MDedge Pediatrics

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its annual update to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS on April 10, with many changes centered around improving health equity and quality as well as alleviating rural clinician shortages.

“This proposed rule reflects our person-centric approach to better measure health care quality and safety in hospitals to reduce preventable harm and our commitment to ensure that people with Medicare in rural and underserved areas have improved access to high-quality health care,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Here are 14 things to know about the fiscal year (FY) 2024 proposal:

1. New payment rate: Acute-care hospitals that report inpatient quality data and participate in the EHR Meaningful Use program will receive a 2.8% net increase in payment rates. The rate adjustment will send approximately $3.3 billion more funding to hospitals compared with 2023.

2. LTCH payments: CMS projects that the LTCH standard payment rate will increase by 2.9%, whereas discharge payments will decrease by 2.5% or $59 million.

3. Disproportionate share hospital payments: Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments and Medicare uncompensated care payments will decrease by about $115 million for FY 2024.

4. Health equity categories: CMS proposes adding 15 new health equity hospital categorizations for IPPS payments to advance the goals of its Framework for Health Equity initiative.   

5. Social determinants of health codes: To reflect increased resource utilization, the severity designation for the three International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes describing homelessness will change from noncomplication or comorbidity to complication or comorbidity.

6. Rural emergency hospitals: The proposed rule will allow designated rural emergency hospitals to serve as training sites and receive Medicare graduate medical education payments to address concerns over rural hospital closures.

7. COVID treatment add-on payments: If the public health emergency ends in May, add-on payments for discharges involving eligible products like convalescent plasma and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir will expire on Sept. 30.

8. Technology add-on payments: Requests for new technology add-on payments must include a complete, active Food and Drug Administration market authorization application. Beginning with FY 2025 applications, the FDA approval deadline will move from July 1 to May 1.

9. Physician-owned hospitals: To receive Medicare payment for services referred by a physician owner or investor, the hospital must satisfy all requirements of the whole hospital exception or the rural provider exception to the Stark Law. In either case, a hospital may not increase the aggregate number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds above the level it was licensed for on March 23, 2010, unless CMS grants an exception.

10. Electronic clinical quality measures: The new rule will remove and modify several existing electronic clinical quality measures and add three new ones: hospital harm, pressure injury; hospital harm, acute kidney injury; and excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic CT in adult inpatients.

11. HCAHPS survey: Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, modifications to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey will extend the data collection period from 42 to 49 days, limit supplemental survey items to 12, and require an official Spanish translation for patients.

12. Safety-net hospitals request for information: CMS seeks public input about the unique challenges faced by safety-net hospitals and potential solutions to ensure that uninsured, underinsured, and other vulnerable populations have access to essential services.

13. LTCH quality reporting: CMS proposes several quality-measure updates, including a functional discharge score measure beginning in FY 2025 and reporting the percentage of patients current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recommended COVID vaccinations starting in FY 2026.

14. Commenting period: CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through June 9.
 

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its annual update to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS on April 10, with many changes centered around improving health equity and quality as well as alleviating rural clinician shortages.

“This proposed rule reflects our person-centric approach to better measure health care quality and safety in hospitals to reduce preventable harm and our commitment to ensure that people with Medicare in rural and underserved areas have improved access to high-quality health care,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Here are 14 things to know about the fiscal year (FY) 2024 proposal:

1. New payment rate: Acute-care hospitals that report inpatient quality data and participate in the EHR Meaningful Use program will receive a 2.8% net increase in payment rates. The rate adjustment will send approximately $3.3 billion more funding to hospitals compared with 2023.

2. LTCH payments: CMS projects that the LTCH standard payment rate will increase by 2.9%, whereas discharge payments will decrease by 2.5% or $59 million.

3. Disproportionate share hospital payments: Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments and Medicare uncompensated care payments will decrease by about $115 million for FY 2024.

4. Health equity categories: CMS proposes adding 15 new health equity hospital categorizations for IPPS payments to advance the goals of its Framework for Health Equity initiative.   

5. Social determinants of health codes: To reflect increased resource utilization, the severity designation for the three International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes describing homelessness will change from noncomplication or comorbidity to complication or comorbidity.

6. Rural emergency hospitals: The proposed rule will allow designated rural emergency hospitals to serve as training sites and receive Medicare graduate medical education payments to address concerns over rural hospital closures.

7. COVID treatment add-on payments: If the public health emergency ends in May, add-on payments for discharges involving eligible products like convalescent plasma and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir will expire on Sept. 30.

8. Technology add-on payments: Requests for new technology add-on payments must include a complete, active Food and Drug Administration market authorization application. Beginning with FY 2025 applications, the FDA approval deadline will move from July 1 to May 1.

9. Physician-owned hospitals: To receive Medicare payment for services referred by a physician owner or investor, the hospital must satisfy all requirements of the whole hospital exception or the rural provider exception to the Stark Law. In either case, a hospital may not increase the aggregate number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds above the level it was licensed for on March 23, 2010, unless CMS grants an exception.

10. Electronic clinical quality measures: The new rule will remove and modify several existing electronic clinical quality measures and add three new ones: hospital harm, pressure injury; hospital harm, acute kidney injury; and excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic CT in adult inpatients.

11. HCAHPS survey: Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, modifications to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey will extend the data collection period from 42 to 49 days, limit supplemental survey items to 12, and require an official Spanish translation for patients.

12. Safety-net hospitals request for information: CMS seeks public input about the unique challenges faced by safety-net hospitals and potential solutions to ensure that uninsured, underinsured, and other vulnerable populations have access to essential services.

13. LTCH quality reporting: CMS proposes several quality-measure updates, including a functional discharge score measure beginning in FY 2025 and reporting the percentage of patients current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recommended COVID vaccinations starting in FY 2026.

14. Commenting period: CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through June 9.
 

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its annual update to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS on April 10, with many changes centered around improving health equity and quality as well as alleviating rural clinician shortages.

“This proposed rule reflects our person-centric approach to better measure health care quality and safety in hospitals to reduce preventable harm and our commitment to ensure that people with Medicare in rural and underserved areas have improved access to high-quality health care,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Here are 14 things to know about the fiscal year (FY) 2024 proposal:

1. New payment rate: Acute-care hospitals that report inpatient quality data and participate in the EHR Meaningful Use program will receive a 2.8% net increase in payment rates. The rate adjustment will send approximately $3.3 billion more funding to hospitals compared with 2023.

2. LTCH payments: CMS projects that the LTCH standard payment rate will increase by 2.9%, whereas discharge payments will decrease by 2.5% or $59 million.

3. Disproportionate share hospital payments: Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments and Medicare uncompensated care payments will decrease by about $115 million for FY 2024.

4. Health equity categories: CMS proposes adding 15 new health equity hospital categorizations for IPPS payments to advance the goals of its Framework for Health Equity initiative.   

5. Social determinants of health codes: To reflect increased resource utilization, the severity designation for the three International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes describing homelessness will change from noncomplication or comorbidity to complication or comorbidity.

6. Rural emergency hospitals: The proposed rule will allow designated rural emergency hospitals to serve as training sites and receive Medicare graduate medical education payments to address concerns over rural hospital closures.

7. COVID treatment add-on payments: If the public health emergency ends in May, add-on payments for discharges involving eligible products like convalescent plasma and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir will expire on Sept. 30.

8. Technology add-on payments: Requests for new technology add-on payments must include a complete, active Food and Drug Administration market authorization application. Beginning with FY 2025 applications, the FDA approval deadline will move from July 1 to May 1.

9. Physician-owned hospitals: To receive Medicare payment for services referred by a physician owner or investor, the hospital must satisfy all requirements of the whole hospital exception or the rural provider exception to the Stark Law. In either case, a hospital may not increase the aggregate number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds above the level it was licensed for on March 23, 2010, unless CMS grants an exception.

10. Electronic clinical quality measures: The new rule will remove and modify several existing electronic clinical quality measures and add three new ones: hospital harm, pressure injury; hospital harm, acute kidney injury; and excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic CT in adult inpatients.

11. HCAHPS survey: Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, modifications to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey will extend the data collection period from 42 to 49 days, limit supplemental survey items to 12, and require an official Spanish translation for patients.

12. Safety-net hospitals request for information: CMS seeks public input about the unique challenges faced by safety-net hospitals and potential solutions to ensure that uninsured, underinsured, and other vulnerable populations have access to essential services.

13. LTCH quality reporting: CMS proposes several quality-measure updates, including a functional discharge score measure beginning in FY 2025 and reporting the percentage of patients current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recommended COVID vaccinations starting in FY 2026.

14. Commenting period: CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through June 9.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has endorsed a plan to “allow” people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised to get a second dose of the COVID-19 bivalent booster.

This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.

“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.

The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.

But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.

The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.

People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.

Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.

If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”

The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.

The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
 

‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs

The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.

For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.

All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.

For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.

ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.

“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.

“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.

Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
 

New vaccine by fall

CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.

“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.

“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has endorsed a plan to “allow” people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised to get a second dose of the COVID-19 bivalent booster.

This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.

“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.

The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.

But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.

The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.

People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.

Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.

If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”

The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.

The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
 

‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs

The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.

For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.

All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.

For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.

ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.

“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.

“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.

Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
 

New vaccine by fall

CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.

“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.

“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has endorsed a plan to “allow” people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised to get a second dose of the COVID-19 bivalent booster.

This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.

“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.

The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.

But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.

The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.

People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.

Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.

If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”

The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.

The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
 

‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs

The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.

For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.

All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.

For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.

ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.

“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.

“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.

Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
 

New vaccine by fall

CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.

“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.

“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

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

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

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

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

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

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

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

No matter the size, running a practice is a challenge. By being aware of – and more importantly steering clear of – some common but unrecognized pitfalls, you can increase your odds for success and profitability.

A physician who in the past has led medical groups as both chief medical officer and president, Gerda Maissel, MD, president of My MD Advisor, a private patient advocacy group, has seen the good, bad, and ugly of practice administration. There’s a spectrum of infractions: Anything from doctors making inappropriate jokes with staff or patients, to failing to establish key relationships with other critical entities, says Dr. Maissel.

“Being a good physician who provides value is important in building a practice,” explained Dr. Maissel. “But it is not the be-all and end-all.”

While the number of physician-owned practices is declining, just under 50% are still in private practice, according to the American Medical Association’s 2020 survey. There’s also a continuing trend toward larger practices. Whatever the size, the physicians are responsible for strategy, marketing, building the practice, and maintaining profitability. 

Catherine Lightfoot, CPA, CHBC, president of the National Society of Certified Healthcare Business Consultants (NSCHBC), has her finger on the pulse of what’s right and what’s wrong when it comes to running a medical practice. Although she says there are no hard and fast rules on how to run a thriving medical group, there are common mistakes that physicians often don’t recognize.

Here are the five key mistakes that commonly crop up, and the experts’ thoughts on how to prevent or fix them.
 

1. Failing to engage in outreach activities and community efforts to build your practice.

Yes, physicians earn good reputations through dedicated work, and that often precedes them when it comes to building a practice. But assuming that hanging a shingle backed by strong credentials is all it takes for success is akin to building a website and assuming people will find it organically. Maybe there was a time, in a small community, where this was good enough. But no longer.

It’s important to plan to get your practice and your name known to potential patients. “Most physicians think that means advertising, but that’s not the complete case,” Dr. Maissel said.

Much of the equation involves ensuring availability. This means setting office hours that work for your target audience of patients, and then ensuring you stick to those hours. This extends beyond scheduling your current patients and into referral patients, too. And it’s particularly true while in the building phase of a new practice.

“If one of your colleagues calls with a referral patient, and they consider the matter urgent, you need to heed that,” explained Dr. Maissel. “So have a breadth of availability for these referral cases.” Through word of mouth, you’ll get a good reputation for patient care and availability, and that will go a long way toward helping to grow your practice.

Establishing a culture that doesn’t involve canceling and rescheduling patients is part of the scheduling equation, too. “I’ve seen the full gamut of cancellation policies, ranging from a month’s notice on changes to 3 months’ notice,” said Dr. Maissel. “It all gets at the same issue, which is failing to set up a culture where doctors don’t change their schedules and leave patients hanging.”

In the end, wonky scheduling, cancellations, and a lack of respect for the urgency of referrals can cost a practice. Forge a reputation in reliability and word will get around, in all the right ways.
 

2. Not having enough oversight of your outsourced billing service

Billing is one of the biggest pieces of running a successful and profitable practice, yet too many practices ignore it once they’ve handed it off to a billing company. That can cost you in more ways than one, said Ms. Lightfoot. “Billing changes all the time, and if you’re not monitoring your billing partner, you don’t know what you’re getting,” she said.

Ms. Lightfoot said that a decade ago, billing was much more straightforward – essentially, you did the work and received payment. Today’s complex insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid environment have changed the landscape. “Now you have to fight for every dollar you’re billing,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Rates get cut all the time, you might miss out on a claim, and the rules are constantly changing.”

The solution for many practices is to outsource billing, which Ms. Lightfoot supports. “They specialize in this, and that’s a great start,” she said. “But it’s not as simple as handing it off and forgetting it.”

Instead, ensure your internal staff is up to date on all things coding and billing so that they can catch what your outsourced billing partner doesn’t. Your internal staff should be prepared to carry out coding, check coding, and stay on top of the billing company if they aren’t processing claims quickly enough. For instance: If there’s a denial, how many times will the billing company go after that money?

Other questions to ask when entering a billing relationship: What does the billing company expect from your practice? Do they communicate what needs to be worked on or fixed? Are they providing you with monthly reports? “You want to make sure you’re getting those reports every month and reading them over carefully,” said Ms. Lightfoot.

This means that if you have a large practice, you should have a point person within your billing department to handle the relationship with your billing partner. If it’s a smaller practice, the task will likely fall to the office manager. The ‘who’ isn’t important, but having someone on the case is.

Another important aspect of this billing relationship is understanding what you’re receiving for your payment. “Sometimes going with the cheapest offer amounts to a billing partner who isn’t working on those claims and denials as much as they should,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “I’ve seen fees anywhere from 4% to 9%, and the lower end can mean you’ll need to chase down every penny.”
 

3. Neglecting to forge the right relationships in the community.

Another common mistake physicians make is failing to develop the professional relationships that will help you thrive. Successful practices need to establish relationships with the right people and organizations. While the occasional afternoon of golf used to serve this purpose, today outreach must go beyond that, said Dr. Maissel. “You need to create relationships with hospitals and hospital-based practices because you may have value to them,” she said. “You should also get into some sort of relationship with your local ACO (Accountable Care Organization) or PHO (Physician Hospital Organization). Identify the leaders there and let them know you exist.”

Establishing these relationships goes beyond that first step of introducing yourself, or you risk losing their benefits. You must also nurture and “fertilize” these relationships in an ongoing fashion. “For years, as the head of employee practice, I had a competitor who would go out of his way to invite me to lunch regularly,” said Dr. Maissel. “When there were opportunities for his group, I would connect him. I wouldn’t have done that had he not worked on our relationship over time.”

The adage of “it’s not what you know but who you know” holds up here. If you don’t do the reach out to the right people and organizations in your community, you will have a harder time succeeding as a practice.
 

4. Hiring the wrong person/a family member for the job.

When starting a new practice, or if you’re running a small practice, it can be tempting to look for affordable or reliable staffing from among family members or friends. That’s fine if your family member or friend is also qualified for the job. If they aren’t, however, you might be setting up for failure.

“When you hire someone without the right qualifications, you need to be willing to train them for the job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Doctors don’t have that kind of time.”

Too often, Ms. Lightfoot said, a doctor will have a position like officer manager open and fill it with an in-law, whether he or she is experienced or not. “Now you have someone in the role who is unqualified, and the rest of the office can’t speak up about that because it’s a relative to the lead physician,” she said. “That doesn’t create a good environment for anyone.”

Also, a setup for failure is hiring someone who might be qualified, but not possessing the right personality for the role. A front desk position, for instance, should be held by someone who’s a bit upbeat and able to multitask. “You can’t put a shy, quiet person in that job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “So, if you see a person with 10 years’ experience in a medical practice, but they’re reserved, what will happen? You must think about this when hiring.”

One PA recalled a small family practice in which the lead physician’s wife was the office manager. To save money, the wife removed lights from the staff restroom and staff lunchroom and declined staff requests for earned vacation. The staff felt unable to speak up, and they – and all new office staff members – ultimately left the practice.
 

5. Overlooking the importance of acting like a professional and respecting your staff.

This one might seem obvious, but many physicians get a bit too comfortable in the office environment, said Dr. Maissel. This can encompass a whole host of bad behaviors, from making inappropriate jokes to staff and patients, to trash-talking colleagues. None of this behavior is acceptable and can set you up for things to go wrong, especially when good labor is hard to come by. “Your staff is made up of people for whom 50 cents an hour is meaningful,” she said. “If they don’t have a warm, supportive office, they will look elsewhere.”

This is especially true of younger people now entering the workforce – they are less tolerant than generations past of egregious behavior. Try to establish a professional, yet nurturing environment for your staff. “Inquire about things that matter to them,” said Dr. Maissel. “Small talk can go a long way. See them as human beings, not cogs in the wheel.”

Inappropriate and uncaring behaviors will give physician leaders a reputation, one that sticks. “The medical community is pretty connected, and if you behave inappropriately enough times, it will circle back to you,” said Dr. Maissel.

Launching, and sustaining, a successful medical practice is never a given, but mistakes are. With the right approach, however, you can avoid these common – and impactful – errors and set your practice up for success.
 

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

No matter the size, running a practice is a challenge. By being aware of – and more importantly steering clear of – some common but unrecognized pitfalls, you can increase your odds for success and profitability.

A physician who in the past has led medical groups as both chief medical officer and president, Gerda Maissel, MD, president of My MD Advisor, a private patient advocacy group, has seen the good, bad, and ugly of practice administration. There’s a spectrum of infractions: Anything from doctors making inappropriate jokes with staff or patients, to failing to establish key relationships with other critical entities, says Dr. Maissel.

“Being a good physician who provides value is important in building a practice,” explained Dr. Maissel. “But it is not the be-all and end-all.”

While the number of physician-owned practices is declining, just under 50% are still in private practice, according to the American Medical Association’s 2020 survey. There’s also a continuing trend toward larger practices. Whatever the size, the physicians are responsible for strategy, marketing, building the practice, and maintaining profitability. 

Catherine Lightfoot, CPA, CHBC, president of the National Society of Certified Healthcare Business Consultants (NSCHBC), has her finger on the pulse of what’s right and what’s wrong when it comes to running a medical practice. Although she says there are no hard and fast rules on how to run a thriving medical group, there are common mistakes that physicians often don’t recognize.

Here are the five key mistakes that commonly crop up, and the experts’ thoughts on how to prevent or fix them.
 

1. Failing to engage in outreach activities and community efforts to build your practice.

Yes, physicians earn good reputations through dedicated work, and that often precedes them when it comes to building a practice. But assuming that hanging a shingle backed by strong credentials is all it takes for success is akin to building a website and assuming people will find it organically. Maybe there was a time, in a small community, where this was good enough. But no longer.

It’s important to plan to get your practice and your name known to potential patients. “Most physicians think that means advertising, but that’s not the complete case,” Dr. Maissel said.

Much of the equation involves ensuring availability. This means setting office hours that work for your target audience of patients, and then ensuring you stick to those hours. This extends beyond scheduling your current patients and into referral patients, too. And it’s particularly true while in the building phase of a new practice.

“If one of your colleagues calls with a referral patient, and they consider the matter urgent, you need to heed that,” explained Dr. Maissel. “So have a breadth of availability for these referral cases.” Through word of mouth, you’ll get a good reputation for patient care and availability, and that will go a long way toward helping to grow your practice.

Establishing a culture that doesn’t involve canceling and rescheduling patients is part of the scheduling equation, too. “I’ve seen the full gamut of cancellation policies, ranging from a month’s notice on changes to 3 months’ notice,” said Dr. Maissel. “It all gets at the same issue, which is failing to set up a culture where doctors don’t change their schedules and leave patients hanging.”

In the end, wonky scheduling, cancellations, and a lack of respect for the urgency of referrals can cost a practice. Forge a reputation in reliability and word will get around, in all the right ways.
 

2. Not having enough oversight of your outsourced billing service

Billing is one of the biggest pieces of running a successful and profitable practice, yet too many practices ignore it once they’ve handed it off to a billing company. That can cost you in more ways than one, said Ms. Lightfoot. “Billing changes all the time, and if you’re not monitoring your billing partner, you don’t know what you’re getting,” she said.

Ms. Lightfoot said that a decade ago, billing was much more straightforward – essentially, you did the work and received payment. Today’s complex insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid environment have changed the landscape. “Now you have to fight for every dollar you’re billing,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Rates get cut all the time, you might miss out on a claim, and the rules are constantly changing.”

The solution for many practices is to outsource billing, which Ms. Lightfoot supports. “They specialize in this, and that’s a great start,” she said. “But it’s not as simple as handing it off and forgetting it.”

Instead, ensure your internal staff is up to date on all things coding and billing so that they can catch what your outsourced billing partner doesn’t. Your internal staff should be prepared to carry out coding, check coding, and stay on top of the billing company if they aren’t processing claims quickly enough. For instance: If there’s a denial, how many times will the billing company go after that money?

Other questions to ask when entering a billing relationship: What does the billing company expect from your practice? Do they communicate what needs to be worked on or fixed? Are they providing you with monthly reports? “You want to make sure you’re getting those reports every month and reading them over carefully,” said Ms. Lightfoot.

This means that if you have a large practice, you should have a point person within your billing department to handle the relationship with your billing partner. If it’s a smaller practice, the task will likely fall to the office manager. The ‘who’ isn’t important, but having someone on the case is.

Another important aspect of this billing relationship is understanding what you’re receiving for your payment. “Sometimes going with the cheapest offer amounts to a billing partner who isn’t working on those claims and denials as much as they should,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “I’ve seen fees anywhere from 4% to 9%, and the lower end can mean you’ll need to chase down every penny.”
 

3. Neglecting to forge the right relationships in the community.

Another common mistake physicians make is failing to develop the professional relationships that will help you thrive. Successful practices need to establish relationships with the right people and organizations. While the occasional afternoon of golf used to serve this purpose, today outreach must go beyond that, said Dr. Maissel. “You need to create relationships with hospitals and hospital-based practices because you may have value to them,” she said. “You should also get into some sort of relationship with your local ACO (Accountable Care Organization) or PHO (Physician Hospital Organization). Identify the leaders there and let them know you exist.”

Establishing these relationships goes beyond that first step of introducing yourself, or you risk losing their benefits. You must also nurture and “fertilize” these relationships in an ongoing fashion. “For years, as the head of employee practice, I had a competitor who would go out of his way to invite me to lunch regularly,” said Dr. Maissel. “When there were opportunities for his group, I would connect him. I wouldn’t have done that had he not worked on our relationship over time.”

The adage of “it’s not what you know but who you know” holds up here. If you don’t do the reach out to the right people and organizations in your community, you will have a harder time succeeding as a practice.
 

4. Hiring the wrong person/a family member for the job.

When starting a new practice, or if you’re running a small practice, it can be tempting to look for affordable or reliable staffing from among family members or friends. That’s fine if your family member or friend is also qualified for the job. If they aren’t, however, you might be setting up for failure.

“When you hire someone without the right qualifications, you need to be willing to train them for the job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Doctors don’t have that kind of time.”

Too often, Ms. Lightfoot said, a doctor will have a position like officer manager open and fill it with an in-law, whether he or she is experienced or not. “Now you have someone in the role who is unqualified, and the rest of the office can’t speak up about that because it’s a relative to the lead physician,” she said. “That doesn’t create a good environment for anyone.”

Also, a setup for failure is hiring someone who might be qualified, but not possessing the right personality for the role. A front desk position, for instance, should be held by someone who’s a bit upbeat and able to multitask. “You can’t put a shy, quiet person in that job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “So, if you see a person with 10 years’ experience in a medical practice, but they’re reserved, what will happen? You must think about this when hiring.”

One PA recalled a small family practice in which the lead physician’s wife was the office manager. To save money, the wife removed lights from the staff restroom and staff lunchroom and declined staff requests for earned vacation. The staff felt unable to speak up, and they – and all new office staff members – ultimately left the practice.
 

5. Overlooking the importance of acting like a professional and respecting your staff.

This one might seem obvious, but many physicians get a bit too comfortable in the office environment, said Dr. Maissel. This can encompass a whole host of bad behaviors, from making inappropriate jokes to staff and patients, to trash-talking colleagues. None of this behavior is acceptable and can set you up for things to go wrong, especially when good labor is hard to come by. “Your staff is made up of people for whom 50 cents an hour is meaningful,” she said. “If they don’t have a warm, supportive office, they will look elsewhere.”

This is especially true of younger people now entering the workforce – they are less tolerant than generations past of egregious behavior. Try to establish a professional, yet nurturing environment for your staff. “Inquire about things that matter to them,” said Dr. Maissel. “Small talk can go a long way. See them as human beings, not cogs in the wheel.”

Inappropriate and uncaring behaviors will give physician leaders a reputation, one that sticks. “The medical community is pretty connected, and if you behave inappropriately enough times, it will circle back to you,” said Dr. Maissel.

Launching, and sustaining, a successful medical practice is never a given, but mistakes are. With the right approach, however, you can avoid these common – and impactful – errors and set your practice up for success.
 

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

No matter the size, running a practice is a challenge. By being aware of – and more importantly steering clear of – some common but unrecognized pitfalls, you can increase your odds for success and profitability.

A physician who in the past has led medical groups as both chief medical officer and president, Gerda Maissel, MD, president of My MD Advisor, a private patient advocacy group, has seen the good, bad, and ugly of practice administration. There’s a spectrum of infractions: Anything from doctors making inappropriate jokes with staff or patients, to failing to establish key relationships with other critical entities, says Dr. Maissel.

“Being a good physician who provides value is important in building a practice,” explained Dr. Maissel. “But it is not the be-all and end-all.”

While the number of physician-owned practices is declining, just under 50% are still in private practice, according to the American Medical Association’s 2020 survey. There’s also a continuing trend toward larger practices. Whatever the size, the physicians are responsible for strategy, marketing, building the practice, and maintaining profitability. 

Catherine Lightfoot, CPA, CHBC, president of the National Society of Certified Healthcare Business Consultants (NSCHBC), has her finger on the pulse of what’s right and what’s wrong when it comes to running a medical practice. Although she says there are no hard and fast rules on how to run a thriving medical group, there are common mistakes that physicians often don’t recognize.

Here are the five key mistakes that commonly crop up, and the experts’ thoughts on how to prevent or fix them.
 

1. Failing to engage in outreach activities and community efforts to build your practice.

Yes, physicians earn good reputations through dedicated work, and that often precedes them when it comes to building a practice. But assuming that hanging a shingle backed by strong credentials is all it takes for success is akin to building a website and assuming people will find it organically. Maybe there was a time, in a small community, where this was good enough. But no longer.

It’s important to plan to get your practice and your name known to potential patients. “Most physicians think that means advertising, but that’s not the complete case,” Dr. Maissel said.

Much of the equation involves ensuring availability. This means setting office hours that work for your target audience of patients, and then ensuring you stick to those hours. This extends beyond scheduling your current patients and into referral patients, too. And it’s particularly true while in the building phase of a new practice.

“If one of your colleagues calls with a referral patient, and they consider the matter urgent, you need to heed that,” explained Dr. Maissel. “So have a breadth of availability for these referral cases.” Through word of mouth, you’ll get a good reputation for patient care and availability, and that will go a long way toward helping to grow your practice.

Establishing a culture that doesn’t involve canceling and rescheduling patients is part of the scheduling equation, too. “I’ve seen the full gamut of cancellation policies, ranging from a month’s notice on changes to 3 months’ notice,” said Dr. Maissel. “It all gets at the same issue, which is failing to set up a culture where doctors don’t change their schedules and leave patients hanging.”

In the end, wonky scheduling, cancellations, and a lack of respect for the urgency of referrals can cost a practice. Forge a reputation in reliability and word will get around, in all the right ways.
 

2. Not having enough oversight of your outsourced billing service

Billing is one of the biggest pieces of running a successful and profitable practice, yet too many practices ignore it once they’ve handed it off to a billing company. That can cost you in more ways than one, said Ms. Lightfoot. “Billing changes all the time, and if you’re not monitoring your billing partner, you don’t know what you’re getting,” she said.

Ms. Lightfoot said that a decade ago, billing was much more straightforward – essentially, you did the work and received payment. Today’s complex insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid environment have changed the landscape. “Now you have to fight for every dollar you’re billing,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Rates get cut all the time, you might miss out on a claim, and the rules are constantly changing.”

The solution for many practices is to outsource billing, which Ms. Lightfoot supports. “They specialize in this, and that’s a great start,” she said. “But it’s not as simple as handing it off and forgetting it.”

Instead, ensure your internal staff is up to date on all things coding and billing so that they can catch what your outsourced billing partner doesn’t. Your internal staff should be prepared to carry out coding, check coding, and stay on top of the billing company if they aren’t processing claims quickly enough. For instance: If there’s a denial, how many times will the billing company go after that money?

Other questions to ask when entering a billing relationship: What does the billing company expect from your practice? Do they communicate what needs to be worked on or fixed? Are they providing you with monthly reports? “You want to make sure you’re getting those reports every month and reading them over carefully,” said Ms. Lightfoot.

This means that if you have a large practice, you should have a point person within your billing department to handle the relationship with your billing partner. If it’s a smaller practice, the task will likely fall to the office manager. The ‘who’ isn’t important, but having someone on the case is.

Another important aspect of this billing relationship is understanding what you’re receiving for your payment. “Sometimes going with the cheapest offer amounts to a billing partner who isn’t working on those claims and denials as much as they should,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “I’ve seen fees anywhere from 4% to 9%, and the lower end can mean you’ll need to chase down every penny.”
 

3. Neglecting to forge the right relationships in the community.

Another common mistake physicians make is failing to develop the professional relationships that will help you thrive. Successful practices need to establish relationships with the right people and organizations. While the occasional afternoon of golf used to serve this purpose, today outreach must go beyond that, said Dr. Maissel. “You need to create relationships with hospitals and hospital-based practices because you may have value to them,” she said. “You should also get into some sort of relationship with your local ACO (Accountable Care Organization) or PHO (Physician Hospital Organization). Identify the leaders there and let them know you exist.”

Establishing these relationships goes beyond that first step of introducing yourself, or you risk losing their benefits. You must also nurture and “fertilize” these relationships in an ongoing fashion. “For years, as the head of employee practice, I had a competitor who would go out of his way to invite me to lunch regularly,” said Dr. Maissel. “When there were opportunities for his group, I would connect him. I wouldn’t have done that had he not worked on our relationship over time.”

The adage of “it’s not what you know but who you know” holds up here. If you don’t do the reach out to the right people and organizations in your community, you will have a harder time succeeding as a practice.
 

4. Hiring the wrong person/a family member for the job.

When starting a new practice, or if you’re running a small practice, it can be tempting to look for affordable or reliable staffing from among family members or friends. That’s fine if your family member or friend is also qualified for the job. If they aren’t, however, you might be setting up for failure.

“When you hire someone without the right qualifications, you need to be willing to train them for the job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Doctors don’t have that kind of time.”

Too often, Ms. Lightfoot said, a doctor will have a position like officer manager open and fill it with an in-law, whether he or she is experienced or not. “Now you have someone in the role who is unqualified, and the rest of the office can’t speak up about that because it’s a relative to the lead physician,” she said. “That doesn’t create a good environment for anyone.”

Also, a setup for failure is hiring someone who might be qualified, but not possessing the right personality for the role. A front desk position, for instance, should be held by someone who’s a bit upbeat and able to multitask. “You can’t put a shy, quiet person in that job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “So, if you see a person with 10 years’ experience in a medical practice, but they’re reserved, what will happen? You must think about this when hiring.”

One PA recalled a small family practice in which the lead physician’s wife was the office manager. To save money, the wife removed lights from the staff restroom and staff lunchroom and declined staff requests for earned vacation. The staff felt unable to speak up, and they – and all new office staff members – ultimately left the practice.
 

5. Overlooking the importance of acting like a professional and respecting your staff.

This one might seem obvious, but many physicians get a bit too comfortable in the office environment, said Dr. Maissel. This can encompass a whole host of bad behaviors, from making inappropriate jokes to staff and patients, to trash-talking colleagues. None of this behavior is acceptable and can set you up for things to go wrong, especially when good labor is hard to come by. “Your staff is made up of people for whom 50 cents an hour is meaningful,” she said. “If they don’t have a warm, supportive office, they will look elsewhere.”

This is especially true of younger people now entering the workforce – they are less tolerant than generations past of egregious behavior. Try to establish a professional, yet nurturing environment for your staff. “Inquire about things that matter to them,” said Dr. Maissel. “Small talk can go a long way. See them as human beings, not cogs in the wheel.”

Inappropriate and uncaring behaviors will give physician leaders a reputation, one that sticks. “The medical community is pretty connected, and if you behave inappropriately enough times, it will circle back to you,” said Dr. Maissel.

Launching, and sustaining, a successful medical practice is never a given, but mistakes are. With the right approach, however, you can avoid these common – and impactful – errors and set your practice up for success.
 

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

My son needed a physical for his football team, and we couldn’t get an appointment. So, we went to the urgent care next to the H Mart in Cary, N.C. While I was waiting, I thought, let me go get a coffee or an iced tea at the H Mart. They have this French bakery in there.

I went in and ordered my drink, and I was waiting in line. I saw this woman pass me running with a baby. Another woman – I found out later it was her sister – was running after her, and she said: “Call 911!”

“I don’t have my phone,” I said. I left my phone with my son; he was using it.

The lady came running back holding the baby. She was hysterical, screaming: “My baby’s not breathing!”

I said: “Are you okay?” And she just handed me the baby. The baby was gray, and there was blood in her nose and mouth. The woman said: “She’s my baby. She’s 1 week old.”

I was trying to think very quickly. I didn’t see any bubbles in the blood around the baby’s nose or mouth to tell me if she was breathing. She was just limp. The mom was still screaming, but I couldn’t even hear her anymore. It was like I was having an out-of-body experience. All I could hear were my thoughts: “I need to put this baby down to start CPR. Someone was calling 911. I should go in the front of the store to save time, so EMS doesn’t have to look for me when they come.”

I started moving and trying to clean the blood from the baby’s face with her blanket. At the front of the store, I saw a display of rice bags. I put the baby on top of one of the bags. “Okay, where do I check for a pulse on a baby?” I took care of adults, never pediatric patients, never babies. She was so tiny. I put my hand on her chest and felt nothing. No heartbeat. She still wasn’t breathing.

People were around me, but I couldn’t see or hear anybody. All I was thinking was: “What can I do for this patient right now?” I started CPR with two fingers. Nothing was happening. It wasn’t that long, but it felt like forever for me. I couldn’t do mouth-to-mouth because there was so much blood on her face. I still don’t know what caused the bleeding.

It was COVID time, so I had my mask on. I was, like: “You know what? Screw this. She’s a 1-week-old baby. Her lungs are tiny. Maybe I don’t have to do mouth-to-mouth. I can just blow in her mouth.” I took off my mask and opened her mouth. I took a deep breath and blew a little bit of air in her mouth. I continued CPR for maybe 5 or 10 seconds.

And then she gasped! She opened her eyes, but they were rolled up. I was still doing CPR, and maybe 2 second after that, I could feel under my hand a very rapid heart rate. I took my hand away and lifted her up.

Just then the EMS got there. I gave them the baby and said: “I did CPR. I don’t know how long it lasted.” The EMS person looked at me, said: “Thank you for what you did. Now we need you to help us with mom.” I said, “okay.”

I turned around, and the mom was still screaming and crying. I asked one of the ladies that worked there, “Can you get me water?” She brought it, and I gave some to the mom, and she started talking to EMS.

People were asking me: “What happened? What happened?” It’s funny, I guess the nurse in me didn’t want to give out information. And I didn’t want to ask for information. I was thinking about privacy. I said, “I don’t know,” and walked away.

The mom’s sister came and hugged me and said thank you. I was still in this out-of-body zone, and I just wanted to get the hell out of there. So, I left. I went to my car and when I got in it, I started shaking and sweating and crying.

I had been so calm in the moment, not thinking about if the baby was going to survive or not. I didn’t know how long she was without oxygen, if she would have some anoxic brain injury or stroke. I’m a mom, too. I would have been just as terrified as that mom. I just hoped there was a chance that she could take her baby home.

I went back to the urgent care, and my son was, like, “are you okay?” I said: “You will not believe this. I just did CPR on a baby.” He said: “Oh. Okay.” I don’t think he even knew what that meant.

I’ve been an ICU nurse since 2008. I’ve been in very critical moments with patients, life or death situations. I help save people all the time at the hospital. Most of the time, you know what you’re getting. You can prepare. You have everything you need, and everyone knows what to do. You know what the worst will look like. You know the outcome.

But this was something else. You read about things like this. You hear about them. But you never think it’ll happen to you – until it happens.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the baby. So, 2 days later, I posted on Next Door to see if somebody would read it and say, “hey, the baby survived.” I was amazed at how many people responded, but no one knew the family.

The local news got hold of me and asked me to do a story. I told them, “the only way I can do a story is if the baby survived. I’m not going to do a story about a dead baby, and the mom has to live through it again.”

The reporter called me later on that day and said she had talked to the police. They said the family was visiting from out of state. The baby went to the hospital and was discharged home 2 days later. I said, “okay, then I can talk.”

When the news story came out, I started getting texts from people at work the same night. So many people were reaching out. Even people from out of state. But I never heard from the family. No one knew how to reach them.

Since I was very young, I wanted to work in a hospital, to help people. It really brings me joy, seeing somebody go home, knowing, yes, we did this. It’s a great feeling. I love this job. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

I just wish I had asked the mom’s name. Because I always think about that baby. I always wonder, what did she become? I hope somebody reads this who might know that little girl. It would be so nice to meet her one day.

Ms. Diallo is an ICU nurse and now works as nurse care coordinator at the University of North Carolina’s Children’s Neurology Clinic in Chapel Hill.
 

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

My son needed a physical for his football team, and we couldn’t get an appointment. So, we went to the urgent care next to the H Mart in Cary, N.C. While I was waiting, I thought, let me go get a coffee or an iced tea at the H Mart. They have this French bakery in there.

I went in and ordered my drink, and I was waiting in line. I saw this woman pass me running with a baby. Another woman – I found out later it was her sister – was running after her, and she said: “Call 911!”

“I don’t have my phone,” I said. I left my phone with my son; he was using it.

The lady came running back holding the baby. She was hysterical, screaming: “My baby’s not breathing!”

I said: “Are you okay?” And she just handed me the baby. The baby was gray, and there was blood in her nose and mouth. The woman said: “She’s my baby. She’s 1 week old.”

I was trying to think very quickly. I didn’t see any bubbles in the blood around the baby’s nose or mouth to tell me if she was breathing. She was just limp. The mom was still screaming, but I couldn’t even hear her anymore. It was like I was having an out-of-body experience. All I could hear were my thoughts: “I need to put this baby down to start CPR. Someone was calling 911. I should go in the front of the store to save time, so EMS doesn’t have to look for me when they come.”

I started moving and trying to clean the blood from the baby’s face with her blanket. At the front of the store, I saw a display of rice bags. I put the baby on top of one of the bags. “Okay, where do I check for a pulse on a baby?” I took care of adults, never pediatric patients, never babies. She was so tiny. I put my hand on her chest and felt nothing. No heartbeat. She still wasn’t breathing.

People were around me, but I couldn’t see or hear anybody. All I was thinking was: “What can I do for this patient right now?” I started CPR with two fingers. Nothing was happening. It wasn’t that long, but it felt like forever for me. I couldn’t do mouth-to-mouth because there was so much blood on her face. I still don’t know what caused the bleeding.

It was COVID time, so I had my mask on. I was, like: “You know what? Screw this. She’s a 1-week-old baby. Her lungs are tiny. Maybe I don’t have to do mouth-to-mouth. I can just blow in her mouth.” I took off my mask and opened her mouth. I took a deep breath and blew a little bit of air in her mouth. I continued CPR for maybe 5 or 10 seconds.

And then she gasped! She opened her eyes, but they were rolled up. I was still doing CPR, and maybe 2 second after that, I could feel under my hand a very rapid heart rate. I took my hand away and lifted her up.

Just then the EMS got there. I gave them the baby and said: “I did CPR. I don’t know how long it lasted.” The EMS person looked at me, said: “Thank you for what you did. Now we need you to help us with mom.” I said, “okay.”

I turned around, and the mom was still screaming and crying. I asked one of the ladies that worked there, “Can you get me water?” She brought it, and I gave some to the mom, and she started talking to EMS.

People were asking me: “What happened? What happened?” It’s funny, I guess the nurse in me didn’t want to give out information. And I didn’t want to ask for information. I was thinking about privacy. I said, “I don’t know,” and walked away.

The mom’s sister came and hugged me and said thank you. I was still in this out-of-body zone, and I just wanted to get the hell out of there. So, I left. I went to my car and when I got in it, I started shaking and sweating and crying.

I had been so calm in the moment, not thinking about if the baby was going to survive or not. I didn’t know how long she was without oxygen, if she would have some anoxic brain injury or stroke. I’m a mom, too. I would have been just as terrified as that mom. I just hoped there was a chance that she could take her baby home.

I went back to the urgent care, and my son was, like, “are you okay?” I said: “You will not believe this. I just did CPR on a baby.” He said: “Oh. Okay.” I don’t think he even knew what that meant.

I’ve been an ICU nurse since 2008. I’ve been in very critical moments with patients, life or death situations. I help save people all the time at the hospital. Most of the time, you know what you’re getting. You can prepare. You have everything you need, and everyone knows what to do. You know what the worst will look like. You know the outcome.

But this was something else. You read about things like this. You hear about them. But you never think it’ll happen to you – until it happens.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the baby. So, 2 days later, I posted on Next Door to see if somebody would read it and say, “hey, the baby survived.” I was amazed at how many people responded, but no one knew the family.

The local news got hold of me and asked me to do a story. I told them, “the only way I can do a story is if the baby survived. I’m not going to do a story about a dead baby, and the mom has to live through it again.”

The reporter called me later on that day and said she had talked to the police. They said the family was visiting from out of state. The baby went to the hospital and was discharged home 2 days later. I said, “okay, then I can talk.”

When the news story came out, I started getting texts from people at work the same night. So many people were reaching out. Even people from out of state. But I never heard from the family. No one knew how to reach them.

Since I was very young, I wanted to work in a hospital, to help people. It really brings me joy, seeing somebody go home, knowing, yes, we did this. It’s a great feeling. I love this job. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

I just wish I had asked the mom’s name. Because I always think about that baby. I always wonder, what did she become? I hope somebody reads this who might know that little girl. It would be so nice to meet her one day.

Ms. Diallo is an ICU nurse and now works as nurse care coordinator at the University of North Carolina’s Children’s Neurology Clinic in Chapel Hill.
 

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

My son needed a physical for his football team, and we couldn’t get an appointment. So, we went to the urgent care next to the H Mart in Cary, N.C. While I was waiting, I thought, let me go get a coffee or an iced tea at the H Mart. They have this French bakery in there.

I went in and ordered my drink, and I was waiting in line. I saw this woman pass me running with a baby. Another woman – I found out later it was her sister – was running after her, and she said: “Call 911!”

“I don’t have my phone,” I said. I left my phone with my son; he was using it.

The lady came running back holding the baby. She was hysterical, screaming: “My baby’s not breathing!”

I said: “Are you okay?” And she just handed me the baby. The baby was gray, and there was blood in her nose and mouth. The woman said: “She’s my baby. She’s 1 week old.”

I was trying to think very quickly. I didn’t see any bubbles in the blood around the baby’s nose or mouth to tell me if she was breathing. She was just limp. The mom was still screaming, but I couldn’t even hear her anymore. It was like I was having an out-of-body experience. All I could hear were my thoughts: “I need to put this baby down to start CPR. Someone was calling 911. I should go in the front of the store to save time, so EMS doesn’t have to look for me when they come.”

I started moving and trying to clean the blood from the baby’s face with her blanket. At the front of the store, I saw a display of rice bags. I put the baby on top of one of the bags. “Okay, where do I check for a pulse on a baby?” I took care of adults, never pediatric patients, never babies. She was so tiny. I put my hand on her chest and felt nothing. No heartbeat. She still wasn’t breathing.

People were around me, but I couldn’t see or hear anybody. All I was thinking was: “What can I do for this patient right now?” I started CPR with two fingers. Nothing was happening. It wasn’t that long, but it felt like forever for me. I couldn’t do mouth-to-mouth because there was so much blood on her face. I still don’t know what caused the bleeding.

It was COVID time, so I had my mask on. I was, like: “You know what? Screw this. She’s a 1-week-old baby. Her lungs are tiny. Maybe I don’t have to do mouth-to-mouth. I can just blow in her mouth.” I took off my mask and opened her mouth. I took a deep breath and blew a little bit of air in her mouth. I continued CPR for maybe 5 or 10 seconds.

And then she gasped! She opened her eyes, but they were rolled up. I was still doing CPR, and maybe 2 second after that, I could feel under my hand a very rapid heart rate. I took my hand away and lifted her up.

Just then the EMS got there. I gave them the baby and said: “I did CPR. I don’t know how long it lasted.” The EMS person looked at me, said: “Thank you for what you did. Now we need you to help us with mom.” I said, “okay.”

I turned around, and the mom was still screaming and crying. I asked one of the ladies that worked there, “Can you get me water?” She brought it, and I gave some to the mom, and she started talking to EMS.

People were asking me: “What happened? What happened?” It’s funny, I guess the nurse in me didn’t want to give out information. And I didn’t want to ask for information. I was thinking about privacy. I said, “I don’t know,” and walked away.

The mom’s sister came and hugged me and said thank you. I was still in this out-of-body zone, and I just wanted to get the hell out of there. So, I left. I went to my car and when I got in it, I started shaking and sweating and crying.

I had been so calm in the moment, not thinking about if the baby was going to survive or not. I didn’t know how long she was without oxygen, if she would have some anoxic brain injury or stroke. I’m a mom, too. I would have been just as terrified as that mom. I just hoped there was a chance that she could take her baby home.

I went back to the urgent care, and my son was, like, “are you okay?” I said: “You will not believe this. I just did CPR on a baby.” He said: “Oh. Okay.” I don’t think he even knew what that meant.

I’ve been an ICU nurse since 2008. I’ve been in very critical moments with patients, life or death situations. I help save people all the time at the hospital. Most of the time, you know what you’re getting. You can prepare. You have everything you need, and everyone knows what to do. You know what the worst will look like. You know the outcome.

But this was something else. You read about things like this. You hear about them. But you never think it’ll happen to you – until it happens.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the baby. So, 2 days later, I posted on Next Door to see if somebody would read it and say, “hey, the baby survived.” I was amazed at how many people responded, but no one knew the family.

The local news got hold of me and asked me to do a story. I told them, “the only way I can do a story is if the baby survived. I’m not going to do a story about a dead baby, and the mom has to live through it again.”

The reporter called me later on that day and said she had talked to the police. They said the family was visiting from out of state. The baby went to the hospital and was discharged home 2 days later. I said, “okay, then I can talk.”

When the news story came out, I started getting texts from people at work the same night. So many people were reaching out. Even people from out of state. But I never heard from the family. No one knew how to reach them.

Since I was very young, I wanted to work in a hospital, to help people. It really brings me joy, seeing somebody go home, knowing, yes, we did this. It’s a great feeling. I love this job. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

I just wish I had asked the mom’s name. Because I always think about that baby. I always wonder, what did she become? I hope somebody reads this who might know that little girl. It would be so nice to meet her one day.

Ms. Diallo is an ICU nurse and now works as nurse care coordinator at the University of North Carolina’s Children’s Neurology Clinic in Chapel Hill.
 

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

Beating the allegory of the cave

When Beatriz Flamini spoke with reporters on April 14, she knew nothing of the previous 18 months. The Russian invasion of Ukraine? Nope. The death of Queen Elizabeth? Also no. But before you make fun of her, she has an excuse. She’s been living under a rock.

As part of an experiment to test how social isolation and disorientation affect a person’s mind, sense of time, and sleeping patterns, Ms. Flamini lived in a 70-meter-deep cave in southern Spain for 500 days, starting in November 2021. Alone. No outside communication with the outside world in any way, though she was constantly monitored by a team of researchers. She also had multiple cameras filming her for an upcoming documentary.

Joshua Sortino/Negative Space

This is a massive step up from the previous record for time spent underground for science: A team of 15 spent 50 days underground in 2021 to similar study of isolation and how it affected circadian rhythms. It’s also almost certainly a world record for time spent underground.

All that time alone certainly sounds like some sort of medieval torture, but Ms. Flamini had access to food, water, and a library of books. Which she made liberal use of, reading at least 60 books during her stay. She also had a panic button in case the isolation became too much or an emergency developed, but she never considered using it.

She lost track of time after 2 months, flies invaded the cave on occasion, and maintaining coherence was occasionally a struggle, but she kept things together very well. In fact, she didn’t even want to leave when her team came for her. She wasn’t even finished with her 61st book.

When she spoke with gathered reporters after the ordeal, words were obviously difficult to come by for her, having not spoken in nearly 18 months, but her mind was clearly still sharp and she had a very important question for everyone gathered around her.

Who’s buying the beer?

We approve of this request.
 

Staphylococcus and the speed of evolution

Bacteria, we know, are tough little buggers that are hard to see and even harder to get rid of. So hard, actually, that human bodies eventually gave up on the task and decided to just incorporate them into our organ systems. But why are bacteria so hard to eliminate?

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

Two words: rapid evolution. How rapid? For the first time, scientists have directly observed adaptive evolution by Staphylococcus aureus in a single person’s skin microbiome. That’s how rapid.

For their study, the researchers collected samples from the nostrils, backs of knees, insides of elbows, and forearms of 23 children with eczema. They eventually cultured almost 1,500 unique colonies of S. aureus cells from those samples and sequenced the cells’ genomes.

All that sampling and culturing and sequencing showed that it was rare for a new S. aureus strain to come in and replace the existing strain. “Despite the stability at the lineage level, we see a lot of dynamics at the whole genome level, where new mutations are constantly arising in these bacteria and then spreading throughout the entire body,” Tami D. Lieberman, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, said in a written statement from MIT.

One frequent mutation involved a gene called capD, which encodes an enzyme necessary for synthesizing the capsular polysaccharide – a coating that protects S. aureus from recognition by immune cells. In one patient, four different mutations of capD arose independently in different samples before one variant became dominant and spread over the entire microbiome, MIT reported.

The mutation, which actually results in the loss of the polysaccharide capsule, may allow cells to grow faster than those without the mutation because they have more fuel to power their own growth, the researchers suggested. It’s also possible that loss of the capsule allows S. aureus cells to stick to the skin better because proteins that allow them to adhere to the skin are more exposed.

Dr. Lieberman and her associates hope that these variant-containing cells could be a new target for eczema treatments, but we’re never optimistic when it comes to bacteria. That’s because some of us are old enough to remember evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote in his book “Full House”: “Our planet has always been in the ‘Age of Bacteria,’ ever since the first fossils – bacteria, of course – were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago. On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are – and always have been – the dominant forms of life on Earth.”

In the distant future, long after humans have left the scene, the bacteria will be laughing at the last rats and cockroaches scurrying across the landscape. Wanna bet?
 

The height of genetic prediction

Genetics are practically a DNA Scrabble bag. Traits like eye color and hair texture are chosen in the same fashion, based on what gets pulled from our own genetic bag of letters, but what about height? Researchers may now have a way to predict adult height and make it more than just an educated guess.

How? By looking at the genes in our growth plates. The cartilage on the ends of our bones hardens as we age, eventually deciding an individual’s stature. In a recently published study, a research team looked at 600 million cartilage cells linked to maturation and cell growth in mice. Because everything starts with rodents.

Mayberry Health and Home

After that search identified 145 genes linked to growth plate maturation and formation of the bones, they compared the mouse genes with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of human height to look for hotspots where the height genes exist in human DNA.

The results showed which genes play a role in deciding height, and the GWAS data also suggested that genetic changes affecting cartilage cell maturation may strongly influence adult height, said the investigators, who hope that earlier interventions can improve outcomes in patients with conditions such as skeletal dysplasia.

So, yeah, you may want to be a little taller or shorter, but the outcome of that particular Scrabble game was determined when your parents, you know, dropped the letters in the bag.

Beating the allegory of the cave

When Beatriz Flamini spoke with reporters on April 14, she knew nothing of the previous 18 months. The Russian invasion of Ukraine? Nope. The death of Queen Elizabeth? Also no. But before you make fun of her, she has an excuse. She’s been living under a rock.

As part of an experiment to test how social isolation and disorientation affect a person’s mind, sense of time, and sleeping patterns, Ms. Flamini lived in a 70-meter-deep cave in southern Spain for 500 days, starting in November 2021. Alone. No outside communication with the outside world in any way, though she was constantly monitored by a team of researchers. She also had multiple cameras filming her for an upcoming documentary.

Joshua Sortino/Negative Space

This is a massive step up from the previous record for time spent underground for science: A team of 15 spent 50 days underground in 2021 to similar study of isolation and how it affected circadian rhythms. It’s also almost certainly a world record for time spent underground.

All that time alone certainly sounds like some sort of medieval torture, but Ms. Flamini had access to food, water, and a library of books. Which she made liberal use of, reading at least 60 books during her stay. She also had a panic button in case the isolation became too much or an emergency developed, but she never considered using it.

She lost track of time after 2 months, flies invaded the cave on occasion, and maintaining coherence was occasionally a struggle, but she kept things together very well. In fact, she didn’t even want to leave when her team came for her. She wasn’t even finished with her 61st book.

When she spoke with gathered reporters after the ordeal, words were obviously difficult to come by for her, having not spoken in nearly 18 months, but her mind was clearly still sharp and she had a very important question for everyone gathered around her.

Who’s buying the beer?

We approve of this request.
 

Staphylococcus and the speed of evolution

Bacteria, we know, are tough little buggers that are hard to see and even harder to get rid of. So hard, actually, that human bodies eventually gave up on the task and decided to just incorporate them into our organ systems. But why are bacteria so hard to eliminate?

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

Two words: rapid evolution. How rapid? For the first time, scientists have directly observed adaptive evolution by Staphylococcus aureus in a single person’s skin microbiome. That’s how rapid.

For their study, the researchers collected samples from the nostrils, backs of knees, insides of elbows, and forearms of 23 children with eczema. They eventually cultured almost 1,500 unique colonies of S. aureus cells from those samples and sequenced the cells’ genomes.

All that sampling and culturing and sequencing showed that it was rare for a new S. aureus strain to come in and replace the existing strain. “Despite the stability at the lineage level, we see a lot of dynamics at the whole genome level, where new mutations are constantly arising in these bacteria and then spreading throughout the entire body,” Tami D. Lieberman, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, said in a written statement from MIT.

One frequent mutation involved a gene called capD, which encodes an enzyme necessary for synthesizing the capsular polysaccharide – a coating that protects S. aureus from recognition by immune cells. In one patient, four different mutations of capD arose independently in different samples before one variant became dominant and spread over the entire microbiome, MIT reported.

The mutation, which actually results in the loss of the polysaccharide capsule, may allow cells to grow faster than those without the mutation because they have more fuel to power their own growth, the researchers suggested. It’s also possible that loss of the capsule allows S. aureus cells to stick to the skin better because proteins that allow them to adhere to the skin are more exposed.

Dr. Lieberman and her associates hope that these variant-containing cells could be a new target for eczema treatments, but we’re never optimistic when it comes to bacteria. That’s because some of us are old enough to remember evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote in his book “Full House”: “Our planet has always been in the ‘Age of Bacteria,’ ever since the first fossils – bacteria, of course – were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago. On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are – and always have been – the dominant forms of life on Earth.”

In the distant future, long after humans have left the scene, the bacteria will be laughing at the last rats and cockroaches scurrying across the landscape. Wanna bet?
 

The height of genetic prediction

Genetics are practically a DNA Scrabble bag. Traits like eye color and hair texture are chosen in the same fashion, based on what gets pulled from our own genetic bag of letters, but what about height? Researchers may now have a way to predict adult height and make it more than just an educated guess.

How? By looking at the genes in our growth plates. The cartilage on the ends of our bones hardens as we age, eventually deciding an individual’s stature. In a recently published study, a research team looked at 600 million cartilage cells linked to maturation and cell growth in mice. Because everything starts with rodents.

Mayberry Health and Home

After that search identified 145 genes linked to growth plate maturation and formation of the bones, they compared the mouse genes with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of human height to look for hotspots where the height genes exist in human DNA.

The results showed which genes play a role in deciding height, and the GWAS data also suggested that genetic changes affecting cartilage cell maturation may strongly influence adult height, said the investigators, who hope that earlier interventions can improve outcomes in patients with conditions such as skeletal dysplasia.

So, yeah, you may want to be a little taller or shorter, but the outcome of that particular Scrabble game was determined when your parents, you know, dropped the letters in the bag.

Beating the allegory of the cave

When Beatriz Flamini spoke with reporters on April 14, she knew nothing of the previous 18 months. The Russian invasion of Ukraine? Nope. The death of Queen Elizabeth? Also no. But before you make fun of her, she has an excuse. She’s been living under a rock.

As part of an experiment to test how social isolation and disorientation affect a person’s mind, sense of time, and sleeping patterns, Ms. Flamini lived in a 70-meter-deep cave in southern Spain for 500 days, starting in November 2021. Alone. No outside communication with the outside world in any way, though she was constantly monitored by a team of researchers. She also had multiple cameras filming her for an upcoming documentary.

Joshua Sortino/Negative Space

This is a massive step up from the previous record for time spent underground for science: A team of 15 spent 50 days underground in 2021 to similar study of isolation and how it affected circadian rhythms. It’s also almost certainly a world record for time spent underground.

All that time alone certainly sounds like some sort of medieval torture, but Ms. Flamini had access to food, water, and a library of books. Which she made liberal use of, reading at least 60 books during her stay. She also had a panic button in case the isolation became too much or an emergency developed, but she never considered using it.

She lost track of time after 2 months, flies invaded the cave on occasion, and maintaining coherence was occasionally a struggle, but she kept things together very well. In fact, she didn’t even want to leave when her team came for her. She wasn’t even finished with her 61st book.

When she spoke with gathered reporters after the ordeal, words were obviously difficult to come by for her, having not spoken in nearly 18 months, but her mind was clearly still sharp and she had a very important question for everyone gathered around her.

Who’s buying the beer?

We approve of this request.
 

Staphylococcus and the speed of evolution

Bacteria, we know, are tough little buggers that are hard to see and even harder to get rid of. So hard, actually, that human bodies eventually gave up on the task and decided to just incorporate them into our organ systems. But why are bacteria so hard to eliminate?

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

Two words: rapid evolution. How rapid? For the first time, scientists have directly observed adaptive evolution by Staphylococcus aureus in a single person’s skin microbiome. That’s how rapid.

For their study, the researchers collected samples from the nostrils, backs of knees, insides of elbows, and forearms of 23 children with eczema. They eventually cultured almost 1,500 unique colonies of S. aureus cells from those samples and sequenced the cells’ genomes.

All that sampling and culturing and sequencing showed that it was rare for a new S. aureus strain to come in and replace the existing strain. “Despite the stability at the lineage level, we see a lot of dynamics at the whole genome level, where new mutations are constantly arising in these bacteria and then spreading throughout the entire body,” Tami D. Lieberman, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, said in a written statement from MIT.

One frequent mutation involved a gene called capD, which encodes an enzyme necessary for synthesizing the capsular polysaccharide – a coating that protects S. aureus from recognition by immune cells. In one patient, four different mutations of capD arose independently in different samples before one variant became dominant and spread over the entire microbiome, MIT reported.

The mutation, which actually results in the loss of the polysaccharide capsule, may allow cells to grow faster than those without the mutation because they have more fuel to power their own growth, the researchers suggested. It’s also possible that loss of the capsule allows S. aureus cells to stick to the skin better because proteins that allow them to adhere to the skin are more exposed.

Dr. Lieberman and her associates hope that these variant-containing cells could be a new target for eczema treatments, but we’re never optimistic when it comes to bacteria. That’s because some of us are old enough to remember evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote in his book “Full House”: “Our planet has always been in the ‘Age of Bacteria,’ ever since the first fossils – bacteria, of course – were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago. On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are – and always have been – the dominant forms of life on Earth.”

In the distant future, long after humans have left the scene, the bacteria will be laughing at the last rats and cockroaches scurrying across the landscape. Wanna bet?
 

The height of genetic prediction

Genetics are practically a DNA Scrabble bag. Traits like eye color and hair texture are chosen in the same fashion, based on what gets pulled from our own genetic bag of letters, but what about height? Researchers may now have a way to predict adult height and make it more than just an educated guess.

How? By looking at the genes in our growth plates. The cartilage on the ends of our bones hardens as we age, eventually deciding an individual’s stature. In a recently published study, a research team looked at 600 million cartilage cells linked to maturation and cell growth in mice. Because everything starts with rodents.

Mayberry Health and Home

After that search identified 145 genes linked to growth plate maturation and formation of the bones, they compared the mouse genes with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of human height to look for hotspots where the height genes exist in human DNA.

The results showed which genes play a role in deciding height, and the GWAS data also suggested that genetic changes affecting cartilage cell maturation may strongly influence adult height, said the investigators, who hope that earlier interventions can improve outcomes in patients with conditions such as skeletal dysplasia.

So, yeah, you may want to be a little taller or shorter, but the outcome of that particular Scrabble game was determined when your parents, you know, dropped the letters in the bag.

Combination treatment with the poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, and the novel ataxia telangiectasia–mutated Rad3-related (ATR) inhibitor, ceralasertib, was well tolerated and showed some promise in pediatric patients with tumors with DNA replication stress or DNA repair deficiencies, in a new study.

The small phase 1 trial also identified some molecular signatures in responders that may inform future clinical trials.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research, came from a single arm of the European Proof-of-Concept Therapeutic Stratification Trial of Molecular Anomalies in Relapsed or Refractory Tumors (ESMART) trial. This trial matches pediatric, adolescent, and young adult cancer patients with treatment regimens based on the molecular profile of their tumors.

In over 220 children to date, the trial has investigated 15 different treatment regimens, most of which are combination therapies.

In adults, poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been shown to be effective in tumors with deficiencies in homologous repair, which is a DNA repair mechanism, with notable successes in patients carrying the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. But BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are rare in pediatric cancer, and there is a belief that there may be primary resistance to PARP inhibitors in pediatric tumors, according to Susanne Gatz, MD, PhD, who presented the research at the meeting.

Previous research identified alterations in pediatric tumors that are candidates for patient selection. “These tumors have alterations which could potentially cause this resistance effect [against PARP inhibitors] and [also cause] sensitivity to ataxia telangiectasia–mutated Rad3-related inhibitors. This is how this arm [of the ESMART trial] was born,” said Dr. Gatz.

The phase 1 portion of the study included 18 pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or treatment-refractory tumors. There were eight sarcomas, five central nervous system tumors, four neuroblastomas, and one carcinoma. Each had mutations thought to lead to HR deficiency or replication stress. The study included three dose levels of twice-daily oral olaparib that was given continuously, and ceralasertib, which was given day 1-14 of each 28-day cycle.

Patients underwent a median of 3.5 cycles of treatment. There were dose-limiting adverse events of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia in five patients, two of which occurred at the dose that was recommended for phase 2.

There were some positive clinical signs, including one partial response in a pineoblastoma patient who received treatment for 11 cycles. A neuroblastoma patient had stable disease until cycle 9 of treatment, and then converted to a partial response and is currently in cycle 12. Two other patients remain in treatment at cycle 8 and one is in treatment at cycle 15. None of the patients who experienced clinical benefit had BRCA mutations.

An important goal of the study was to understand molecular signature that might predict response to the drug combination. Although no firm conclusions could be drawn, there were some interesting patterns. In particular, five of the six worst responders had TP53 mutations. “It is striking ... so we need to learn what TP53 in this setting means if it’s mutated, and if it could be a resistance factor,” said Dr. Gatz, an associate clinical professor in pediatric oncology at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences of the University of Birmingham, during her talk.

Although the study is too small and included too many tumor types to identify tumor-based patterns of response, it did provide some hints as to biomarkers that could inform future studies, according to Julia Glade Bender, MD, who served as a discussant following the presentation and is a pediatric oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“The pediatric frequency of the common DNA damage repair biomarkers that have been [identified in] the adult literature – that is to say, BRCA1 and 2 and [ataxia-telangiectasia mutation] – are exceedingly rare in pediatrics,” said Dr. Bender during the session while serving as a discussant. She highlighted the following findings: Loss of the 11q region on chromosome 11 is common among the patients and that region contains three genes involved in the DNA damage response, along with a gene involved in homologous recombination, telomere maintenance, and double strand break repair.

She added that 11q deletion is also found in up to 40% of neuroblastomas, and is associated with poor prognosis, and the patients have multiple segmental chromosomal abnormalities. “That begs the question [of] whether chromosomal instability is another biomarker for pediatric cancer,” said Dr. Bender.

“The research highlights the complexity of pediatric cancers, whose distinct biology could make them more vulnerable to ATR [kinase], [checkpoint kinase 1], and WEE1 pathway inhibition with a PARP inhibitor used to induce replication stress and be the sensitizer. The biomarker profiles are going to be complex, context-dependent, and likely to reflect a constellation of findings that would be signatures or algorithms, rather than single gene alterations. The post hoc iterative analysis of responders and nonresponders is going to be absolutely critical to understanding those biomarkers and the role of DNA damage response inhibitors in pediatrics. Given the rarity of these diagnoses, and then the molecular subclasses, I think collaboration across ages and geography is absolutely critical, and I really congratulate the ESMART consortium for doing just that in Europe,” said Dr. Bender.

The study is limited by its small sample size and the fact that it was not randomized.

The study received funding from French Institut National de Cancer, Imagine for Margo, Fondation ARC, AstraZeneca France, AstraZeneca Global R&D, AstraZeneca UK, Cancer Research UK, Fondation Gustave Roussy, and Little Princess Trust/Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group. Dr. Gatz has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bender has done paid consulting for Jazz Pharmaceuticals and has done unpaid work for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Springworks Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer. She has received research support from Eli Lilly, Loxo-oncology, Eisai, Cellectar, Bayer, Amgen, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

From American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023: Abstract CT019. Presented Tuesday, April 18.

Combination treatment with the poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, and the novel ataxia telangiectasia–mutated Rad3-related (ATR) inhibitor, ceralasertib, was well tolerated and showed some promise in pediatric patients with tumors with DNA replication stress or DNA repair deficiencies, in a new study.

The small phase 1 trial also identified some molecular signatures in responders that may inform future clinical trials.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research, came from a single arm of the European Proof-of-Concept Therapeutic Stratification Trial of Molecular Anomalies in Relapsed or Refractory Tumors (ESMART) trial. This trial matches pediatric, adolescent, and young adult cancer patients with treatment regimens based on the molecular profile of their tumors.

In over 220 children to date, the trial has investigated 15 different treatment regimens, most of which are combination therapies.

In adults, poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been shown to be effective in tumors with deficiencies in homologous repair, which is a DNA repair mechanism, with notable successes in patients carrying the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. But BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are rare in pediatric cancer, and there is a belief that there may be primary resistance to PARP inhibitors in pediatric tumors, according to Susanne Gatz, MD, PhD, who presented the research at the meeting.

Previous research identified alterations in pediatric tumors that are candidates for patient selection. “These tumors have alterations which could potentially cause this resistance effect [against PARP inhibitors] and [also cause] sensitivity to ataxia telangiectasia–mutated Rad3-related inhibitors. This is how this arm [of the ESMART trial] was born,” said Dr. Gatz.

The phase 1 portion of the study included 18 pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or treatment-refractory tumors. There were eight sarcomas, five central nervous system tumors, four neuroblastomas, and one carcinoma. Each had mutations thought to lead to HR deficiency or replication stress. The study included three dose levels of twice-daily oral olaparib that was given continuously, and ceralasertib, which was given day 1-14 of each 28-day cycle.

Patients underwent a median of 3.5 cycles of treatment. There were dose-limiting adverse events of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia in five patients, two of which occurred at the dose that was recommended for phase 2.

There were some positive clinical signs, including one partial response in a pineoblastoma patient who received treatment for 11 cycles. A neuroblastoma patient had stable disease until cycle 9 of treatment, and then converted to a partial response and is currently in cycle 12. Two other patients remain in treatment at cycle 8 and one is in treatment at cycle 15. None of the patients who experienced clinical benefit had BRCA mutations.

An important goal of the study was to understand molecular signature that might predict response to the drug combination. Although no firm conclusions could be drawn, there were some interesting patterns. In particular, five of the six worst responders had TP53 mutations. “It is striking ... so we need to learn what TP53 in this setting means if it’s mutated, and if it could be a resistance factor,” said Dr. Gatz, an associate clinical professor in pediatric oncology at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences of the University of Birmingham, during her talk.

Although the study is too small and included too many tumor types to identify tumor-based patterns of response, it did provide some hints as to biomarkers that could inform future studies, according to Julia Glade Bender, MD, who served as a discussant following the presentation and is a pediatric oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“The pediatric frequency of the common DNA damage repair biomarkers that have been [identified in] the adult literature – that is to say, BRCA1 and 2 and [ataxia-telangiectasia mutation] – are exceedingly rare in pediatrics,” said Dr. Bender during the session while serving as a discussant. She highlighted the following findings: Loss of the 11q region on chromosome 11 is common among the patients and that region contains three genes involved in the DNA damage response, along with a gene involved in homologous recombination, telomere maintenance, and double strand break repair.

She added that 11q deletion is also found in up to 40% of neuroblastomas, and is associated with poor prognosis, and the patients have multiple segmental chromosomal abnormalities. “That begs the question [of] whether chromosomal instability is another biomarker for pediatric cancer,” said Dr. Bender.

“The research highlights the complexity of pediatric cancers, whose distinct biology could make them more vulnerable to ATR [kinase], [checkpoint kinase 1], and WEE1 pathway inhibition with a PARP inhibitor used to induce replication stress and be the sensitizer. The biomarker profiles are going to be complex, context-dependent, and likely to reflect a constellation of findings that would be signatures or algorithms, rather than single gene alterations. The post hoc iterative analysis of responders and nonresponders is going to be absolutely critical to understanding those biomarkers and the role of DNA damage response inhibitors in pediatrics. Given the rarity of these diagnoses, and then the molecular subclasses, I think collaboration across ages and geography is absolutely critical, and I really congratulate the ESMART consortium for doing just that in Europe,” said Dr. Bender.

The study is limited by its small sample size and the fact that it was not randomized.

The study received funding from French Institut National de Cancer, Imagine for Margo, Fondation ARC, AstraZeneca France, AstraZeneca Global R&D, AstraZeneca UK, Cancer Research UK, Fondation Gustave Roussy, and Little Princess Trust/Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group. Dr. Gatz has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bender has done paid consulting for Jazz Pharmaceuticals and has done unpaid work for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Springworks Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer. She has received research support from Eli Lilly, Loxo-oncology, Eisai, Cellectar, Bayer, Amgen, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

From American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023: Abstract CT019. Presented Tuesday, April 18.

Combination treatment with the poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, and the novel ataxia telangiectasia–mutated Rad3-related (ATR) inhibitor, ceralasertib, was well tolerated and showed some promise in pediatric patients with tumors with DNA replication stress or DNA repair deficiencies, in a new study.

The small phase 1 trial also identified some molecular signatures in responders that may inform future clinical trials.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research, came from a single arm of the European Proof-of-Concept Therapeutic Stratification Trial of Molecular Anomalies in Relapsed or Refractory Tumors (ESMART) trial. This trial matches pediatric, adolescent, and young adult cancer patients with treatment regimens based on the molecular profile of their tumors.

In over 220 children to date, the trial has investigated 15 different treatment regimens, most of which are combination therapies.

In adults, poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been shown to be effective in tumors with deficiencies in homologous repair, which is a DNA repair mechanism, with notable successes in patients carrying the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. But BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are rare in pediatric cancer, and there is a belief that there may be primary resistance to PARP inhibitors in pediatric tumors, according to Susanne Gatz, MD, PhD, who presented the research at the meeting.

Previous research identified alterations in pediatric tumors that are candidates for patient selection. “These tumors have alterations which could potentially cause this resistance effect [against PARP inhibitors] and [also cause] sensitivity to ataxia telangiectasia–mutated Rad3-related inhibitors. This is how this arm [of the ESMART trial] was born,” said Dr. Gatz.

The phase 1 portion of the study included 18 pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or treatment-refractory tumors. There were eight sarcomas, five central nervous system tumors, four neuroblastomas, and one carcinoma. Each had mutations thought to lead to HR deficiency or replication stress. The study included three dose levels of twice-daily oral olaparib that was given continuously, and ceralasertib, which was given day 1-14 of each 28-day cycle.

Patients underwent a median of 3.5 cycles of treatment. There were dose-limiting adverse events of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia in five patients, two of which occurred at the dose that was recommended for phase 2.

There were some positive clinical signs, including one partial response in a pineoblastoma patient who received treatment for 11 cycles. A neuroblastoma patient had stable disease until cycle 9 of treatment, and then converted to a partial response and is currently in cycle 12. Two other patients remain in treatment at cycle 8 and one is in treatment at cycle 15. None of the patients who experienced clinical benefit had BRCA mutations.

An important goal of the study was to understand molecular signature that might predict response to the drug combination. Although no firm conclusions could be drawn, there were some interesting patterns. In particular, five of the six worst responders had TP53 mutations. “It is striking ... so we need to learn what TP53 in this setting means if it’s mutated, and if it could be a resistance factor,” said Dr. Gatz, an associate clinical professor in pediatric oncology at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences of the University of Birmingham, during her talk.

Although the study is too small and included too many tumor types to identify tumor-based patterns of response, it did provide some hints as to biomarkers that could inform future studies, according to Julia Glade Bender, MD, who served as a discussant following the presentation and is a pediatric oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“The pediatric frequency of the common DNA damage repair biomarkers that have been [identified in] the adult literature – that is to say, BRCA1 and 2 and [ataxia-telangiectasia mutation] – are exceedingly rare in pediatrics,” said Dr. Bender during the session while serving as a discussant. She highlighted the following findings: Loss of the 11q region on chromosome 11 is common among the patients and that region contains three genes involved in the DNA damage response, along with a gene involved in homologous recombination, telomere maintenance, and double strand break repair.

She added that 11q deletion is also found in up to 40% of neuroblastomas, and is associated with poor prognosis, and the patients have multiple segmental chromosomal abnormalities. “That begs the question [of] whether chromosomal instability is another biomarker for pediatric cancer,” said Dr. Bender.

“The research highlights the complexity of pediatric cancers, whose distinct biology could make them more vulnerable to ATR [kinase], [checkpoint kinase 1], and WEE1 pathway inhibition with a PARP inhibitor used to induce replication stress and be the sensitizer. The biomarker profiles are going to be complex, context-dependent, and likely to reflect a constellation of findings that would be signatures or algorithms, rather than single gene alterations. The post hoc iterative analysis of responders and nonresponders is going to be absolutely critical to understanding those biomarkers and the role of DNA damage response inhibitors in pediatrics. Given the rarity of these diagnoses, and then the molecular subclasses, I think collaboration across ages and geography is absolutely critical, and I really congratulate the ESMART consortium for doing just that in Europe,” said Dr. Bender.

The study is limited by its small sample size and the fact that it was not randomized.

The study received funding from French Institut National de Cancer, Imagine for Margo, Fondation ARC, AstraZeneca France, AstraZeneca Global R&D, AstraZeneca UK, Cancer Research UK, Fondation Gustave Roussy, and Little Princess Trust/Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group. Dr. Gatz has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bender has done paid consulting for Jazz Pharmaceuticals and has done unpaid work for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Springworks Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer. She has received research support from Eli Lilly, Loxo-oncology, Eisai, Cellectar, Bayer, Amgen, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

From American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023: Abstract CT019. Presented Tuesday, April 18.

When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.

Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.

CDC

Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.

However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.

Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.

1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?

Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.

Healthy dog:

1. Observe for 10 days.

2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.

Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:

1. Begin PEP.

2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.

Dog unavailable:

Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.

2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?

Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.

In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).

For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.

3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?

Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.

PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.

4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?

While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.

CDC

You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.

Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.

CDC

Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.

However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.

Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.

1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?

Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.

Healthy dog:

1. Observe for 10 days.

2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.

Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:

1. Begin PEP.

2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.

Dog unavailable:

Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.

2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?

Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.

In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).

For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.

3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?

Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.

PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.

4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?

While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.

CDC

You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.

Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.

CDC

Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.

However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.

Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.

1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?

Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.

Healthy dog:

1. Observe for 10 days.

2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.

Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:

1. Begin PEP.

2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.

Dog unavailable:

Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.

2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?

Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.

In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).

For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.

3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?

Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.

PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.

4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?

While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.

CDC

You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

The double whammy of pandemic burnout and the aging of baby boomer physicians has, indeed, the makings of some scary headlines. A recent survey by Elsevier Health predicts that up to 75% of health care workers will leave the profession by 2025. And a 2020 study conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projected a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians by 2033.

“We’ve paid a lot of attention to physician retirement,” says Michael Dill, AAMC’s director of workforce studies. “It’s a significant concern in terms of whether we have an adequate supply of physicians in the U.S. to meet our nation’s medical care needs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.”

To Mr. Dill, it’s the number of older physicians – in all specialties – ready to retire that should be the biggest concern for hospitals all across the country.

“The physician workforce as a whole is aging,” he said. “Close to a quarter of the physicians in the U.S. are 65 and over. So, you don’t need any extraordinary events driving retirement in order for retirement to be a real phenomenon of which we should all be concerned.”

And, although Mr. Dill said there aren’t any data to suggest that doctors in rural or urban areas are retiring faster than in the suburbs, that doesn’t mean retirement will have the same impact depending on where patients live.

“If you live in a rural area with one small practice in town and that physician retires, there goes the entirety of the physician supply,” he said. “In a major metro area, that’s not as big a deal.”
 

Why younger doctors are fast-tracking retirement

Fernando Mendoza, MD, 54, a pediatric emergency department physician in Miami, worries that physicians are getting so bogged down by paperwork that this may lead to even more doctors, at younger ages, leaving the profession.

“I love taking care of kids, but there’s going to be a cost to doing your work when you’re spending as much time as we need to spend on charts, pharmacy requests, and making sure all of the Medicare and Medicaid compliance issues are worked out.”

These stressors may compel some younger doctors to consider carving out a second career or fast-track younger physicians toward retirement.

“A medical degree carries a lot of weight, which helps when pivoting,” said Dr. Mendoza, who launched Scrivas, a Miami-based medical scribe agency, to help reduce the paperwork workload for physicians. “It might be that a doctor wants to get involved in the acquisition of medical equipment, or maybe they can focus on their investments. Either way, by leaving medicine, they’re not dealing with the hassle and churn-and-burn of seeing patients.”
 

What this means for patients

The time is now to stem the upcoming tide of retirement, said Mr. Dill. But the challenges remain daunting. For starters, the country needs more physicians trained now – but it will take years to replace those baby boomer doctors ready to hang up their white coats.

The medical profession also needs to find ways to support physicians who spend their days juggling an endless array of responsibilities, he said.

The AAMC study found that patients already feel the physician shortfall. Their public opinion research in 2019 said 35% of patients had trouble finding a physician over the past 2 or 3 years, up 10 percentage points since they asked the question in 2015.

Moreover, according to the report, the over-65 population is expected to grow by 45.1%, leaving a specialty care gap because older people generally have more complicated health cases that require specialists. In addition, physician burnout may lead more physicians under 65 to retire much earlier than expected.

Changes in how medicine is practiced, telemedicine care, and medical education – such as disruption of classes or clinical rotations, regulatory changes, and a lack of interest in certain specialties – could also be affected by a mass physician retirement.
 

What can we do about mass retirement?

The AAMC reports in “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2019 to 2034” that federally funded GME support is in the works to train 15,000 physicians per year, with 3,000 new residency slots added per year over 5 years. The proposed model will add 3,750 new physicians each year beginning in 2026.

Other efforts include increasing use of APRNs and PAs, whose population is estimated to more than double by 2034, improve population health through preventive care, increase equity in health outcomes, and improve access and affordable care.

Removing licensing barriers for immigrant doctors can also help alleviate the shortage.

“We need to find better ways to leverage the entirety of the health care team so that not as much falls on physicians,” Mr. Dill said. “It’s also imperative that we focus on ways to support physician wellness and allow physicians to remain active in the field, but at a reduced rate.”

That’s precisely what Marie Brown, MD, director of practice redesign at the American Medical Association, is seeing nationwide. Cutting back their hours is not only trending, but it’s also helping doctors cope with burnout.

“We’re seeing physicians take a 20% or more cut in salary in order to decrease their burden,” she said. “They’ll spend 4 days on clinical time with patients so that on that fifth ‘day off,’ they’re doing the paperwork and documentation they need to do so they don’t compromise care on the other 4 days of the week.”

And this may only be a Band-Aid solution, she fears.

“If a physician is spending 3 hours a day doing unnecessary work that could be done by another team member, that’s contributing to burnout,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s no surprise that they’ll want to escape and retire if they’re in a financial situation to do so.”

“I advocate negotiating within your organization so you’re doing more of what you like, such as mentoring or running a residency, and less of what you don’t, while cutting back from full-time to something less than full-time while maintaining benefits,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, a certified financial planner in Minneapolis, who specializes in helping physicians manage their financial affairs.

“Falling into the ‘like less’ bucket are usually things like working weekends and taking calls,” he said.

“This benefits everyone on a large scale because those doctors who find things they enjoy are generally working to a later age but working less hard,” he said. “Remaining comfortably and happily gainfully employed for a longer period, even if you’re not working full-time, has a very powerful effect on your financial planning, and you’ll avoid the risk of running out of money.”
 

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

The double whammy of pandemic burnout and the aging of baby boomer physicians has, indeed, the makings of some scary headlines. A recent survey by Elsevier Health predicts that up to 75% of health care workers will leave the profession by 2025. And a 2020 study conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projected a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians by 2033.

“We’ve paid a lot of attention to physician retirement,” says Michael Dill, AAMC’s director of workforce studies. “It’s a significant concern in terms of whether we have an adequate supply of physicians in the U.S. to meet our nation’s medical care needs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.”

To Mr. Dill, it’s the number of older physicians – in all specialties – ready to retire that should be the biggest concern for hospitals all across the country.

“The physician workforce as a whole is aging,” he said. “Close to a quarter of the physicians in the U.S. are 65 and over. So, you don’t need any extraordinary events driving retirement in order for retirement to be a real phenomenon of which we should all be concerned.”

And, although Mr. Dill said there aren’t any data to suggest that doctors in rural or urban areas are retiring faster than in the suburbs, that doesn’t mean retirement will have the same impact depending on where patients live.

“If you live in a rural area with one small practice in town and that physician retires, there goes the entirety of the physician supply,” he said. “In a major metro area, that’s not as big a deal.”
 

Why younger doctors are fast-tracking retirement

Fernando Mendoza, MD, 54, a pediatric emergency department physician in Miami, worries that physicians are getting so bogged down by paperwork that this may lead to even more doctors, at younger ages, leaving the profession.

“I love taking care of kids, but there’s going to be a cost to doing your work when you’re spending as much time as we need to spend on charts, pharmacy requests, and making sure all of the Medicare and Medicaid compliance issues are worked out.”

These stressors may compel some younger doctors to consider carving out a second career or fast-track younger physicians toward retirement.

“A medical degree carries a lot of weight, which helps when pivoting,” said Dr. Mendoza, who launched Scrivas, a Miami-based medical scribe agency, to help reduce the paperwork workload for physicians. “It might be that a doctor wants to get involved in the acquisition of medical equipment, or maybe they can focus on their investments. Either way, by leaving medicine, they’re not dealing with the hassle and churn-and-burn of seeing patients.”
 

What this means for patients

The time is now to stem the upcoming tide of retirement, said Mr. Dill. But the challenges remain daunting. For starters, the country needs more physicians trained now – but it will take years to replace those baby boomer doctors ready to hang up their white coats.

The medical profession also needs to find ways to support physicians who spend their days juggling an endless array of responsibilities, he said.

The AAMC study found that patients already feel the physician shortfall. Their public opinion research in 2019 said 35% of patients had trouble finding a physician over the past 2 or 3 years, up 10 percentage points since they asked the question in 2015.

Moreover, according to the report, the over-65 population is expected to grow by 45.1%, leaving a specialty care gap because older people generally have more complicated health cases that require specialists. In addition, physician burnout may lead more physicians under 65 to retire much earlier than expected.

Changes in how medicine is practiced, telemedicine care, and medical education – such as disruption of classes or clinical rotations, regulatory changes, and a lack of interest in certain specialties – could also be affected by a mass physician retirement.
 

What can we do about mass retirement?

The AAMC reports in “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2019 to 2034” that federally funded GME support is in the works to train 15,000 physicians per year, with 3,000 new residency slots added per year over 5 years. The proposed model will add 3,750 new physicians each year beginning in 2026.

Other efforts include increasing use of APRNs and PAs, whose population is estimated to more than double by 2034, improve population health through preventive care, increase equity in health outcomes, and improve access and affordable care.

Removing licensing barriers for immigrant doctors can also help alleviate the shortage.

“We need to find better ways to leverage the entirety of the health care team so that not as much falls on physicians,” Mr. Dill said. “It’s also imperative that we focus on ways to support physician wellness and allow physicians to remain active in the field, but at a reduced rate.”

That’s precisely what Marie Brown, MD, director of practice redesign at the American Medical Association, is seeing nationwide. Cutting back their hours is not only trending, but it’s also helping doctors cope with burnout.

“We’re seeing physicians take a 20% or more cut in salary in order to decrease their burden,” she said. “They’ll spend 4 days on clinical time with patients so that on that fifth ‘day off,’ they’re doing the paperwork and documentation they need to do so they don’t compromise care on the other 4 days of the week.”

And this may only be a Band-Aid solution, she fears.

“If a physician is spending 3 hours a day doing unnecessary work that could be done by another team member, that’s contributing to burnout,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s no surprise that they’ll want to escape and retire if they’re in a financial situation to do so.”

“I advocate negotiating within your organization so you’re doing more of what you like, such as mentoring or running a residency, and less of what you don’t, while cutting back from full-time to something less than full-time while maintaining benefits,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, a certified financial planner in Minneapolis, who specializes in helping physicians manage their financial affairs.

“Falling into the ‘like less’ bucket are usually things like working weekends and taking calls,” he said.

“This benefits everyone on a large scale because those doctors who find things they enjoy are generally working to a later age but working less hard,” he said. “Remaining comfortably and happily gainfully employed for a longer period, even if you’re not working full-time, has a very powerful effect on your financial planning, and you’ll avoid the risk of running out of money.”
 

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

The double whammy of pandemic burnout and the aging of baby boomer physicians has, indeed, the makings of some scary headlines. A recent survey by Elsevier Health predicts that up to 75% of health care workers will leave the profession by 2025. And a 2020 study conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projected a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians by 2033.

“We’ve paid a lot of attention to physician retirement,” says Michael Dill, AAMC’s director of workforce studies. “It’s a significant concern in terms of whether we have an adequate supply of physicians in the U.S. to meet our nation’s medical care needs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.”

To Mr. Dill, it’s the number of older physicians – in all specialties – ready to retire that should be the biggest concern for hospitals all across the country.

“The physician workforce as a whole is aging,” he said. “Close to a quarter of the physicians in the U.S. are 65 and over. So, you don’t need any extraordinary events driving retirement in order for retirement to be a real phenomenon of which we should all be concerned.”

And, although Mr. Dill said there aren’t any data to suggest that doctors in rural or urban areas are retiring faster than in the suburbs, that doesn’t mean retirement will have the same impact depending on where patients live.

“If you live in a rural area with one small practice in town and that physician retires, there goes the entirety of the physician supply,” he said. “In a major metro area, that’s not as big a deal.”
 

Why younger doctors are fast-tracking retirement

Fernando Mendoza, MD, 54, a pediatric emergency department physician in Miami, worries that physicians are getting so bogged down by paperwork that this may lead to even more doctors, at younger ages, leaving the profession.

“I love taking care of kids, but there’s going to be a cost to doing your work when you’re spending as much time as we need to spend on charts, pharmacy requests, and making sure all of the Medicare and Medicaid compliance issues are worked out.”

These stressors may compel some younger doctors to consider carving out a second career or fast-track younger physicians toward retirement.

“A medical degree carries a lot of weight, which helps when pivoting,” said Dr. Mendoza, who launched Scrivas, a Miami-based medical scribe agency, to help reduce the paperwork workload for physicians. “It might be that a doctor wants to get involved in the acquisition of medical equipment, or maybe they can focus on their investments. Either way, by leaving medicine, they’re not dealing with the hassle and churn-and-burn of seeing patients.”
 

What this means for patients

The time is now to stem the upcoming tide of retirement, said Mr. Dill. But the challenges remain daunting. For starters, the country needs more physicians trained now – but it will take years to replace those baby boomer doctors ready to hang up their white coats.

The medical profession also needs to find ways to support physicians who spend their days juggling an endless array of responsibilities, he said.

The AAMC study found that patients already feel the physician shortfall. Their public opinion research in 2019 said 35% of patients had trouble finding a physician over the past 2 or 3 years, up 10 percentage points since they asked the question in 2015.

Moreover, according to the report, the over-65 population is expected to grow by 45.1%, leaving a specialty care gap because older people generally have more complicated health cases that require specialists. In addition, physician burnout may lead more physicians under 65 to retire much earlier than expected.

Changes in how medicine is practiced, telemedicine care, and medical education – such as disruption of classes or clinical rotations, regulatory changes, and a lack of interest in certain specialties – could also be affected by a mass physician retirement.
 

What can we do about mass retirement?

The AAMC reports in “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2019 to 2034” that federally funded GME support is in the works to train 15,000 physicians per year, with 3,000 new residency slots added per year over 5 years. The proposed model will add 3,750 new physicians each year beginning in 2026.

Other efforts include increasing use of APRNs and PAs, whose population is estimated to more than double by 2034, improve population health through preventive care, increase equity in health outcomes, and improve access and affordable care.

Removing licensing barriers for immigrant doctors can also help alleviate the shortage.

“We need to find better ways to leverage the entirety of the health care team so that not as much falls on physicians,” Mr. Dill said. “It’s also imperative that we focus on ways to support physician wellness and allow physicians to remain active in the field, but at a reduced rate.”

That’s precisely what Marie Brown, MD, director of practice redesign at the American Medical Association, is seeing nationwide. Cutting back their hours is not only trending, but it’s also helping doctors cope with burnout.

“We’re seeing physicians take a 20% or more cut in salary in order to decrease their burden,” she said. “They’ll spend 4 days on clinical time with patients so that on that fifth ‘day off,’ they’re doing the paperwork and documentation they need to do so they don’t compromise care on the other 4 days of the week.”

And this may only be a Band-Aid solution, she fears.

“If a physician is spending 3 hours a day doing unnecessary work that could be done by another team member, that’s contributing to burnout,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s no surprise that they’ll want to escape and retire if they’re in a financial situation to do so.”

“I advocate negotiating within your organization so you’re doing more of what you like, such as mentoring or running a residency, and less of what you don’t, while cutting back from full-time to something less than full-time while maintaining benefits,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, a certified financial planner in Minneapolis, who specializes in helping physicians manage their financial affairs.

“Falling into the ‘like less’ bucket are usually things like working weekends and taking calls,” he said.

“This benefits everyone on a large scale because those doctors who find things they enjoy are generally working to a later age but working less hard,” he said. “Remaining comfortably and happily gainfully employed for a longer period, even if you’re not working full-time, has a very powerful effect on your financial planning, and you’ll avoid the risk of running out of money.”
 

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