MDedge Pediatrics

WASHINGTON – The nation’s largest group of pediatricians is advising parents to recognize the limits of “toddler milk,” formula products purporting to be beneficial for young children. These products are not nutritionally complete and are not to be confused with formulas for infants younger than 12 months.

“Toddler drinks do not offer anything nutritionally exceptional,” said George J. Fuchs III, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, who presented a clinical report on toddler formulas from the American Academy of Pediatrics at the group’s annual meeting. The products are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and should not be given to infants younger than 12 months in place of infant formulas, but murky marketing can leave parents and caregivers confused as to whether these products are essential for good health, Dr. Fuchs said.

Despite the rise in marketing of formulas pitched as toddler milks, growth milks, or transition formulas, among other names, the AAP says these formulas are both unregulated and unnecessary for the vast majority of toddlers because they have adequate diets and do not require supplementation.

Clinicians should understand and explain the distinction between products formulated for infants younger than 12 months and those designed for children aged 12 months or older, Dr. Fuchs added.

Formulas for infants younger than 12 months represent a distinct product category for the FDA and are required to be nutritionally complete for this age, Dr. Fuchs said. Infant formulas sold in the United States must meet nutrition requirements as defined by the Infant Formula Act of 1980 (updated in 1986), and the facilities that manufacture them are regularly inspected by the agency.

In contrast, toddler formulas are not regulated or categorized by the FDA and therefore may vary widely in composition and are not nutritionally complete for any age, he said.

One area of concern is that parents or caregivers misunderstand and give these products to infants younger than 12 months instead of infant formulas, he said.

Also, mass-market toddler formulas are inadequate for children with disease-specific requirements, such as malnutrition, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic disorders, or food allergies.
 

Questionable composition, misleading marketing

Toddler formulas are not only unnecessary but could be detrimental to children’s health, Dr. Fuchs said. Some formulas have high sodium content relative to cow’s milk or may be high or low in protein. Other products have added sweeteners, which could contribute to an increased preference for sweetened foods as the children get older, he noted.

However, manufacturers of regulated infant products often market them alongside their infant formula, which can be confusing for parents and caregivers. The products often have similar names, images, slogans, and logos, and may suggest benefits such as immune system support, brain development, and digestive health, he added.

A 2020 survey published in Maternal and Child Nutrition found that 60% of approximately 1,000 caregivers of children aged 12-36 months agreed with the marketing claim that toddler formulas or powdered milks provide nutrition that is not available from other food and drinks, Dr. Fuchs said.
 

Balanced diet is best for healthy children

For infants younger than 12 months, the AAP recommends that the liquid portion of the diet should come from human milk or a standard infant formula that has been reviewed by the FDA based on the Infant Formula Act, Dr. Fuchs said.

Children aged 12 months or older should receive a varied diet with fortified foods. Formula can safely be used as part of a varied diet; however, it offers no nutritional advantage for most children over a well-balanced diet that includes human milk and/or cow milk, “and should not be promoted as such,” Dr. Fuchs noted.

“The category of these toddler drinks has grown and the landscape has changed quite a bit; we thought it was appropriate that we review this category,” Dr. Fuchs said in an interview.

Dr. Fuchs advised pediatricians in practice to follow the AAP’s guidance for breastfeeding infants if possible and progression to formula as needed for infants up to age 1 year, followed by transition to cow milk (or alternatives for those with cow milk allergies) and the addition of a healthy mixed diet.
 

Formula choices pose practice challenges

In an interview, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., pointed out that not only are parents often baffled by formula choices, but many are also hesitant to make a switch to regular milk as children get older because they worry that cow’s milk is inadequate for nutrition or is not as “clean” or “sterile” as formula.

In some cases, parents may have had difficulty in acquiring genuine infant formulas, which were relocated to locked cabinets in stores during recent shortages and began using toddler formulas as an alternative for infants younger than 1 year, she added.

“If breastfeeding is not possible, using approved infant formula is preferred, switching to whole cow milk at 1 year of age,” she said. “Nutritional assessment is an important part of well-child visits, with caregiver counseling regarding importance of intake of variety of fortified foods [that] offer vitamins, calcium, iron and zinc,” Ms. Haut added. Although toddler formulas are safe additions to the diets of most young children older than 1 year, supplementation of specific nutrients such as vitamin D if needed is a more effective option, she said.

“National health studies indicate that U.S. toddlers have nutritional gaps in their diet often related to picky eating,” an Abbott spokesperson said in an interview. “When [toddlers] don’t do well transitioning to table foods or won’t drink milk, our toddler drinks contain many of the complementary nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, that they may be missing in their diet. Toddler drinks may be an option to help fill nutrient gaps for these children 12-36 months of age. Abbott does not recommend or indicate its toddler drinks for infants under 12 months of age,” according to the company.

Dr. Fuchs had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

WASHINGTON – The nation’s largest group of pediatricians is advising parents to recognize the limits of “toddler milk,” formula products purporting to be beneficial for young children. These products are not nutritionally complete and are not to be confused with formulas for infants younger than 12 months.

“Toddler drinks do not offer anything nutritionally exceptional,” said George J. Fuchs III, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, who presented a clinical report on toddler formulas from the American Academy of Pediatrics at the group’s annual meeting. The products are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and should not be given to infants younger than 12 months in place of infant formulas, but murky marketing can leave parents and caregivers confused as to whether these products are essential for good health, Dr. Fuchs said.

Despite the rise in marketing of formulas pitched as toddler milks, growth milks, or transition formulas, among other names, the AAP says these formulas are both unregulated and unnecessary for the vast majority of toddlers because they have adequate diets and do not require supplementation.

Clinicians should understand and explain the distinction between products formulated for infants younger than 12 months and those designed for children aged 12 months or older, Dr. Fuchs added.

Formulas for infants younger than 12 months represent a distinct product category for the FDA and are required to be nutritionally complete for this age, Dr. Fuchs said. Infant formulas sold in the United States must meet nutrition requirements as defined by the Infant Formula Act of 1980 (updated in 1986), and the facilities that manufacture them are regularly inspected by the agency.

In contrast, toddler formulas are not regulated or categorized by the FDA and therefore may vary widely in composition and are not nutritionally complete for any age, he said.

One area of concern is that parents or caregivers misunderstand and give these products to infants younger than 12 months instead of infant formulas, he said.

Also, mass-market toddler formulas are inadequate for children with disease-specific requirements, such as malnutrition, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic disorders, or food allergies.
 

Questionable composition, misleading marketing

Toddler formulas are not only unnecessary but could be detrimental to children’s health, Dr. Fuchs said. Some formulas have high sodium content relative to cow’s milk or may be high or low in protein. Other products have added sweeteners, which could contribute to an increased preference for sweetened foods as the children get older, he noted.

However, manufacturers of regulated infant products often market them alongside their infant formula, which can be confusing for parents and caregivers. The products often have similar names, images, slogans, and logos, and may suggest benefits such as immune system support, brain development, and digestive health, he added.

A 2020 survey published in Maternal and Child Nutrition found that 60% of approximately 1,000 caregivers of children aged 12-36 months agreed with the marketing claim that toddler formulas or powdered milks provide nutrition that is not available from other food and drinks, Dr. Fuchs said.
 

Balanced diet is best for healthy children

For infants younger than 12 months, the AAP recommends that the liquid portion of the diet should come from human milk or a standard infant formula that has been reviewed by the FDA based on the Infant Formula Act, Dr. Fuchs said.

Children aged 12 months or older should receive a varied diet with fortified foods. Formula can safely be used as part of a varied diet; however, it offers no nutritional advantage for most children over a well-balanced diet that includes human milk and/or cow milk, “and should not be promoted as such,” Dr. Fuchs noted.

“The category of these toddler drinks has grown and the landscape has changed quite a bit; we thought it was appropriate that we review this category,” Dr. Fuchs said in an interview.

Dr. Fuchs advised pediatricians in practice to follow the AAP’s guidance for breastfeeding infants if possible and progression to formula as needed for infants up to age 1 year, followed by transition to cow milk (or alternatives for those with cow milk allergies) and the addition of a healthy mixed diet.
 

Formula choices pose practice challenges

In an interview, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., pointed out that not only are parents often baffled by formula choices, but many are also hesitant to make a switch to regular milk as children get older because they worry that cow’s milk is inadequate for nutrition or is not as “clean” or “sterile” as formula.

In some cases, parents may have had difficulty in acquiring genuine infant formulas, which were relocated to locked cabinets in stores during recent shortages and began using toddler formulas as an alternative for infants younger than 1 year, she added.

“If breastfeeding is not possible, using approved infant formula is preferred, switching to whole cow milk at 1 year of age,” she said. “Nutritional assessment is an important part of well-child visits, with caregiver counseling regarding importance of intake of variety of fortified foods [that] offer vitamins, calcium, iron and zinc,” Ms. Haut added. Although toddler formulas are safe additions to the diets of most young children older than 1 year, supplementation of specific nutrients such as vitamin D if needed is a more effective option, she said.

“National health studies indicate that U.S. toddlers have nutritional gaps in their diet often related to picky eating,” an Abbott spokesperson said in an interview. “When [toddlers] don’t do well transitioning to table foods or won’t drink milk, our toddler drinks contain many of the complementary nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, that they may be missing in their diet. Toddler drinks may be an option to help fill nutrient gaps for these children 12-36 months of age. Abbott does not recommend or indicate its toddler drinks for infants under 12 months of age,” according to the company.

Dr. Fuchs had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

WASHINGTON – The nation’s largest group of pediatricians is advising parents to recognize the limits of “toddler milk,” formula products purporting to be beneficial for young children. These products are not nutritionally complete and are not to be confused with formulas for infants younger than 12 months.

“Toddler drinks do not offer anything nutritionally exceptional,” said George J. Fuchs III, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, who presented a clinical report on toddler formulas from the American Academy of Pediatrics at the group’s annual meeting. The products are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and should not be given to infants younger than 12 months in place of infant formulas, but murky marketing can leave parents and caregivers confused as to whether these products are essential for good health, Dr. Fuchs said.

Despite the rise in marketing of formulas pitched as toddler milks, growth milks, or transition formulas, among other names, the AAP says these formulas are both unregulated and unnecessary for the vast majority of toddlers because they have adequate diets and do not require supplementation.

Clinicians should understand and explain the distinction between products formulated for infants younger than 12 months and those designed for children aged 12 months or older, Dr. Fuchs added.

Formulas for infants younger than 12 months represent a distinct product category for the FDA and are required to be nutritionally complete for this age, Dr. Fuchs said. Infant formulas sold in the United States must meet nutrition requirements as defined by the Infant Formula Act of 1980 (updated in 1986), and the facilities that manufacture them are regularly inspected by the agency.

In contrast, toddler formulas are not regulated or categorized by the FDA and therefore may vary widely in composition and are not nutritionally complete for any age, he said.

One area of concern is that parents or caregivers misunderstand and give these products to infants younger than 12 months instead of infant formulas, he said.

Also, mass-market toddler formulas are inadequate for children with disease-specific requirements, such as malnutrition, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic disorders, or food allergies.
 

Questionable composition, misleading marketing

Toddler formulas are not only unnecessary but could be detrimental to children’s health, Dr. Fuchs said. Some formulas have high sodium content relative to cow’s milk or may be high or low in protein. Other products have added sweeteners, which could contribute to an increased preference for sweetened foods as the children get older, he noted.

However, manufacturers of regulated infant products often market them alongside their infant formula, which can be confusing for parents and caregivers. The products often have similar names, images, slogans, and logos, and may suggest benefits such as immune system support, brain development, and digestive health, he added.

A 2020 survey published in Maternal and Child Nutrition found that 60% of approximately 1,000 caregivers of children aged 12-36 months agreed with the marketing claim that toddler formulas or powdered milks provide nutrition that is not available from other food and drinks, Dr. Fuchs said.
 

Balanced diet is best for healthy children

For infants younger than 12 months, the AAP recommends that the liquid portion of the diet should come from human milk or a standard infant formula that has been reviewed by the FDA based on the Infant Formula Act, Dr. Fuchs said.

Children aged 12 months or older should receive a varied diet with fortified foods. Formula can safely be used as part of a varied diet; however, it offers no nutritional advantage for most children over a well-balanced diet that includes human milk and/or cow milk, “and should not be promoted as such,” Dr. Fuchs noted.

“The category of these toddler drinks has grown and the landscape has changed quite a bit; we thought it was appropriate that we review this category,” Dr. Fuchs said in an interview.

Dr. Fuchs advised pediatricians in practice to follow the AAP’s guidance for breastfeeding infants if possible and progression to formula as needed for infants up to age 1 year, followed by transition to cow milk (or alternatives for those with cow milk allergies) and the addition of a healthy mixed diet.
 

Formula choices pose practice challenges

In an interview, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., pointed out that not only are parents often baffled by formula choices, but many are also hesitant to make a switch to regular milk as children get older because they worry that cow’s milk is inadequate for nutrition or is not as “clean” or “sterile” as formula.

In some cases, parents may have had difficulty in acquiring genuine infant formulas, which were relocated to locked cabinets in stores during recent shortages and began using toddler formulas as an alternative for infants younger than 1 year, she added.

“If breastfeeding is not possible, using approved infant formula is preferred, switching to whole cow milk at 1 year of age,” she said. “Nutritional assessment is an important part of well-child visits, with caregiver counseling regarding importance of intake of variety of fortified foods [that] offer vitamins, calcium, iron and zinc,” Ms. Haut added. Although toddler formulas are safe additions to the diets of most young children older than 1 year, supplementation of specific nutrients such as vitamin D if needed is a more effective option, she said.

“National health studies indicate that U.S. toddlers have nutritional gaps in their diet often related to picky eating,” an Abbott spokesperson said in an interview. “When [toddlers] don’t do well transitioning to table foods or won’t drink milk, our toddler drinks contain many of the complementary nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, that they may be missing in their diet. Toddler drinks may be an option to help fill nutrient gaps for these children 12-36 months of age. Abbott does not recommend or indicate its toddler drinks for infants under 12 months of age,” according to the company.

Dr. Fuchs had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is considering banning chemicals used in hair straightening products that have been linked to cancer.

The proposal specifies that formaldehyde would be banned, as well as other chemicals that release formaldehyde, such as methylene glycol. Using hair smoothing products containing formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals “is linked to short-term adverse health effects, such as sensitization reactions and breathing problems, and long-term adverse health effects, including an increased risk of certain cancers,” the proposal states.

One study published last year showed that repeated use of hair straightening products, also called relaxers, could more than double the risk of uterine cancer. Although that study didn’t find that the uterine cancer risk varied based on a person’s race, the researchers noted that women who are Black are among the most likely to use the products and tend to start using them at younger ages, compared with people of other races and ethnicities.

Hair straightening products have also been linked to elevated risks of hormone-sensitive cancers, such as breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) applauded the proposed rule in a statement issued jointly on Oct. 6. “The FDA’s proposal to ban these harmful chemicals in hair straighteners and relaxers is a win for public health – especially the health of Black women who are disproportionately put at risk by these products as a result of systemic racism and anti–Black hair sentiment,” Rep. Pressley said The two congresswomen wrote a letter to the FDA earlier this year requesting the topic be investigated.

“Regardless of how we wear our hair, we should be allowed to show up in the world without putting our health at risk. I applaud the FDA for being responsive to our calls and advancing a rule that will help prevent manufacturers from making a profit at the expense of our health,” Rep. Pressley said in the statement. “The administration should finalize this rule without delay.”



A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com

The Food and Drug Administration is considering banning chemicals used in hair straightening products that have been linked to cancer.

The proposal specifies that formaldehyde would be banned, as well as other chemicals that release formaldehyde, such as methylene glycol. Using hair smoothing products containing formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals “is linked to short-term adverse health effects, such as sensitization reactions and breathing problems, and long-term adverse health effects, including an increased risk of certain cancers,” the proposal states.

One study published last year showed that repeated use of hair straightening products, also called relaxers, could more than double the risk of uterine cancer. Although that study didn’t find that the uterine cancer risk varied based on a person’s race, the researchers noted that women who are Black are among the most likely to use the products and tend to start using them at younger ages, compared with people of other races and ethnicities.

Hair straightening products have also been linked to elevated risks of hormone-sensitive cancers, such as breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) applauded the proposed rule in a statement issued jointly on Oct. 6. “The FDA’s proposal to ban these harmful chemicals in hair straighteners and relaxers is a win for public health – especially the health of Black women who are disproportionately put at risk by these products as a result of systemic racism and anti–Black hair sentiment,” Rep. Pressley said The two congresswomen wrote a letter to the FDA earlier this year requesting the topic be investigated.

“Regardless of how we wear our hair, we should be allowed to show up in the world without putting our health at risk. I applaud the FDA for being responsive to our calls and advancing a rule that will help prevent manufacturers from making a profit at the expense of our health,” Rep. Pressley said in the statement. “The administration should finalize this rule without delay.”



A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com

The Food and Drug Administration is considering banning chemicals used in hair straightening products that have been linked to cancer.

The proposal specifies that formaldehyde would be banned, as well as other chemicals that release formaldehyde, such as methylene glycol. Using hair smoothing products containing formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals “is linked to short-term adverse health effects, such as sensitization reactions and breathing problems, and long-term adverse health effects, including an increased risk of certain cancers,” the proposal states.

One study published last year showed that repeated use of hair straightening products, also called relaxers, could more than double the risk of uterine cancer. Although that study didn’t find that the uterine cancer risk varied based on a person’s race, the researchers noted that women who are Black are among the most likely to use the products and tend to start using them at younger ages, compared with people of other races and ethnicities.

Hair straightening products have also been linked to elevated risks of hormone-sensitive cancers, such as breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) applauded the proposed rule in a statement issued jointly on Oct. 6. “The FDA’s proposal to ban these harmful chemicals in hair straighteners and relaxers is a win for public health – especially the health of Black women who are disproportionately put at risk by these products as a result of systemic racism and anti–Black hair sentiment,” Rep. Pressley said The two congresswomen wrote a letter to the FDA earlier this year requesting the topic be investigated.

“Regardless of how we wear our hair, we should be allowed to show up in the world without putting our health at risk. I applaud the FDA for being responsive to our calls and advancing a rule that will help prevent manufacturers from making a profit at the expense of our health,” Rep. Pressley said in the statement. “The administration should finalize this rule without delay.”



A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com

This country faces a broad and frightening rogues’ gallery of challenges to its health. From the recent revelation that gunshots are the leading cause of death in children to the opioid epidemic to the overworked and discouraged health care providers, the crises are so numerous it is hard to choose where we should be investing what little political will we can muster. And, where do these disasters fit against a landscape raked by natural and climate change–triggered catastrophes? How do we even begin to triage our vocabulary as we are trying to label them?

The lead article in October’s journal Pediatrics makes a heroic effort to place pediatric obesity into this pantheon of health disasters. The authors of this Pediatrics Perspective ask a simple question: Should the United States declare pediatric obesity a public health emergency? They have wisely chosen to narrow the question to the pediatric population as being a more realistic target and one that is more likely to pay bigger dividends over time.

While acknowledging that obesity prevention strategies have been largely ineffective to this point, the authors are also concerned that despite the promising development of treatment strategies, the rollout of these therapies is likely to be uneven because of funding and disparities in health care delivery.

After reviewing pros and cons for an emergency declaration, they came to the conclusion that despite the scope of the problem and the fact that health emergencies have been declared for conditions effecting fewer individuals, now is not the time. The authors observed that a declaration may serve only to hype “the problem without offering tangible solutions.” Even when as yet to be discovered effective therapies become available, the time lag before measurable improvement is likely to be so delayed that “catastrophizing” pediatric obesity may be just another exercise in wolf-crying.
 

A closer look

While I applaud the authors for their courage in addressing this question and their decision to discourage an emergency declaration, a few of their observations deserve a closer look. First, they are legitimately concerned that any health policy must be careful not to further perpetuate the stigmatization of children with obesity. However, they feel the recognition by all stakeholders “that obesity is a genetically and biologically driven disease are essential.” While I have supported the disease designation as a pragmatic strategy to move things forward, I would prefer their statement to read “obesity can be ... “ I don’t think we have mined the data deep enough to determine how many out of a cohort of a million obese children from across a wide span of socioeconomic strata have become obese primarily as a result of decisions made by school departments, parents, and governmental entities – all of which had the resources to make healthier decisions but failed to do so.

While a majority of the population may believe that obesity is a “condition of choice,” I think they would be more likely to support the political will for action if they saw data that acknowledges that yes, obesity can be a condition of choice, but here are the circumstances in which choice can and can’t make a difference. Language must always be chosen carefully to minimize stigmatization. However, remember we are not pointing fingers at victims; we are instead looking for teaching moments in which adults can learn to make better choices for the children under their care who are too young to make their own.

Finally, as the authors of this Pediatric Perspectives considered cons of a declaration of health care emergency, they raised the peculiarly American concern of personal autonomy. As they pointed out, there are unfortunate examples in this country in which efforts to limit personal choice have backfired and well-meaning and potentially effective methods for limiting unhealthy behaviors have been eliminated in the name of personal freedom. I’m not sure how we manage this except to wait and be judicious as we move forward addressing pediatric obesity on a national scale. I urge you to take a few minutes to read this perspective. It is a topic worth considering.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

This country faces a broad and frightening rogues’ gallery of challenges to its health. From the recent revelation that gunshots are the leading cause of death in children to the opioid epidemic to the overworked and discouraged health care providers, the crises are so numerous it is hard to choose where we should be investing what little political will we can muster. And, where do these disasters fit against a landscape raked by natural and climate change–triggered catastrophes? How do we even begin to triage our vocabulary as we are trying to label them?

The lead article in October’s journal Pediatrics makes a heroic effort to place pediatric obesity into this pantheon of health disasters. The authors of this Pediatrics Perspective ask a simple question: Should the United States declare pediatric obesity a public health emergency? They have wisely chosen to narrow the question to the pediatric population as being a more realistic target and one that is more likely to pay bigger dividends over time.

While acknowledging that obesity prevention strategies have been largely ineffective to this point, the authors are also concerned that despite the promising development of treatment strategies, the rollout of these therapies is likely to be uneven because of funding and disparities in health care delivery.

After reviewing pros and cons for an emergency declaration, they came to the conclusion that despite the scope of the problem and the fact that health emergencies have been declared for conditions effecting fewer individuals, now is not the time. The authors observed that a declaration may serve only to hype “the problem without offering tangible solutions.” Even when as yet to be discovered effective therapies become available, the time lag before measurable improvement is likely to be so delayed that “catastrophizing” pediatric obesity may be just another exercise in wolf-crying.
 

A closer look

While I applaud the authors for their courage in addressing this question and their decision to discourage an emergency declaration, a few of their observations deserve a closer look. First, they are legitimately concerned that any health policy must be careful not to further perpetuate the stigmatization of children with obesity. However, they feel the recognition by all stakeholders “that obesity is a genetically and biologically driven disease are essential.” While I have supported the disease designation as a pragmatic strategy to move things forward, I would prefer their statement to read “obesity can be ... “ I don’t think we have mined the data deep enough to determine how many out of a cohort of a million obese children from across a wide span of socioeconomic strata have become obese primarily as a result of decisions made by school departments, parents, and governmental entities – all of which had the resources to make healthier decisions but failed to do so.

While a majority of the population may believe that obesity is a “condition of choice,” I think they would be more likely to support the political will for action if they saw data that acknowledges that yes, obesity can be a condition of choice, but here are the circumstances in which choice can and can’t make a difference. Language must always be chosen carefully to minimize stigmatization. However, remember we are not pointing fingers at victims; we are instead looking for teaching moments in which adults can learn to make better choices for the children under their care who are too young to make their own.

Finally, as the authors of this Pediatric Perspectives considered cons of a declaration of health care emergency, they raised the peculiarly American concern of personal autonomy. As they pointed out, there are unfortunate examples in this country in which efforts to limit personal choice have backfired and well-meaning and potentially effective methods for limiting unhealthy behaviors have been eliminated in the name of personal freedom. I’m not sure how we manage this except to wait and be judicious as we move forward addressing pediatric obesity on a national scale. I urge you to take a few minutes to read this perspective. It is a topic worth considering.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

This country faces a broad and frightening rogues’ gallery of challenges to its health. From the recent revelation that gunshots are the leading cause of death in children to the opioid epidemic to the overworked and discouraged health care providers, the crises are so numerous it is hard to choose where we should be investing what little political will we can muster. And, where do these disasters fit against a landscape raked by natural and climate change–triggered catastrophes? How do we even begin to triage our vocabulary as we are trying to label them?

The lead article in October’s journal Pediatrics makes a heroic effort to place pediatric obesity into this pantheon of health disasters. The authors of this Pediatrics Perspective ask a simple question: Should the United States declare pediatric obesity a public health emergency? They have wisely chosen to narrow the question to the pediatric population as being a more realistic target and one that is more likely to pay bigger dividends over time.

While acknowledging that obesity prevention strategies have been largely ineffective to this point, the authors are also concerned that despite the promising development of treatment strategies, the rollout of these therapies is likely to be uneven because of funding and disparities in health care delivery.

After reviewing pros and cons for an emergency declaration, they came to the conclusion that despite the scope of the problem and the fact that health emergencies have been declared for conditions effecting fewer individuals, now is not the time. The authors observed that a declaration may serve only to hype “the problem without offering tangible solutions.” Even when as yet to be discovered effective therapies become available, the time lag before measurable improvement is likely to be so delayed that “catastrophizing” pediatric obesity may be just another exercise in wolf-crying.
 

A closer look

While I applaud the authors for their courage in addressing this question and their decision to discourage an emergency declaration, a few of their observations deserve a closer look. First, they are legitimately concerned that any health policy must be careful not to further perpetuate the stigmatization of children with obesity. However, they feel the recognition by all stakeholders “that obesity is a genetically and biologically driven disease are essential.” While I have supported the disease designation as a pragmatic strategy to move things forward, I would prefer their statement to read “obesity can be ... “ I don’t think we have mined the data deep enough to determine how many out of a cohort of a million obese children from across a wide span of socioeconomic strata have become obese primarily as a result of decisions made by school departments, parents, and governmental entities – all of which had the resources to make healthier decisions but failed to do so.

While a majority of the population may believe that obesity is a “condition of choice,” I think they would be more likely to support the political will for action if they saw data that acknowledges that yes, obesity can be a condition of choice, but here are the circumstances in which choice can and can’t make a difference. Language must always be chosen carefully to minimize stigmatization. However, remember we are not pointing fingers at victims; we are instead looking for teaching moments in which adults can learn to make better choices for the children under their care who are too young to make their own.

Finally, as the authors of this Pediatric Perspectives considered cons of a declaration of health care emergency, they raised the peculiarly American concern of personal autonomy. As they pointed out, there are unfortunate examples in this country in which efforts to limit personal choice have backfired and well-meaning and potentially effective methods for limiting unhealthy behaviors have been eliminated in the name of personal freedom. I’m not sure how we manage this except to wait and be judicious as we move forward addressing pediatric obesity on a national scale. I urge you to take a few minutes to read this perspective. It is a topic worth considering.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

DMT310, a novel topical treatment applied once per week, appears to be safe and effective for moderate to severe acne.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
• In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
• The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
• Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
• Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
• At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”

SOURCE:

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

DMT310, a novel topical treatment applied once per week, appears to be safe and effective for moderate to severe acne.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
• In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
• The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
• Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
• Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
• At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”

SOURCE:

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

DMT310, a novel topical treatment applied once per week, appears to be safe and effective for moderate to severe acne.

METHODOLOGY:

• Poor patient compliance with topical acne therapies is a common clinical challenge.
• In a 12-week, randomized, controlled, phase 2b trial of 181 patients 12 years of age and older, researchers investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DMT310, a powdered mixture of Spongilla lacustris for treating moderate to severe acne. (In vitro studies have found that components of S. lacustris, a freshwater sponge, have effects that include antimicrobial activity against Cutibacterium acnes and anti-inflammatory activity in human keratinocytes).
• The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in inflammatory lesion count from baseline to week 12.
• Endpoint success was defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 and at least a two-grade improvement from baseline at week 12.
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 181 patients, 91 received DMT310 (applied once a week to the face and washed off after 10-15 minutes), and 90 received placebo.
• Patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–15.64 vs. –10.84, respectively; P < .001).
• Similarly, patients in the DMT310 arm showed a significantly greater mean reduction in the number of noninflammatory lesions at week 12, compared with those in the placebo arm (–18.26 vs. –12.41, respectively; P < .001).
• At week 12, endpoint success based on IGA scores also significantly favored patients in the DMT310 arm, compared with those in the placebo arm (44.40% vs. 17.78%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application. The researchers concluded that the findings “support further study of DMT310 in larger, confirmatory phase 3 trials.”

SOURCE:

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, led the research. The study was published online June 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include an active comparator group and it enrolled a limited number of Asian patients.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant to Dermata, which is developing DMT310, as were three other authors of the study. One author is a company employee. The remaining authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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