%), and “other” (10%).

Self-reported complications included scarring (38%), hyperpigmentation (26%), erythema (24%), burn (23%), blisters (11%), and hypopigmentation (3%); 71% characterized their complications as “other,” and one respondent reported multiple complications.

“Respondents said they were satisfied with the previous cosmetic care they received,” Dr. Murray said during her presentation at the meeting. “And there was a consensus among the respondents that they did not feel adequately counseled on the risks of the procedure and that it did not meet their expectations and anticipated outcome.”
 

Take-Home Lesson

The lesson here is that practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures should be well-versed in the task and potential complications, Dr. Murray said in the interview. “If you’re going to be doing a procedure, make sure you know the proper techniques, the proper endpoints, and how to treat if you’re to have a complication,” she said. “If you don’t know how to treat a complication from the device, then you should think twice about using it.”

She also suggested screening patients for potentially undiagnosed mental health disorders. “It can play a role in the initial consultation and potentially any after-care they might need if there is a complication,” she said. “We may not have the adequate tools at this time to know how to best handle these patients and these scenarios, but hopefully my abstract will shed a little more light on it.”

She said she hopes her findings lead to more research in the future.

Asked to comment on the study, Jennifer Lin, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said one finding of the study stood out to her. “ I was very surprised from her dataset that patients think about it more than 3 hours a day,” she told this news organization. “That’s really significant. We talk about the side effects, but we don’t necessarily talk about the burden of how long the recovery will be or the psychological burden of potentially dealing with it.”

She noted that “there’s a bit of movement” toward developing guidelines for laser treatments, which would address the risk of complications. “That’s the goal: To have better guidelines to avoid these complications in the first place,” Dr. Lin said.

The study findings also point to a need for “premonitoring” individuals before procedures, she added. “We talked about patient selection and make sure someone doesn’t have body dysmorphic disorder, but we don’t formally screen for it,” she said. “We don’t our train our residents to screen for it. And I think doing more pre- and post-testing of how people are affected by laser treatment is going to become more important.”

Dr. Murray disclosed relationships with R2 Technologies. Dr. Lin had no relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Patients who have complications after dermatologic cosmetic procedures are prone to high rates of a host of mental health issues, ranging from anxiety disorder and depression to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a survey-based study of patients with dermatology-related complications. 

The study used an anonymous 40-question survey circulated to a Facebook cosmetic complication support group. Seventy-one of 100 individuals completed the questionnaire, reporting significantly higher rates of mental health issues after their complications than before. Results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). Almost all the survey respondents (99%) were female, with 61% aged 25-44 years and 34% aged 45-64 years.

Taryn Murray, MD

“Cosmetic procedures have increased over the past decade, with procedures being increasingly performed by an evolving variety of providers,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, told this news organization. “Appropriate patient assessment and counseling and proper procedure technique are important for obtaining safe and effective results. Complications may not only impact patients physically but can also be harmful to their mental health.”
 

Rise in Mental Health Issues

The study found that before respondents had the treatment that led to their complications, 16% reported a history of generalized anxiety disorder, 15% a history of depression, and 1% a history of either BDD or PTSD. Following the complication, 50% reported a positive depression screening, 63% a positive BDD Questionnaire – Dermatology Version, and 63% a positive Primary Care PTSD screen, Dr. Murray said. “Almost half of respondents (46%) reported thinking about their complication for more than 3 hours a day,” she said in presenting the results. 

Dr. Murray said the idea for the study grew out of her experience as a fellow working with Paul Friedman, MD, at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center at University of Texas Health in Houston.

“We were seeing a lot of complications,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. “Some of these were local. Some of these patients were flying in from out-of-state looking for help with the complication, and we could see what a mental and emotional burden this put on these patients. They were routinely in the office in tears saying it was interfering with their daily life, it was interfering with their job, saying they were going to lose their job, all because they were so distressed over what was happening to them.”

Yet, the research into psychological distress in patients with dermatologic complications is minimal, Dr. Murray added. “We think that body dysmorphic disorder is prevalent for patients seeking dermatology or plastic surgery services, but I don’t think either of the specialties do a great job in screening people for that when they come for treatment, so I think a lot of it goes undiagnosed. There’s been a trend looking at more at complications lately, but there’s been a gap in the literature.”

The treatments the patients in the survey had were microneedling with radiofrequency (29%), laser (24%), ultrasound for skin tightening (11%), radiofrequency for skin tightening (11%), microneedling (4%), chemical peel (3%), body contouring/sculpting (1%), and “other” (17%).

The study found that the largest share of procedures, 47%, were done by an esthetician/laser technician, followed by a nondermatologist physician (17%), a board-certified dermatologist (14%), an advanced practice provider (12%), and “other” (10%).

Self-reported complications included scarring (38%), hyperpigmentation (26%), erythema (24%), burn (23%), blisters (11%), and hypopigmentation (3%); 71% characterized their complications as “other,” and one respondent reported multiple complications.

“Respondents said they were satisfied with the previous cosmetic care they received,” Dr. Murray said during her presentation at the meeting. “And there was a consensus among the respondents that they did not feel adequately counseled on the risks of the procedure and that it did not meet their expectations and anticipated outcome.”
 

Take-Home Lesson

The lesson here is that practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures should be well-versed in the task and potential complications, Dr. Murray said in the interview. “If you’re going to be doing a procedure, make sure you know the proper techniques, the proper endpoints, and how to treat if you’re to have a complication,” she said. “If you don’t know how to treat a complication from the device, then you should think twice about using it.”

She also suggested screening patients for potentially undiagnosed mental health disorders. “It can play a role in the initial consultation and potentially any after-care they might need if there is a complication,” she said. “We may not have the adequate tools at this time to know how to best handle these patients and these scenarios, but hopefully my abstract will shed a little more light on it.”

She said she hopes her findings lead to more research in the future.

Asked to comment on the study, Jennifer Lin, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said one finding of the study stood out to her. “ I was very surprised from her dataset that patients think about it more than 3 hours a day,” she told this news organization. “That’s really significant. We talk about the side effects, but we don’t necessarily talk about the burden of how long the recovery will be or the psychological burden of potentially dealing with it.”

She noted that “there’s a bit of movement” toward developing guidelines for laser treatments, which would address the risk of complications. “That’s the goal: To have better guidelines to avoid these complications in the first place,” Dr. Lin said.

The study findings also point to a need for “premonitoring” individuals before procedures, she added. “We talked about patient selection and make sure someone doesn’t have body dysmorphic disorder, but we don’t formally screen for it,” she said. “We don’t our train our residents to screen for it. And I think doing more pre- and post-testing of how people are affected by laser treatment is going to become more important.”

Dr. Murray disclosed relationships with R2 Technologies. Dr. Lin had no relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Dr. Green

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Dr. Green

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Dr. Green

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omitting axillary lymph node dissection does not increase the risk for recurrence or compromise 5-year overall survival outcomes in patients with early-stage, node-negative breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases undergoing surgery and radiation therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has indicated that patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes undergoing breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy can skip axillary lymph node dissection and achieve similar outcomes compared with patients receiving axillary dissection.
• However, these earlier studies had notable limitations, such as limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and minimal data on relevant clinical subgroups.
• To fill the gaps in the literature, the researchers conducted a trial with a large, inclusive cohort of patients with node-negative stage T1-T3 breast cancer who had one or two sentinel-node macrometastases and had undergone a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery.
• The trial randomized 2540 patients to either completion axillary lymph node dissection (n = 1205) or sentinel-node biopsy only (n = 1335). Nearly 90% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and the majority also received systematic therapy.
• Earlier recurrence-free survival findings and patient-reported outcomes were reported last December. The researchers now reported overall survival findings as well as secondary endpoints of breast cancer-specific survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers reported 191 recurrences or deaths over a median follow-up of 46.8 months; 62 patients (4.6%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group died, and 69 patients (5.7%) in the dissection group died.
• The biopsy-only group had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 92.9% compared with 92.0% in the dissection group and an estimated 5-year breast cancer-specific survival of 97.1% vs 96.6% in the dissection group.
• The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% in the biopsy-only group vs 88.7% in the dissection group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19).
• This non-inferior difference held across all prespecified patient subgroups, except in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease, in which sentinel biopsy alone appeared to be better (HR, 0.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial provides robust evidence that the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was safe in patients with clinically node-negative T1, T2, or T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel-node macrometastases who received adjuvant systemic treatment and radiation therapy according to national guidelines,” the authors concluded.

“It is clear that the role of axillary dissection is rapidly disappearing,” Kandace P. McGuire, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, axillary staging continues to be vital with regard to decisions about appropriate breast cancer therapy.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, alongside the accompanying editorial by Dr. McGuire.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations include unavailable radiation therapy details for comparison, low male recruitment hindering sex-based analysis, short follow-up for luminal subtype breast cancer, unmet enrollment targets, and higher withdrawal rates in the dissection group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, and Swedish Breast Cancer Association. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omitting axillary lymph node dissection does not increase the risk for recurrence or compromise 5-year overall survival outcomes in patients with early-stage, node-negative breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases undergoing surgery and radiation therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has indicated that patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes undergoing breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy can skip axillary lymph node dissection and achieve similar outcomes compared with patients receiving axillary dissection.
• However, these earlier studies had notable limitations, such as limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and minimal data on relevant clinical subgroups.
• To fill the gaps in the literature, the researchers conducted a trial with a large, inclusive cohort of patients with node-negative stage T1-T3 breast cancer who had one or two sentinel-node macrometastases and had undergone a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery.
• The trial randomized 2540 patients to either completion axillary lymph node dissection (n = 1205) or sentinel-node biopsy only (n = 1335). Nearly 90% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and the majority also received systematic therapy.
• Earlier recurrence-free survival findings and patient-reported outcomes were reported last December. The researchers now reported overall survival findings as well as secondary endpoints of breast cancer-specific survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers reported 191 recurrences or deaths over a median follow-up of 46.8 months; 62 patients (4.6%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group died, and 69 patients (5.7%) in the dissection group died.
• The biopsy-only group had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 92.9% compared with 92.0% in the dissection group and an estimated 5-year breast cancer-specific survival of 97.1% vs 96.6% in the dissection group.
• The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% in the biopsy-only group vs 88.7% in the dissection group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19).
• This non-inferior difference held across all prespecified patient subgroups, except in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease, in which sentinel biopsy alone appeared to be better (HR, 0.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial provides robust evidence that the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was safe in patients with clinically node-negative T1, T2, or T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel-node macrometastases who received adjuvant systemic treatment and radiation therapy according to national guidelines,” the authors concluded.

“It is clear that the role of axillary dissection is rapidly disappearing,” Kandace P. McGuire, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, axillary staging continues to be vital with regard to decisions about appropriate breast cancer therapy.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, alongside the accompanying editorial by Dr. McGuire.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations include unavailable radiation therapy details for comparison, low male recruitment hindering sex-based analysis, short follow-up for luminal subtype breast cancer, unmet enrollment targets, and higher withdrawal rates in the dissection group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, and Swedish Breast Cancer Association. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omitting axillary lymph node dissection does not increase the risk for recurrence or compromise 5-year overall survival outcomes in patients with early-stage, node-negative breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases undergoing surgery and radiation therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has indicated that patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes undergoing breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy can skip axillary lymph node dissection and achieve similar outcomes compared with patients receiving axillary dissection.
• However, these earlier studies had notable limitations, such as limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and minimal data on relevant clinical subgroups.
• To fill the gaps in the literature, the researchers conducted a trial with a large, inclusive cohort of patients with node-negative stage T1-T3 breast cancer who had one or two sentinel-node macrometastases and had undergone a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery.
• The trial randomized 2540 patients to either completion axillary lymph node dissection (n = 1205) or sentinel-node biopsy only (n = 1335). Nearly 90% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and the majority also received systematic therapy.
• Earlier recurrence-free survival findings and patient-reported outcomes were reported last December. The researchers now reported overall survival findings as well as secondary endpoints of breast cancer-specific survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers reported 191 recurrences or deaths over a median follow-up of 46.8 months; 62 patients (4.6%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group died, and 69 patients (5.7%) in the dissection group died.
• The biopsy-only group had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 92.9% compared with 92.0% in the dissection group and an estimated 5-year breast cancer-specific survival of 97.1% vs 96.6% in the dissection group.
• The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% in the biopsy-only group vs 88.7% in the dissection group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19).
• This non-inferior difference held across all prespecified patient subgroups, except in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease, in which sentinel biopsy alone appeared to be better (HR, 0.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial provides robust evidence that the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was safe in patients with clinically node-negative T1, T2, or T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel-node macrometastases who received adjuvant systemic treatment and radiation therapy according to national guidelines,” the authors concluded.

“It is clear that the role of axillary dissection is rapidly disappearing,” Kandace P. McGuire, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, axillary staging continues to be vital with regard to decisions about appropriate breast cancer therapy.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, alongside the accompanying editorial by Dr. McGuire.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations include unavailable radiation therapy details for comparison, low male recruitment hindering sex-based analysis, short follow-up for luminal subtype breast cancer, unmet enrollment targets, and higher withdrawal rates in the dissection group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, and Swedish Breast Cancer Association. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.