MDedge Psychiatry

It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Rawpixel/Getty Images

All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.

By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.¹ It is time for that to change.

Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.

What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.² We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.

Over the last 20-30 years, however, a grassroots movement has established what is now an international reproductive psychiatry community with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.

Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.³ The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.

Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.⁴ It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.⁵ Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.⁶

Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.

It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.⁷ Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.

A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.

The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.

Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.

 

References

1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.

2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.

3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.

4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.

5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.

6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.

7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
 

Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
 

Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.

It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Rawpixel/Getty Images

All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.

By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.¹ It is time for that to change.

Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.

What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.² We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.

Over the last 20-30 years, however, a grassroots movement has established what is now an international reproductive psychiatry community with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.

Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.³ The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.

Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.⁴ It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.⁵ Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.⁶

Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.

It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.⁷ Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.

A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.

The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.

Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.

 

References

1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.

2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.

3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.

4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.

5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.

6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.

7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
 

Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
 

Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.

It wasn’t until I (Dr. Leistikow) finished my psychiatry residency that I realized the training I had received in women’s mental health was unusual. It was simply a required experience for PGY-3 residents at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Rawpixel/Getty Images

All of us, regardless of interest, spent 1 afternoon a week over 6 months caring for patients in a specialty psychiatric clinic for women (run by Dr. Payne and Dr. Osborne). We discussed cases and received didactics on such topics as risk factors for postpartum depression; the risks of untreated mental illness in pregnancy, compared with the risks of various psychiatric medications; how to choose and dose medications for bipolar disorder as blood levels change across pregnancy; which resources to consult to determine the amounts and risks of various medications passed on in breast milk; and how to diagnose and treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder, to name a few lecture subjects.

By the time we were done, all residents had received more than 20 hours of teaching about how to treat mental illness in women across the reproductive life cycle. This was 20 hours more than is currently required by the American College of Graduate Medical Education, the accrediting body for all residencies, including psychiatry.¹ It is time for that to change.

Women’s need for psychiatric treatment that addresses reproductive transitions is not new; it is as old as time. Not only do women who previously needed psychiatric treatment continue to need treatment when they get pregnant or are breastfeeding, but it is now well recognized that times of reproductive transition or flux – whether premenstrual, post partum, or perimenopausal – confer increased risk for both new-onset and exacerbations of prior mental illnesses.

What has changed is psychiatry’s ability to finally meet that need. Previously, despite the fact that women make up the majority of patients presenting for treatment, that nearly all women will menstruate and go through menopause, and that more than 80% of American women will have at least one pregnancy during their lifetime,psychiatrists practice as if these reproductive transitions were unfortunate blips getting in the doctor’s way.² We mostly threw up our hands when our patients became pregnant, reflexively stopped all medications, and expected women to suffer for the sake of their babies.

Over the last 20-30 years, however, a grassroots movement has established what is now an international reproductive psychiatry community with a large and growing research base, with both agreed-upon best practices and evolving standards of care informed by and responsive to the scientific literature. We now know that untreated maternal psychiatric illness carries its own risks for infants both before and after delivery; that many maternal pharmacologic treatments are lower risk for infants than previously thought; that protecting and treating women’s mental health in pregnancy has benefits for women, their babies, and the families that depend on them; and that there is now a growing evidence base informing both new and older treatments and enabling women and their doctors to make complex decisions balancing risk and benefit across the life cycle.

Many psychiatrists-in-training are hungry for this knowledge. At last count, in the United States alone, there were 16 women’s mental health fellowships available, up from just 3 in 2008.³ The problem is that none of them are accredited or funded by the ACGME, because reproductive psychiatry (here used interchangeably with the term women’s mental health) has not been officially recognized as a subspecialty. This means that current funding frequently rests on philanthropy, which often cannot be sustained, and clinical billing, which gives fellows in some programs such heavy clinical responsibilities that little time is left for scholarly work. Lack of subspecialty status also blocks numerous important downstream effects that would flow from this recognition.

Reproductive psychiatry clearly already meets criteria laid out by the American Board of Medical Specialties for defining a subspecialty field. As argued elsewhere, it has a distinct patient population with definable care needs and a standalone body of scientific medical knowledge as well as a national (and international) community of experts that has already done much to improve women’s access to care they desperately need.⁴ It also meets the ACGME’s criteria for a new subspecialty except for approval by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.⁵ Finally, it also meets the requirements of the ABPN except for having 25 fellowship programs with 50 fellowship positions and 50 trainees per year completing fellowships, a challenging Catch-22 without the necessary funding that would accrue from accreditation.⁶

Despite growing awareness and demand, there remains a shortage of psychiatrists trained to treat women during times of reproductive transition and to pass their recommendations and knowledge on to their primary care and ob.gyn. colleagues. What official recognition would bring, in addition to funding for fellowships post residency, is a guaranteed seat at the table in psychiatry residencies, in terms of a required number of hours devoted to these topics for trainees, ensuring that all graduating psychiatrists have at least some exposure to the knowledge and practices so material to their patients.

It isn’t enough to wait for residencies to see the writing on the wall and voluntarily carve out a slice of pie devoted to women’s mental health from the limited time and resources available to train residents. A 2017 survey of psychiatry residency program training directors found that 23%, or almost a quarter of programs that responded, offered no reproductive psychiatry training at all, that 49% required 5 hours or less across all 4 years of training, and that 75% of programs had no required clinical exposure to reproductive psychiatry patients.⁷ Despite the fact that 87% of training directors surveyed agreed either that reproductive psychiatry was “an important area of education” or a subject general residents should be competent in, ACGME-recognized specialties take precedence.

A system so patchy and insufficient won’t do. It’s not good enough for the trainees who frequently have to look outside of their own institutions for the training they know they need. It’s not good enough for the pregnant or postpartum patient looking for evidence-based advice, who is currently left on her own to determine, prior to booking an appointment, whether a specific psychiatrist has received any training relevant to treating her. Adding reproductive psychiatry to the topics a graduating psychiatrist must have some proficiency in also signals to recent graduates and experienced attendings, as well as the relevant examining boards and producers of continuing medical education content, that women’s mental health is no longer a fringe topic but rather foundational to all practicing psychiatrists.

The oil needed to prime this pump is official recognition of the subspecialty that reproductive psychiatry already is. The women’s mental health community is ready. The research base is well established and growing exponentially. The number of women’s mental health fellowships is healthy and would increase significantly with ACGME funding. Psychiatry residency training programs can turn to recent graduates of these fellowships as well as their own faculty with reproductive psychiatry experience to teach trainees. In addition, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, over the last 4 years, has created a repository of free online modules dedicated to facilitating this type of training, with case discussions across numerous topics for use by both educators and trainees. The American Psychiatric Association recently formed the Committee on Women’s Mental Health in 2020 and will be publishing a textbook based on work done by the NCRP within the coming year.

Imagine the changed world that would open to all psychiatrists if reproductive psychiatry were given the credentials it deserves. When writing prescriptions, we would view pregnancy as the potential outcome it is in any woman of reproductive age, given that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, and let women know ahead of time how to think about possible fetal effects rather than waiting for their panicked phone messages or hearing that they have stopped their medications abruptly. We would work to identify our patient’s individual risk factors for postpartum depression predelivery to reduce that risk and prevent or limit illness. We would plan ahead for close follow-up post partum during the window of greatest risk, rather than expecting women to drop out of care while taking care of their infants or languish on scheduling waiting lists. We would feel confident in giving evidence-based advice to our patients around times of reproductive transition across the life cycle, but especially in pregnancy and lactation, empowering women to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families, no longer abandoning them just when they need us most.

 

References

1. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Psychiatry. Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education. 2020 Jul 1.

2. Livingston G. “They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. pewsocialtrends.org. 2018 Jan 18.

3. Nagle-Yang S et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):202-6.

4. Payne JL. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019 May;31(3):207-9.

5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Policies and Procedures. 2020 Sep 26.

6. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Requirements for Subspecialty Recognition, Attachment A. 2008.

7. Osborne LM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Apr;42(2):197-201.
 

Dr. Leistikow is a reproductive psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she sees patients and helps train residents and fellows. She is on the education committee of the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRPtraining.org) and has written about women’s mental health for textbooks, scientific journals and on her private practice blog at www.womenspsychiatrybaltimore.com. Dr. Leistikow has no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Payne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. In addition to providing outstanding clinical care for women with mood disorders, she conducts research into the genetic, biological, and environmental factors involved in postpartum depression. She and her colleagues have recently identified two epigenetic biomarkers of postpartum depression and are working hard to replicate this work with National Institutes of Health funding. Most recently, she was appointed to the American Psychiatric Association’s committee on women’s mental health and is serving as president-elect for both the Marcé of North America and the International Marcé Perinatal Mental Health Societies. She disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Sage Therapeutics and Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
 

Dr. Osborne is associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, where she directs a postdoctoral fellowship program in reproductive psychiatry. She is an expert on the diagnosis and treatment of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy, the post partum, the premenstrual period, and perimenopause. Her work is supported by the Brain and Behavior Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and the National Institute of Mental Health. She has no conflicts of interest.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

COVID-19 is having a disproportionate impact on the lives of all women physicians, Linda Brubaker, MD, recently wrote in JAMA.

“Women physicians do not have trouble balancing competing demands any more than men physicians do. It is simply a more common expectation that women physicians will adjust their professional lives,” she observed.

The daily grind of caring for patients during a global pandemic is taking an emotional and mental toll on doctors as well as a physical one. “The recently publicized suicide of emergency physician Lorna Breen, MD, following her intense work during the pandemic in New York should cause every physician to reflect on their culture in medicine,” Dr. Brubaker wrote in the article. In an interview, she expounded on the current climate for women psychiatrists and physicians in general, offering some coping techniques.

Question: The pandemic has amplified disparities among men and women physicians. What may be the repercussions from this, not just for patient care, but for work-life balance among women physicians?

Answer: Focusing on women in academic roles, both research and clinical productivity have changed in the professional arena. Many women continue to bear a disproportionate share of family responsibilities and have reduced paid work to accommodate these needs. These changes can impact academic promotion and, therefore, subsequent academic opportunities for leadership. These gaps will add to the well-recognized gender wage gap. Women physicians are more likely to experience reduced wages associated with reduced professional activities. This reduces their annual earnings, which reduces their contributions to Social Security and other retirement programs. This can adversely impact their financial security later in life, at a time when women are already disadvantaged, compared with men.



Q: Are women psychiatrists facing additional burdens, given that many patients are suffering from anxiety and depression right now, and seeking out prescriptions?

A: We know that mental health concerns are on the rise. Although I cannot point to specific evidence, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear that psychiatrists are dealing with an increased professional load as a result. Similar to those on the more well-recognized “front lines” in the ED and critical care units, I consider my psychiatric colleagues to be on the front lines as well, as they are addressing this marked increase in care needs, for patients and for other members of the health care team.



Q: You mentioned the suicide of Dr. Breen. What might women psychiatrists take away from this incident?

A: Physicians are drawn to our vocation with a commitment to be of service to others. During such demanding times as these, the “safety” rails between service to others and self-care shift – clearly this can endanger individual doctors.



Q: What advice might you have for women in this profession? Any resources that could provide support?

A: My advice is to ensure your own well-being, knowing that this differs for each woman. Be realistic with your time and commitments, allowing time for restoration and rest. Sometimes I tell my peers to meditate or do some other form of contemplative practice. Exercise (preferably outdoors) and sleep, including preparing for good sleep, such as not reading emails or patient charts right up until sleep time, are all important. Most importantly, identify your support team and check in regularly with them. Never hesitate to reach out for help. People truly do care and want to help you.

COVID-19 is having a disproportionate impact on the lives of all women physicians, Linda Brubaker, MD, recently wrote in JAMA.

“Women physicians do not have trouble balancing competing demands any more than men physicians do. It is simply a more common expectation that women physicians will adjust their professional lives,” she observed.

The daily grind of caring for patients during a global pandemic is taking an emotional and mental toll on doctors as well as a physical one. “The recently publicized suicide of emergency physician Lorna Breen, MD, following her intense work during the pandemic in New York should cause every physician to reflect on their culture in medicine,” Dr. Brubaker wrote in the article. In an interview, she expounded on the current climate for women psychiatrists and physicians in general, offering some coping techniques.

Question: The pandemic has amplified disparities among men and women physicians. What may be the repercussions from this, not just for patient care, but for work-life balance among women physicians?

Answer: Focusing on women in academic roles, both research and clinical productivity have changed in the professional arena. Many women continue to bear a disproportionate share of family responsibilities and have reduced paid work to accommodate these needs. These changes can impact academic promotion and, therefore, subsequent academic opportunities for leadership. These gaps will add to the well-recognized gender wage gap. Women physicians are more likely to experience reduced wages associated with reduced professional activities. This reduces their annual earnings, which reduces their contributions to Social Security and other retirement programs. This can adversely impact their financial security later in life, at a time when women are already disadvantaged, compared with men.



Q: Are women psychiatrists facing additional burdens, given that many patients are suffering from anxiety and depression right now, and seeking out prescriptions?

A: We know that mental health concerns are on the rise. Although I cannot point to specific evidence, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear that psychiatrists are dealing with an increased professional load as a result. Similar to those on the more well-recognized “front lines” in the ED and critical care units, I consider my psychiatric colleagues to be on the front lines as well, as they are addressing this marked increase in care needs, for patients and for other members of the health care team.



Q: You mentioned the suicide of Dr. Breen. What might women psychiatrists take away from this incident?

A: Physicians are drawn to our vocation with a commitment to be of service to others. During such demanding times as these, the “safety” rails between service to others and self-care shift – clearly this can endanger individual doctors.



Q: What advice might you have for women in this profession? Any resources that could provide support?

A: My advice is to ensure your own well-being, knowing that this differs for each woman. Be realistic with your time and commitments, allowing time for restoration and rest. Sometimes I tell my peers to meditate or do some other form of contemplative practice. Exercise (preferably outdoors) and sleep, including preparing for good sleep, such as not reading emails or patient charts right up until sleep time, are all important. Most importantly, identify your support team and check in regularly with them. Never hesitate to reach out for help. People truly do care and want to help you.

COVID-19 is having a disproportionate impact on the lives of all women physicians, Linda Brubaker, MD, recently wrote in JAMA.

“Women physicians do not have trouble balancing competing demands any more than men physicians do. It is simply a more common expectation that women physicians will adjust their professional lives,” she observed.

The daily grind of caring for patients during a global pandemic is taking an emotional and mental toll on doctors as well as a physical one. “The recently publicized suicide of emergency physician Lorna Breen, MD, following her intense work during the pandemic in New York should cause every physician to reflect on their culture in medicine,” Dr. Brubaker wrote in the article. In an interview, she expounded on the current climate for women psychiatrists and physicians in general, offering some coping techniques.

Question: The pandemic has amplified disparities among men and women physicians. What may be the repercussions from this, not just for patient care, but for work-life balance among women physicians?

Answer: Focusing on women in academic roles, both research and clinical productivity have changed in the professional arena. Many women continue to bear a disproportionate share of family responsibilities and have reduced paid work to accommodate these needs. These changes can impact academic promotion and, therefore, subsequent academic opportunities for leadership. These gaps will add to the well-recognized gender wage gap. Women physicians are more likely to experience reduced wages associated with reduced professional activities. This reduces their annual earnings, which reduces their contributions to Social Security and other retirement programs. This can adversely impact their financial security later in life, at a time when women are already disadvantaged, compared with men.



Q: Are women psychiatrists facing additional burdens, given that many patients are suffering from anxiety and depression right now, and seeking out prescriptions?

A: We know that mental health concerns are on the rise. Although I cannot point to specific evidence, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear that psychiatrists are dealing with an increased professional load as a result. Similar to those on the more well-recognized “front lines” in the ED and critical care units, I consider my psychiatric colleagues to be on the front lines as well, as they are addressing this marked increase in care needs, for patients and for other members of the health care team.



Q: You mentioned the suicide of Dr. Breen. What might women psychiatrists take away from this incident?

A: Physicians are drawn to our vocation with a commitment to be of service to others. During such demanding times as these, the “safety” rails between service to others and self-care shift – clearly this can endanger individual doctors.



Q: What advice might you have for women in this profession? Any resources that could provide support?

A: My advice is to ensure your own well-being, knowing that this differs for each woman. Be realistic with your time and commitments, allowing time for restoration and rest. Sometimes I tell my peers to meditate or do some other form of contemplative practice. Exercise (preferably outdoors) and sleep, including preparing for good sleep, such as not reading emails or patient charts right up until sleep time, are all important. Most importantly, identify your support team and check in regularly with them. Never hesitate to reach out for help. People truly do care and want to help you.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Americans and the world witnessed a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol inspired by a president and other elected leaders and driven by lies, conspiracy theories, militias, and white supremacy. The violent insurrection was carried out by thousands of citizens, including many with weapons.

MDedge News

Psychiatric organizations condemned the attack and warned about the potential traumatic impact of these events on those directly involved as well as for others in the United States already living under anxiety and fear tied to the surging COVID pandemic.

A major challenge for U.S. society is to prevent other potential future violent attacks. For those who didn’t already know, the Capitol attack made it apparent that the United States faces major problems with white supremacists and domestic terrorism. FBI Director Christopher Wray stipulated that those involved in the Jan. 6 events were violent agitators and extremists.

Addressing the causes and preventing domestic terrorism is also a challenge and opportunity for psychiatry and other mental health professionals. I write as a psychiatrist in academic medicine who has spent more than 10 years advocating for public health approaches to the causes and consequences of violence, especially involving violent extremism. I believe that violence prevention cannot be left exclusively to law enforcement and that psychiatrists have a role to play as part of a whole-of-society coalition with other multidisciplinary practitioners and stakeholders.

Day by day, we learn more and more about those responsible for the insurrection and how to understand their motivations, intentions, and actions. Seditionists incite or commit acts of violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it. Domestic terrorists commit violent, criminal acts to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. The mob that attacked the Capitol contained both. What’s more, the Capitol insurrection might inspire others to take similar actions. The risk for even broader and deeper radicalization to violence is a grave concern.

Aided by more than 100,000 tips, the FBI is conducting a massive nationwide manhunt and thus far, dozens of people have been charged with crimes. Given that the United States has no law that makes domestic terrorism a crime, they are being charged with other crimes. Upholding the rule of law is necessary, but it should not be regarded as sufficient to deal with the white supremacism and domestic terrorism threats.

In many countries all over the world, and to a much lesser extent in the United States, there are successful non–law enforcement programs helping people move away from domestic terrorism and other forms of violence. One example in the United States is Life After Hate, a nongovernmental organization that uses former white supremacist extremists to counsel people to leave the movement. Another example is the Colorado Resilience Collaborative, which takes a socioecological approach to prevent terrorism and targeted violence. At Boston Children’s Hospital, a regional prevention initiative is focused on reducing youth risk for targeted violence and terrorism by reducing mental health problems and increasing social belonging among adolescents. These are but three of several initiatives currently being conducted throughout the United States.

Over the past decade, I have had the opportunity to become familiar with several of these programs domestically and internationally. These include programs aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating repatriated foreign fighters and their children and other family members all over the world, including in Kazakhstan. I would like to share some of the lessons learned from these programs to aid in preventing domestic terrorism in the United States.

One lesson learned from combating international terrorism is that intelligence and law enforcement strategies (hard counterterrorism) need to be balanced with civil society–led prevention strategies. Overreliance on hard strategies can harm individuals and communities through oversecuritization. Alternatively, we need to build civil society–led initiatives that focus on other levers, such as addressing the underlying conditions, including individual psychosocial and mental health dimensions, or social dimensions (for example, lack of opportunity), that mitigate a person’s involvement in violent extremism.

A second lesson is not to focus exclusively on ideology and deradicalization. Yes, we need to challenge extremist ideology and disinformation, but a wide range of different factors explains involvement in violent extremism and the many pathways into it. Using a socioecological model, we can identify modifiable risk and protective factors that mitigate for or against extremist violence (for example, family support, job prospects, untreated mental health problems). In addition, it is well-established that prevention programs should seek to disengage, not deradicalize, potential violent extremists.

Third, we should leverage existing evidence-based interventions and best practices in mental health and public health, but we should also invest in building and evaluating new models through research approaches, especially for secondary and tertiary prevention. As much as possible, these should be integrated into broader programs to improve individual and community mental health and health.

A fourth lesson is we must vigorously protect the human rights and civil liberties of individuals and communities involved in these programs, and uphold racial equity. We can learn from public health experts about how to engage vulnerable individuals and communities without adding to their stigmatization. One way is to not focus on single communities, and not just on ideologically motivated violence, but to build violence prevention programs that are broad enough to address multiple forms of violence.

Fifth, if we expect community-based organizations to do the work, then they need adequate resources, capacity building, training and supervision, and quality improvement activities to succeed. For example, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will require additional training to learn how to work effectively and ethically in this space.

MDedge News

Psychiatrists can start by building their knowledge and skills in understanding violent extremism and how it can be assessed and addressed, which is not the same as for suicidality. Psychiatrists can also become involved in established or emerging violence prevention programs, such as threat assessment programs in schools, workplaces, and communities. Across the country, there is a need for building new secondary and tertiary violence prevention initiatives, and they will need psychiatrists to work with them. Academic psychiatrists can become involved in building the models, developing and delivering training, and designing and conducting the program evaluations.

Finally, I suggest that psychiatrists look at domestic terrorism prevention through the lens of public health and not overly “psychiatrize” the issue. A public health approach uses evidence-based programs and policies, addresses underlying causes, and focuses on prevention. Public health builds programs with teams of experts from across disciplines – educators, health care workers, mental health professionals, faith leaders, youth leaders, community advocates, peers, and law enforcement.

As part of a public health–oriented team, psychiatrists can contribute to addressing the grave challenges of domestic terrorism facing our nation today.
 

Dr. Weine is professor of psychiatry, director of global medicine, and director of the Center for Global Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has no conflicts of interest.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Americans and the world witnessed a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol inspired by a president and other elected leaders and driven by lies, conspiracy theories, militias, and white supremacy. The violent insurrection was carried out by thousands of citizens, including many with weapons.

MDedge News

Psychiatric organizations condemned the attack and warned about the potential traumatic impact of these events on those directly involved as well as for others in the United States already living under anxiety and fear tied to the surging COVID pandemic.

A major challenge for U.S. society is to prevent other potential future violent attacks. For those who didn’t already know, the Capitol attack made it apparent that the United States faces major problems with white supremacists and domestic terrorism. FBI Director Christopher Wray stipulated that those involved in the Jan. 6 events were violent agitators and extremists.

Addressing the causes and preventing domestic terrorism is also a challenge and opportunity for psychiatry and other mental health professionals. I write as a psychiatrist in academic medicine who has spent more than 10 years advocating for public health approaches to the causes and consequences of violence, especially involving violent extremism. I believe that violence prevention cannot be left exclusively to law enforcement and that psychiatrists have a role to play as part of a whole-of-society coalition with other multidisciplinary practitioners and stakeholders.

Day by day, we learn more and more about those responsible for the insurrection and how to understand their motivations, intentions, and actions. Seditionists incite or commit acts of violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it. Domestic terrorists commit violent, criminal acts to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. The mob that attacked the Capitol contained both. What’s more, the Capitol insurrection might inspire others to take similar actions. The risk for even broader and deeper radicalization to violence is a grave concern.

Aided by more than 100,000 tips, the FBI is conducting a massive nationwide manhunt and thus far, dozens of people have been charged with crimes. Given that the United States has no law that makes domestic terrorism a crime, they are being charged with other crimes. Upholding the rule of law is necessary, but it should not be regarded as sufficient to deal with the white supremacism and domestic terrorism threats.

In many countries all over the world, and to a much lesser extent in the United States, there are successful non–law enforcement programs helping people move away from domestic terrorism and other forms of violence. One example in the United States is Life After Hate, a nongovernmental organization that uses former white supremacist extremists to counsel people to leave the movement. Another example is the Colorado Resilience Collaborative, which takes a socioecological approach to prevent terrorism and targeted violence. At Boston Children’s Hospital, a regional prevention initiative is focused on reducing youth risk for targeted violence and terrorism by reducing mental health problems and increasing social belonging among adolescents. These are but three of several initiatives currently being conducted throughout the United States.

Over the past decade, I have had the opportunity to become familiar with several of these programs domestically and internationally. These include programs aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating repatriated foreign fighters and their children and other family members all over the world, including in Kazakhstan. I would like to share some of the lessons learned from these programs to aid in preventing domestic terrorism in the United States.

One lesson learned from combating international terrorism is that intelligence and law enforcement strategies (hard counterterrorism) need to be balanced with civil society–led prevention strategies. Overreliance on hard strategies can harm individuals and communities through oversecuritization. Alternatively, we need to build civil society–led initiatives that focus on other levers, such as addressing the underlying conditions, including individual psychosocial and mental health dimensions, or social dimensions (for example, lack of opportunity), that mitigate a person’s involvement in violent extremism.

A second lesson is not to focus exclusively on ideology and deradicalization. Yes, we need to challenge extremist ideology and disinformation, but a wide range of different factors explains involvement in violent extremism and the many pathways into it. Using a socioecological model, we can identify modifiable risk and protective factors that mitigate for or against extremist violence (for example, family support, job prospects, untreated mental health problems). In addition, it is well-established that prevention programs should seek to disengage, not deradicalize, potential violent extremists.

Third, we should leverage existing evidence-based interventions and best practices in mental health and public health, but we should also invest in building and evaluating new models through research approaches, especially for secondary and tertiary prevention. As much as possible, these should be integrated into broader programs to improve individual and community mental health and health.

A fourth lesson is we must vigorously protect the human rights and civil liberties of individuals and communities involved in these programs, and uphold racial equity. We can learn from public health experts about how to engage vulnerable individuals and communities without adding to their stigmatization. One way is to not focus on single communities, and not just on ideologically motivated violence, but to build violence prevention programs that are broad enough to address multiple forms of violence.

Fifth, if we expect community-based organizations to do the work, then they need adequate resources, capacity building, training and supervision, and quality improvement activities to succeed. For example, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will require additional training to learn how to work effectively and ethically in this space.

MDedge News

Psychiatrists can start by building their knowledge and skills in understanding violent extremism and how it can be assessed and addressed, which is not the same as for suicidality. Psychiatrists can also become involved in established or emerging violence prevention programs, such as threat assessment programs in schools, workplaces, and communities. Across the country, there is a need for building new secondary and tertiary violence prevention initiatives, and they will need psychiatrists to work with them. Academic psychiatrists can become involved in building the models, developing and delivering training, and designing and conducting the program evaluations.

Finally, I suggest that psychiatrists look at domestic terrorism prevention through the lens of public health and not overly “psychiatrize” the issue. A public health approach uses evidence-based programs and policies, addresses underlying causes, and focuses on prevention. Public health builds programs with teams of experts from across disciplines – educators, health care workers, mental health professionals, faith leaders, youth leaders, community advocates, peers, and law enforcement.

As part of a public health–oriented team, psychiatrists can contribute to addressing the grave challenges of domestic terrorism facing our nation today.
 

Dr. Weine is professor of psychiatry, director of global medicine, and director of the Center for Global Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has no conflicts of interest.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Americans and the world witnessed a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol inspired by a president and other elected leaders and driven by lies, conspiracy theories, militias, and white supremacy. The violent insurrection was carried out by thousands of citizens, including many with weapons.

MDedge News

Psychiatric organizations condemned the attack and warned about the potential traumatic impact of these events on those directly involved as well as for others in the United States already living under anxiety and fear tied to the surging COVID pandemic.

A major challenge for U.S. society is to prevent other potential future violent attacks. For those who didn’t already know, the Capitol attack made it apparent that the United States faces major problems with white supremacists and domestic terrorism. FBI Director Christopher Wray stipulated that those involved in the Jan. 6 events were violent agitators and extremists.

Addressing the causes and preventing domestic terrorism is also a challenge and opportunity for psychiatry and other mental health professionals. I write as a psychiatrist in academic medicine who has spent more than 10 years advocating for public health approaches to the causes and consequences of violence, especially involving violent extremism. I believe that violence prevention cannot be left exclusively to law enforcement and that psychiatrists have a role to play as part of a whole-of-society coalition with other multidisciplinary practitioners and stakeholders.

Day by day, we learn more and more about those responsible for the insurrection and how to understand their motivations, intentions, and actions. Seditionists incite or commit acts of violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it. Domestic terrorists commit violent, criminal acts to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. The mob that attacked the Capitol contained both. What’s more, the Capitol insurrection might inspire others to take similar actions. The risk for even broader and deeper radicalization to violence is a grave concern.

Aided by more than 100,000 tips, the FBI is conducting a massive nationwide manhunt and thus far, dozens of people have been charged with crimes. Given that the United States has no law that makes domestic terrorism a crime, they are being charged with other crimes. Upholding the rule of law is necessary, but it should not be regarded as sufficient to deal with the white supremacism and domestic terrorism threats.

In many countries all over the world, and to a much lesser extent in the United States, there are successful non–law enforcement programs helping people move away from domestic terrorism and other forms of violence. One example in the United States is Life After Hate, a nongovernmental organization that uses former white supremacist extremists to counsel people to leave the movement. Another example is the Colorado Resilience Collaborative, which takes a socioecological approach to prevent terrorism and targeted violence. At Boston Children’s Hospital, a regional prevention initiative is focused on reducing youth risk for targeted violence and terrorism by reducing mental health problems and increasing social belonging among adolescents. These are but three of several initiatives currently being conducted throughout the United States.

Over the past decade, I have had the opportunity to become familiar with several of these programs domestically and internationally. These include programs aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating repatriated foreign fighters and their children and other family members all over the world, including in Kazakhstan. I would like to share some of the lessons learned from these programs to aid in preventing domestic terrorism in the United States.

One lesson learned from combating international terrorism is that intelligence and law enforcement strategies (hard counterterrorism) need to be balanced with civil society–led prevention strategies. Overreliance on hard strategies can harm individuals and communities through oversecuritization. Alternatively, we need to build civil society–led initiatives that focus on other levers, such as addressing the underlying conditions, including individual psychosocial and mental health dimensions, or social dimensions (for example, lack of opportunity), that mitigate a person’s involvement in violent extremism.

A second lesson is not to focus exclusively on ideology and deradicalization. Yes, we need to challenge extremist ideology and disinformation, but a wide range of different factors explains involvement in violent extremism and the many pathways into it. Using a socioecological model, we can identify modifiable risk and protective factors that mitigate for or against extremist violence (for example, family support, job prospects, untreated mental health problems). In addition, it is well-established that prevention programs should seek to disengage, not deradicalize, potential violent extremists.

Third, we should leverage existing evidence-based interventions and best practices in mental health and public health, but we should also invest in building and evaluating new models through research approaches, especially for secondary and tertiary prevention. As much as possible, these should be integrated into broader programs to improve individual and community mental health and health.

A fourth lesson is we must vigorously protect the human rights and civil liberties of individuals and communities involved in these programs, and uphold racial equity. We can learn from public health experts about how to engage vulnerable individuals and communities without adding to their stigmatization. One way is to not focus on single communities, and not just on ideologically motivated violence, but to build violence prevention programs that are broad enough to address multiple forms of violence.

Fifth, if we expect community-based organizations to do the work, then they need adequate resources, capacity building, training and supervision, and quality improvement activities to succeed. For example, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will require additional training to learn how to work effectively and ethically in this space.

MDedge News

Psychiatrists can start by building their knowledge and skills in understanding violent extremism and how it can be assessed and addressed, which is not the same as for suicidality. Psychiatrists can also become involved in established or emerging violence prevention programs, such as threat assessment programs in schools, workplaces, and communities. Across the country, there is a need for building new secondary and tertiary violence prevention initiatives, and they will need psychiatrists to work with them. Academic psychiatrists can become involved in building the models, developing and delivering training, and designing and conducting the program evaluations.

Finally, I suggest that psychiatrists look at domestic terrorism prevention through the lens of public health and not overly “psychiatrize” the issue. A public health approach uses evidence-based programs and policies, addresses underlying causes, and focuses on prevention. Public health builds programs with teams of experts from across disciplines – educators, health care workers, mental health professionals, faith leaders, youth leaders, community advocates, peers, and law enforcement.

As part of a public health–oriented team, psychiatrists can contribute to addressing the grave challenges of domestic terrorism facing our nation today.
 

Dr. Weine is professor of psychiatry, director of global medicine, and director of the Center for Global Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has no conflicts of interest.

Daily life is now a juggling act for Misty Richards, MD, MS. As the program director of a rigorous child psychiatry fellowship, a psychiatrist caring for women with perinatal psychiatric disorders, and the mother of three young children, Dr. Richards tries to view these tasks as an opportunity for growth. But some days it feels as if she’s navigating a storm in the middle of the ocean without a life jacket.

In the age of COVID, “the wave of demands has morphed into one giant tidal wave of desperate need,” Dr. Richards, of the department of psychiatry & biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute of Neuroscience & Human Behavior, said in an interview. “The painfully loud and clear message is that our patients need us, and our children – who have been stripped from healthy routines and peer interactions that nourish social-emotional development – rely on us. We cannot turn our backs for even a moment, or else they will suffer.”

Tasked with caring for a much sicker and distressed population, navigating home duties such as child care, online school, and taking care of certain family members, women psychiatrists are feeling the impact of COVID-19.

Many have seamlessly transferred their practices online, maintaining a lifeline with their patients through telehealth visits. Even with this convenience, the emotional labor of being a psychiatrist is still very stressful, Pooja Lakshmin, MD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. Because the nature of work has changed, and many are doing things virtually at home, separating home from work life can be a challenge. “It’s harder to disconnect,” admitted Dr. Lakshmin. “Even my patients tell me that they have no time to themselves anymore.”

The pandemic demands that women in the profession “white-knuckle” their way to the finish line – a moving target that remains nowhere in sight, Dr. Richards said. “In this process, we are expected to fill the emotional cups of a broken nation, to provide answers that do not exist, and to do so with never-ending gratitude for a demanding system that has no ‘off’ switch,” she noted.
 

‘In two places at once’

COVID-19’s physical and emotional toll has swept across the various subspecialties of clinical psychiatry. As some navigate outpatient/telehealth work, inpatient psychiatrists directly interact with COVID patients.

“Our inpatient psychiatry unit regularly takes care of COVID patients, including perinatal patients who are COVID positive,” Samantha Meltzer-Brody, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, department of psychiatry and director of medical school’s Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, said in an interview. A psychiatry consultation-liaison service also provides psychiatry care to medical and surgical patients, including medically ill COVID patients across the hospital.

“We are on the front lines in the sense that we are dealing with the trauma of the general population and having to be present for that emotional distress,” Dr. Meltzer-Brody said.

The struggle to balance rising caseloads and home responsibilities makes things difficult, she continued. “There’s a never-ending onslaught of patient referrals,” reflecting the anxiety and depression issues people are experiencing in the wake of a global pandemic, frenetic political situation in the United States, and job uncertainty.

Child care and elder care responsibilities affect both men and women, yet research shows that caregiving demands disproportionately affect women, observed Dr. Meltzer-Brody.

Overall, the stress of caregiving and parenting responsibilities for men and women has been markedly higher during the pandemic. Most clinical psychiatrists “have been extraordinarily busy for a very long time,” she added.

Tiffani L. Bell, MD, a psychiatrist in Winston-Salem, N.C., has seen an increase in anxiety and depression in people with no previous history of diagnosed mental illness. “The impact of the pandemic has truly been multifaceted. People are struggling with loss of jobs, loss of wages, and loss of loved ones, along with grieving the loss of the usual way of life,” she said in an interview.

Many of her colleagues report feeling overburdened at work with increased admissions and patient loads, decreased time to see each patient, and the feeling of “needing to be in two places at once.”

“As a female psychiatrist, I do believe that we can sometimes have an increased mental burden due to the emotional and physical burnout that can occur when our routines are shaken,” added Dr. Bell, who specializes in adult, child, and adolescent psychiatry, and obesity and lifestyle medicine. Even in the early months of the pandemic, Dr. Bell said she heard people joke that “they don’t know if they are working from home or living at work.”

Physicians aren’t the only ones who are overwhelmed. “We’re also hearing stories from our patients – those at risk for partner violence, dealing with kids out of school, working full time while providing support at home,” Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health, said in an interview.

American mothers in particular spend nearly twice as much time caring for their children and cooking than their spouses, said Dr. Bell, citing recent studies. “Even if one is not a mom, if you couple the increased housework at baseline with the added responsibilities of working as a front-line physician and/or working from home while managing a household, it can lead to increased stress for all involved.”
 

Women leaving the workforce

Nationally, a growing number of women are either reducing their hours or leaving the workforce in response to the pandemic. Fidelity Investments, which surveyed 1,902 U.S. adults in mid-2020 projected that 4 in 10 women were mulling such options. Among 951 women surveyed, 42% were considering stepping back from their jobs because of their children’s homeschooling needs, and 27% cited difficulties of balancing home and job responsibilities.

Interruptions caused by child care affect women more than men, according to a report from the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress. “Study after study has shown that, in response to school, child care, and camp closings, as well as reduced hours and reduced class sizes, significantly more women than men have reduced their work hours, left work to care for children, and spent more time on education and household tasks,” the authors noted.

They estimated that the American economy could incur $64.5 billion per year in lost wages and economic activity from the fallout of these trends. In September 2020, four times as many women as men left the workforce, nearly 865,000 women in comparison to 216,000 men.

Many women psychiatrists have been forced to choose between their careers or child care duties – decisions they don’t want to make, but that may be necessary during these unprecedented circumstances. They may be reducing their work hours to assist at home. Others are leaving their jobs, “a terrible situation given the enormous mental health needs of the pandemic” and the fact that so many areas of the United States already suffer from a shortage of clinical psychiatrists, said Dr. Meltzer-Brody.

She has personally seen the effects of this in the large academic department she supervises. “I’m seeing women reducing their work hours or leave positions,” she continued. In addition to child care needs, these women are tending to aging parents affected by COVID-19 or other illnesses, or dealing with the fact that options for elder care aren’t available.

“I have multiple faculty contending with that situation,” added Dr. Meltzer-Brody. As a result, productivity is going down. “These women are trying to keep all of the balls in the air but find they can’t.”

Dr. Richards believes some changes are in order to take the disproportionate burden off of women in psychiatry, and the workforce as a whole. The health care system “places too much pressure on individuals to compensate for its deficiencies. Those individuals who often step up to the plate are women, and this is not their sole burden to carry.”

A move toward telehealth in clinical psychiatry has made it possible for patients and physicians to meet virtually in their respective homes and discuss treatment options. “Even while this is both a blessing and privilege, it comes with the unique challenges of having to manage Zoom calls, child care, meals, distance learning, cleaning, and work responsibilities, while previously there was a clearer delineation to the day for many,” Dr. Bell said.

Clinical psychiatrists educating the public about the mental stressors of COVID-19 face their own unique challenges.

Dr. Lakshmin, who makes appearances in various media and social media outlets, said this adds more pressure to the job. “One of the challenges for me is to figure out how much outward facing I do. That’s hard when you’re navigating working and living through a pandemic. This is something I do because I enjoy doing it. But it’s still a type of work. And it’s certainly increased because the media has been paying more attention to mental health” since the pandemic started, she added.
 

The dual stress of COVID and social justice

Some women psychiatrists of color are dealing with social justice issues on top of other COVID stressors, Dr. De Faria said. The focus on addressing institutionalized racism means that minority women are taking on extra work to advocate for their peers.

Michelle Jacobs-Elliott, MD, of the department of psychiatry and assistant dean of the Office of Diversity and Health Equity at the University of Florida, Gainesville, knows of such responsibilities. “I have been in many discussions either with my coworkers in my department or others who work for the University of Florida” on systemic racism, she said in an interview.

Dr. Jacobs-Elliott became a trainer for Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine, a workshop aimed at reducing bias, and prior to 2020 participated in a social justice summit at the University of Florida. “Talking with my medical as well as undergraduate students about their experiences both here in Gainesville and elsewhere, they are all feeling the hurt, disappointment, and disbelief that we are still fighting battles that our grandparents fought in health care, housing, and employment. This adds an extra layer of stress to everyone’s life.”

The tense social climate has made the apparent racial inequalities in COVID-19 deaths and severity of disease hard to ignore, Dr. Bell noted. “It is my sincere hope that the availability of COVID-19 vaccines will help decrease the number of people affected by this horrible disease. The added burden of racism on top of the stressors of this pandemic can feel insurmountable. I hope 2021 will provide a way forward for us all.”
 

Taking time for self-care

Amid the endless referrals and increasing demands at home, women psychiatrists often don’t have the time to do normal activities, Dr. Meltzer-Brody observed. Like most people, COVID restrictions prevent them from traveling or going to the gym or restaurants. Dr. De Faria has not been able to visit family in Latin America, a trip she used to make twice a year. “That was once my de-stress time. But now, I can’t connect with my roots. My father is elderly and very much at risk.”

This is the time to get creative and resourceful – to make time for self-care, several sources said.

“We need to realize that we cannot be all things to all people, at the same time,” noted Dr. Bell. It’s important to prioritize what’s most important – and keep assessing your priorities. There’s no shame in tending to your own needs. Dr. Bell recommended that women in her profession should pick 1 day a week, put it in their calendar, and stick to this goal of self-care.

“Even if it’s only 15 minutes, it is important to put time aside. Some quick, cheap ideas are to do a quick meditation session, read a chapter in a book, listen to an audiobook, journal, go for a walk and get fresh air. Eat a healthy meal. Even 10 minutes helps,” she urged.

COVID-19 has pushed society to find new ways to do things, Dr. Bell continued. Women psychiatrists, in assessing their work-life balance, may need to reassess their goals. Consider work schedules and see if there’s a place to scale back a task. Delegate tasks at home to family members, if necessary. Most importantly, exercise self-compassion, she stressed. “During this pandemic, I believe it is vital to keep our cups filled so we can pour into others.”

Dr. Lakshmin said she has benefited greatly from having a therapist during the pandemic. “It has been so instrumental in forcing me to take that time for myself, to give me a space to take care of me, and remember it’s okay to take care of me. It’s so important for us as psychiatrists to have that for ourselves. It’s not just for our patients – we need it, too.”

The APA has resources and numerous support groups that meet regularly to address and discuss the stressors of the pandemic. Its College Mental Health Caucus, for example, holds a monthly, hour-long Zoom meeting. Not surprisingly, women comprise the majority of attendees, Dr. De Faria said. “Most women in academic psychiatry are working from home and using telehealth, which isolates people a lot.” Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, who is head of the APA’s Women’s Caucus, sends out a regular newsletter that advises on self-care. Women psychiatrists should also contact their local psychiatric organizations to get support from their professional peers.

Sometimes it’s wise to leave work behind and engage with friends. Dr. De Faria regularly Zooms with a group of friends outside of her profession to de-stress and reconnect. “At least I can talk to them about things other than psychiatry.”

Mentally and physically exhausted, Dr. Jacobs-Elliott said she looks forward to the day when society can return to meeting with friends and family “without being afraid that we are an asymptomatic carrier who is infecting our loved ones.”

Daily life is now a juggling act for Misty Richards, MD, MS. As the program director of a rigorous child psychiatry fellowship, a psychiatrist caring for women with perinatal psychiatric disorders, and the mother of three young children, Dr. Richards tries to view these tasks as an opportunity for growth. But some days it feels as if she’s navigating a storm in the middle of the ocean without a life jacket.

In the age of COVID, “the wave of demands has morphed into one giant tidal wave of desperate need,” Dr. Richards, of the department of psychiatry & biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute of Neuroscience & Human Behavior, said in an interview. “The painfully loud and clear message is that our patients need us, and our children – who have been stripped from healthy routines and peer interactions that nourish social-emotional development – rely on us. We cannot turn our backs for even a moment, or else they will suffer.”

Tasked with caring for a much sicker and distressed population, navigating home duties such as child care, online school, and taking care of certain family members, women psychiatrists are feeling the impact of COVID-19.

Many have seamlessly transferred their practices online, maintaining a lifeline with their patients through telehealth visits. Even with this convenience, the emotional labor of being a psychiatrist is still very stressful, Pooja Lakshmin, MD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. Because the nature of work has changed, and many are doing things virtually at home, separating home from work life can be a challenge. “It’s harder to disconnect,” admitted Dr. Lakshmin. “Even my patients tell me that they have no time to themselves anymore.”

The pandemic demands that women in the profession “white-knuckle” their way to the finish line – a moving target that remains nowhere in sight, Dr. Richards said. “In this process, we are expected to fill the emotional cups of a broken nation, to provide answers that do not exist, and to do so with never-ending gratitude for a demanding system that has no ‘off’ switch,” she noted.
 

‘In two places at once’

COVID-19’s physical and emotional toll has swept across the various subspecialties of clinical psychiatry. As some navigate outpatient/telehealth work, inpatient psychiatrists directly interact with COVID patients.

“Our inpatient psychiatry unit regularly takes care of COVID patients, including perinatal patients who are COVID positive,” Samantha Meltzer-Brody, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, department of psychiatry and director of medical school’s Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, said in an interview. A psychiatry consultation-liaison service also provides psychiatry care to medical and surgical patients, including medically ill COVID patients across the hospital.

“We are on the front lines in the sense that we are dealing with the trauma of the general population and having to be present for that emotional distress,” Dr. Meltzer-Brody said.

The struggle to balance rising caseloads and home responsibilities makes things difficult, she continued. “There’s a never-ending onslaught of patient referrals,” reflecting the anxiety and depression issues people are experiencing in the wake of a global pandemic, frenetic political situation in the United States, and job uncertainty.

Child care and elder care responsibilities affect both men and women, yet research shows that caregiving demands disproportionately affect women, observed Dr. Meltzer-Brody.

Overall, the stress of caregiving and parenting responsibilities for men and women has been markedly higher during the pandemic. Most clinical psychiatrists “have been extraordinarily busy for a very long time,” she added.

Tiffani L. Bell, MD, a psychiatrist in Winston-Salem, N.C., has seen an increase in anxiety and depression in people with no previous history of diagnosed mental illness. “The impact of the pandemic has truly been multifaceted. People are struggling with loss of jobs, loss of wages, and loss of loved ones, along with grieving the loss of the usual way of life,” she said in an interview.

Many of her colleagues report feeling overburdened at work with increased admissions and patient loads, decreased time to see each patient, and the feeling of “needing to be in two places at once.”

“As a female psychiatrist, I do believe that we can sometimes have an increased mental burden due to the emotional and physical burnout that can occur when our routines are shaken,” added Dr. Bell, who specializes in adult, child, and adolescent psychiatry, and obesity and lifestyle medicine. Even in the early months of the pandemic, Dr. Bell said she heard people joke that “they don’t know if they are working from home or living at work.”

Physicians aren’t the only ones who are overwhelmed. “We’re also hearing stories from our patients – those at risk for partner violence, dealing with kids out of school, working full time while providing support at home,” Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health, said in an interview.

American mothers in particular spend nearly twice as much time caring for their children and cooking than their spouses, said Dr. Bell, citing recent studies. “Even if one is not a mom, if you couple the increased housework at baseline with the added responsibilities of working as a front-line physician and/or working from home while managing a household, it can lead to increased stress for all involved.”
 

Women leaving the workforce

Nationally, a growing number of women are either reducing their hours or leaving the workforce in response to the pandemic. Fidelity Investments, which surveyed 1,902 U.S. adults in mid-2020 projected that 4 in 10 women were mulling such options. Among 951 women surveyed, 42% were considering stepping back from their jobs because of their children’s homeschooling needs, and 27% cited difficulties of balancing home and job responsibilities.

Interruptions caused by child care affect women more than men, according to a report from the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress. “Study after study has shown that, in response to school, child care, and camp closings, as well as reduced hours and reduced class sizes, significantly more women than men have reduced their work hours, left work to care for children, and spent more time on education and household tasks,” the authors noted.

They estimated that the American economy could incur $64.5 billion per year in lost wages and economic activity from the fallout of these trends. In September 2020, four times as many women as men left the workforce, nearly 865,000 women in comparison to 216,000 men.

Many women psychiatrists have been forced to choose between their careers or child care duties – decisions they don’t want to make, but that may be necessary during these unprecedented circumstances. They may be reducing their work hours to assist at home. Others are leaving their jobs, “a terrible situation given the enormous mental health needs of the pandemic” and the fact that so many areas of the United States already suffer from a shortage of clinical psychiatrists, said Dr. Meltzer-Brody.

She has personally seen the effects of this in the large academic department she supervises. “I’m seeing women reducing their work hours or leave positions,” she continued. In addition to child care needs, these women are tending to aging parents affected by COVID-19 or other illnesses, or dealing with the fact that options for elder care aren’t available.

“I have multiple faculty contending with that situation,” added Dr. Meltzer-Brody. As a result, productivity is going down. “These women are trying to keep all of the balls in the air but find they can’t.”

Dr. Richards believes some changes are in order to take the disproportionate burden off of women in psychiatry, and the workforce as a whole. The health care system “places too much pressure on individuals to compensate for its deficiencies. Those individuals who often step up to the plate are women, and this is not their sole burden to carry.”

A move toward telehealth in clinical psychiatry has made it possible for patients and physicians to meet virtually in their respective homes and discuss treatment options. “Even while this is both a blessing and privilege, it comes with the unique challenges of having to manage Zoom calls, child care, meals, distance learning, cleaning, and work responsibilities, while previously there was a clearer delineation to the day for many,” Dr. Bell said.

Clinical psychiatrists educating the public about the mental stressors of COVID-19 face their own unique challenges.

Dr. Lakshmin, who makes appearances in various media and social media outlets, said this adds more pressure to the job. “One of the challenges for me is to figure out how much outward facing I do. That’s hard when you’re navigating working and living through a pandemic. This is something I do because I enjoy doing it. But it’s still a type of work. And it’s certainly increased because the media has been paying more attention to mental health” since the pandemic started, she added.
 

The dual stress of COVID and social justice

Some women psychiatrists of color are dealing with social justice issues on top of other COVID stressors, Dr. De Faria said. The focus on addressing institutionalized racism means that minority women are taking on extra work to advocate for their peers.

Michelle Jacobs-Elliott, MD, of the department of psychiatry and assistant dean of the Office of Diversity and Health Equity at the University of Florida, Gainesville, knows of such responsibilities. “I have been in many discussions either with my coworkers in my department or others who work for the University of Florida” on systemic racism, she said in an interview.

Dr. Jacobs-Elliott became a trainer for Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine, a workshop aimed at reducing bias, and prior to 2020 participated in a social justice summit at the University of Florida. “Talking with my medical as well as undergraduate students about their experiences both here in Gainesville and elsewhere, they are all feeling the hurt, disappointment, and disbelief that we are still fighting battles that our grandparents fought in health care, housing, and employment. This adds an extra layer of stress to everyone’s life.”

The tense social climate has made the apparent racial inequalities in COVID-19 deaths and severity of disease hard to ignore, Dr. Bell noted. “It is my sincere hope that the availability of COVID-19 vaccines will help decrease the number of people affected by this horrible disease. The added burden of racism on top of the stressors of this pandemic can feel insurmountable. I hope 2021 will provide a way forward for us all.”
 

Taking time for self-care

Amid the endless referrals and increasing demands at home, women psychiatrists often don’t have the time to do normal activities, Dr. Meltzer-Brody observed. Like most people, COVID restrictions prevent them from traveling or going to the gym or restaurants. Dr. De Faria has not been able to visit family in Latin America, a trip she used to make twice a year. “That was once my de-stress time. But now, I can’t connect with my roots. My father is elderly and very much at risk.”

This is the time to get creative and resourceful – to make time for self-care, several sources said.

“We need to realize that we cannot be all things to all people, at the same time,” noted Dr. Bell. It’s important to prioritize what’s most important – and keep assessing your priorities. There’s no shame in tending to your own needs. Dr. Bell recommended that women in her profession should pick 1 day a week, put it in their calendar, and stick to this goal of self-care.

“Even if it’s only 15 minutes, it is important to put time aside. Some quick, cheap ideas are to do a quick meditation session, read a chapter in a book, listen to an audiobook, journal, go for a walk and get fresh air. Eat a healthy meal. Even 10 minutes helps,” she urged.

COVID-19 has pushed society to find new ways to do things, Dr. Bell continued. Women psychiatrists, in assessing their work-life balance, may need to reassess their goals. Consider work schedules and see if there’s a place to scale back a task. Delegate tasks at home to family members, if necessary. Most importantly, exercise self-compassion, she stressed. “During this pandemic, I believe it is vital to keep our cups filled so we can pour into others.”

Dr. Lakshmin said she has benefited greatly from having a therapist during the pandemic. “It has been so instrumental in forcing me to take that time for myself, to give me a space to take care of me, and remember it’s okay to take care of me. It’s so important for us as psychiatrists to have that for ourselves. It’s not just for our patients – we need it, too.”

The APA has resources and numerous support groups that meet regularly to address and discuss the stressors of the pandemic. Its College Mental Health Caucus, for example, holds a monthly, hour-long Zoom meeting. Not surprisingly, women comprise the majority of attendees, Dr. De Faria said. “Most women in academic psychiatry are working from home and using telehealth, which isolates people a lot.” Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, who is head of the APA’s Women’s Caucus, sends out a regular newsletter that advises on self-care. Women psychiatrists should also contact their local psychiatric organizations to get support from their professional peers.

Sometimes it’s wise to leave work behind and engage with friends. Dr. De Faria regularly Zooms with a group of friends outside of her profession to de-stress and reconnect. “At least I can talk to them about things other than psychiatry.”

Mentally and physically exhausted, Dr. Jacobs-Elliott said she looks forward to the day when society can return to meeting with friends and family “without being afraid that we are an asymptomatic carrier who is infecting our loved ones.”

Daily life is now a juggling act for Misty Richards, MD, MS. As the program director of a rigorous child psychiatry fellowship, a psychiatrist caring for women with perinatal psychiatric disorders, and the mother of three young children, Dr. Richards tries to view these tasks as an opportunity for growth. But some days it feels as if she’s navigating a storm in the middle of the ocean without a life jacket.

In the age of COVID, “the wave of demands has morphed into one giant tidal wave of desperate need,” Dr. Richards, of the department of psychiatry & biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute of Neuroscience & Human Behavior, said in an interview. “The painfully loud and clear message is that our patients need us, and our children – who have been stripped from healthy routines and peer interactions that nourish social-emotional development – rely on us. We cannot turn our backs for even a moment, or else they will suffer.”

Tasked with caring for a much sicker and distressed population, navigating home duties such as child care, online school, and taking care of certain family members, women psychiatrists are feeling the impact of COVID-19.

Many have seamlessly transferred their practices online, maintaining a lifeline with their patients through telehealth visits. Even with this convenience, the emotional labor of being a psychiatrist is still very stressful, Pooja Lakshmin, MD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. Because the nature of work has changed, and many are doing things virtually at home, separating home from work life can be a challenge. “It’s harder to disconnect,” admitted Dr. Lakshmin. “Even my patients tell me that they have no time to themselves anymore.”

The pandemic demands that women in the profession “white-knuckle” their way to the finish line – a moving target that remains nowhere in sight, Dr. Richards said. “In this process, we are expected to fill the emotional cups of a broken nation, to provide answers that do not exist, and to do so with never-ending gratitude for a demanding system that has no ‘off’ switch,” she noted.
 

‘In two places at once’

COVID-19’s physical and emotional toll has swept across the various subspecialties of clinical psychiatry. As some navigate outpatient/telehealth work, inpatient psychiatrists directly interact with COVID patients.

“Our inpatient psychiatry unit regularly takes care of COVID patients, including perinatal patients who are COVID positive,” Samantha Meltzer-Brody, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, department of psychiatry and director of medical school’s Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, said in an interview. A psychiatry consultation-liaison service also provides psychiatry care to medical and surgical patients, including medically ill COVID patients across the hospital.

“We are on the front lines in the sense that we are dealing with the trauma of the general population and having to be present for that emotional distress,” Dr. Meltzer-Brody said.

The struggle to balance rising caseloads and home responsibilities makes things difficult, she continued. “There’s a never-ending onslaught of patient referrals,” reflecting the anxiety and depression issues people are experiencing in the wake of a global pandemic, frenetic political situation in the United States, and job uncertainty.

Child care and elder care responsibilities affect both men and women, yet research shows that caregiving demands disproportionately affect women, observed Dr. Meltzer-Brody.

Overall, the stress of caregiving and parenting responsibilities for men and women has been markedly higher during the pandemic. Most clinical psychiatrists “have been extraordinarily busy for a very long time,” she added.

Tiffani L. Bell, MD, a psychiatrist in Winston-Salem, N.C., has seen an increase in anxiety and depression in people with no previous history of diagnosed mental illness. “The impact of the pandemic has truly been multifaceted. People are struggling with loss of jobs, loss of wages, and loss of loved ones, along with grieving the loss of the usual way of life,” she said in an interview.

Many of her colleagues report feeling overburdened at work with increased admissions and patient loads, decreased time to see each patient, and the feeling of “needing to be in two places at once.”

“As a female psychiatrist, I do believe that we can sometimes have an increased mental burden due to the emotional and physical burnout that can occur when our routines are shaken,” added Dr. Bell, who specializes in adult, child, and adolescent psychiatry, and obesity and lifestyle medicine. Even in the early months of the pandemic, Dr. Bell said she heard people joke that “they don’t know if they are working from home or living at work.”

Physicians aren’t the only ones who are overwhelmed. “We’re also hearing stories from our patients – those at risk for partner violence, dealing with kids out of school, working full time while providing support at home,” Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health, said in an interview.

American mothers in particular spend nearly twice as much time caring for their children and cooking than their spouses, said Dr. Bell, citing recent studies. “Even if one is not a mom, if you couple the increased housework at baseline with the added responsibilities of working as a front-line physician and/or working from home while managing a household, it can lead to increased stress for all involved.”
 

Women leaving the workforce

Nationally, a growing number of women are either reducing their hours or leaving the workforce in response to the pandemic. Fidelity Investments, which surveyed 1,902 U.S. adults in mid-2020 projected that 4 in 10 women were mulling such options. Among 951 women surveyed, 42% were considering stepping back from their jobs because of their children’s homeschooling needs, and 27% cited difficulties of balancing home and job responsibilities.

Interruptions caused by child care affect women more than men, according to a report from the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress. “Study after study has shown that, in response to school, child care, and camp closings, as well as reduced hours and reduced class sizes, significantly more women than men have reduced their work hours, left work to care for children, and spent more time on education and household tasks,” the authors noted.

They estimated that the American economy could incur $64.5 billion per year in lost wages and economic activity from the fallout of these trends. In September 2020, four times as many women as men left the workforce, nearly 865,000 women in comparison to 216,000 men.

Many women psychiatrists have been forced to choose between their careers or child care duties – decisions they don’t want to make, but that may be necessary during these unprecedented circumstances. They may be reducing their work hours to assist at home. Others are leaving their jobs, “a terrible situation given the enormous mental health needs of the pandemic” and the fact that so many areas of the United States already suffer from a shortage of clinical psychiatrists, said Dr. Meltzer-Brody.

She has personally seen the effects of this in the large academic department she supervises. “I’m seeing women reducing their work hours or leave positions,” she continued. In addition to child care needs, these women are tending to aging parents affected by COVID-19 or other illnesses, or dealing with the fact that options for elder care aren’t available.

“I have multiple faculty contending with that situation,” added Dr. Meltzer-Brody. As a result, productivity is going down. “These women are trying to keep all of the balls in the air but find they can’t.”

Dr. Richards believes some changes are in order to take the disproportionate burden off of women in psychiatry, and the workforce as a whole. The health care system “places too much pressure on individuals to compensate for its deficiencies. Those individuals who often step up to the plate are women, and this is not their sole burden to carry.”

A move toward telehealth in clinical psychiatry has made it possible for patients and physicians to meet virtually in their respective homes and discuss treatment options. “Even while this is both a blessing and privilege, it comes with the unique challenges of having to manage Zoom calls, child care, meals, distance learning, cleaning, and work responsibilities, while previously there was a clearer delineation to the day for many,” Dr. Bell said.

Clinical psychiatrists educating the public about the mental stressors of COVID-19 face their own unique challenges.

Dr. Lakshmin, who makes appearances in various media and social media outlets, said this adds more pressure to the job. “One of the challenges for me is to figure out how much outward facing I do. That’s hard when you’re navigating working and living through a pandemic. This is something I do because I enjoy doing it. But it’s still a type of work. And it’s certainly increased because the media has been paying more attention to mental health” since the pandemic started, she added.
 

The dual stress of COVID and social justice

Some women psychiatrists of color are dealing with social justice issues on top of other COVID stressors, Dr. De Faria said. The focus on addressing institutionalized racism means that minority women are taking on extra work to advocate for their peers.

Michelle Jacobs-Elliott, MD, of the department of psychiatry and assistant dean of the Office of Diversity and Health Equity at the University of Florida, Gainesville, knows of such responsibilities. “I have been in many discussions either with my coworkers in my department or others who work for the University of Florida” on systemic racism, she said in an interview.

Dr. Jacobs-Elliott became a trainer for Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine, a workshop aimed at reducing bias, and prior to 2020 participated in a social justice summit at the University of Florida. “Talking with my medical as well as undergraduate students about their experiences both here in Gainesville and elsewhere, they are all feeling the hurt, disappointment, and disbelief that we are still fighting battles that our grandparents fought in health care, housing, and employment. This adds an extra layer of stress to everyone’s life.”

The tense social climate has made the apparent racial inequalities in COVID-19 deaths and severity of disease hard to ignore, Dr. Bell noted. “It is my sincere hope that the availability of COVID-19 vaccines will help decrease the number of people affected by this horrible disease. The added burden of racism on top of the stressors of this pandemic can feel insurmountable. I hope 2021 will provide a way forward for us all.”
 

Taking time for self-care

Amid the endless referrals and increasing demands at home, women psychiatrists often don’t have the time to do normal activities, Dr. Meltzer-Brody observed. Like most people, COVID restrictions prevent them from traveling or going to the gym or restaurants. Dr. De Faria has not been able to visit family in Latin America, a trip she used to make twice a year. “That was once my de-stress time. But now, I can’t connect with my roots. My father is elderly and very much at risk.”

This is the time to get creative and resourceful – to make time for self-care, several sources said.

“We need to realize that we cannot be all things to all people, at the same time,” noted Dr. Bell. It’s important to prioritize what’s most important – and keep assessing your priorities. There’s no shame in tending to your own needs. Dr. Bell recommended that women in her profession should pick 1 day a week, put it in their calendar, and stick to this goal of self-care.

“Even if it’s only 15 minutes, it is important to put time aside. Some quick, cheap ideas are to do a quick meditation session, read a chapter in a book, listen to an audiobook, journal, go for a walk and get fresh air. Eat a healthy meal. Even 10 minutes helps,” she urged.

COVID-19 has pushed society to find new ways to do things, Dr. Bell continued. Women psychiatrists, in assessing their work-life balance, may need to reassess their goals. Consider work schedules and see if there’s a place to scale back a task. Delegate tasks at home to family members, if necessary. Most importantly, exercise self-compassion, she stressed. “During this pandemic, I believe it is vital to keep our cups filled so we can pour into others.”

Dr. Lakshmin said she has benefited greatly from having a therapist during the pandemic. “It has been so instrumental in forcing me to take that time for myself, to give me a space to take care of me, and remember it’s okay to take care of me. It’s so important for us as psychiatrists to have that for ourselves. It’s not just for our patients – we need it, too.”

The APA has resources and numerous support groups that meet regularly to address and discuss the stressors of the pandemic. Its College Mental Health Caucus, for example, holds a monthly, hour-long Zoom meeting. Not surprisingly, women comprise the majority of attendees, Dr. De Faria said. “Most women in academic psychiatry are working from home and using telehealth, which isolates people a lot.” Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, who is head of the APA’s Women’s Caucus, sends out a regular newsletter that advises on self-care. Women psychiatrists should also contact their local psychiatric organizations to get support from their professional peers.

Sometimes it’s wise to leave work behind and engage with friends. Dr. De Faria regularly Zooms with a group of friends outside of her profession to de-stress and reconnect. “At least I can talk to them about things other than psychiatry.”

Mentally and physically exhausted, Dr. Jacobs-Elliott said she looks forward to the day when society can return to meeting with friends and family “without being afraid that we are an asymptomatic carrier who is infecting our loved ones.”

The first weeks of 2021 have us considering how best to face compound challenges and we expect parents will be looking to their pediatricians for guidance. There are daily stories of the COVID-19 death toll, an abstraction made real by tragic stories of shattered families. Most families are approaching the first anniversary of their children being in virtual school, with growing concerns about the quality of virtual education, loss of socialization and group activities, and additional risks facing poor and vulnerable children. There are real concerns about the future impact of children spending so much time every day on their screens for school, extracurricular activities, social time, and relaxation. While the COVID-19 vaccines promise a return to “normal” sometime in 2021, in-person school may not return until late in the spring or next fall.

After the events of Jan. 6, families face an additional challenge: Discussing the violent invasion of the U.S. Capitol by the president’s supporters. This event was shocking, frightening, and confusing for most, and continues to be heavily covered in the news and online. There is a light in all this darkness. We have the opportunity to talk with our children – and to share explanations, perspectives, values, and even the discomfort of the unknowns – about COVID-19, use of the Internet, and the violence of Jan 6. We will consider how parents can approach this challenge for three age groups. With each group, parents will need to be calm and curious and will need time to give their children their full attention. We are all living through history. When parents can be fully present with their children, even for short periods at meals or at bedtime, it will help all to get their balance back and start to make sense of the extraordinary events we have been facing.

The youngest children (aged 3-6 years), those who were in preschool or kindergarten before the pandemic, need the most from their parents during this time. If they are attending school virtually, their online school days are likely short and challenging. Children at this age are mastering behavior rather than cognitive tasks. They are learning how to manage their bodies in space (stay in their seats!), how to be patient and kind (take turns!), and how to manage frustration (math is hard, try again!). Without the physical presence of their teacher and classmates, these lessons are tougher to internalize. Given their age-appropriate short attention spans, they often walk away from a screen, even if it’s class time. They are more likely to be paying attention to their parents, responding to the emotional climate at home. Even if they are not watching news websites themselves, they are likely to have overheard or noticed the news about recent events. Parents of young children should take care to turn off the television or their own computer, as repeated frightening videos of the insurrection can cause their children to worry that these events continue to unfold. These children need their parents’ undivided attention, even just for a little while. Play a board game with them (good chance to stay in their seats, take turns, and manage losing). Or get them outside for some physical play. While playing, parents can ask what they have seen, heard, or understand about what happened in the Capitol. Then they can correct misperceptions that might be frightening and offer reasonable reassurances in language these young children can understand. They might tell their children that sometimes people get angry when they have lost, and even adults can behave badly and make mistakes. They can focus on who the helpers are, and what they could do to help also. They could write letters of appreciation to their elected officials or to the Capitol police who were so brave in protecting others. If their children are curious, parents can find books or videos that are age appropriate about the Constitution and how elections work in a democracy. Parents don’t need to be able to answer every question, watching “Schoolhouse Rock” videos on YouTube together is a wonderful way to complement their online school and support their healthy development.

School-aged children (7-12 years) are developmentally focused on mastery experiences, whether they are social, academic, or athletic. They may be better equipped to pay attention and do homework than their younger siblings, but they will miss building friendships and having a real audience for their efforts as they build emotional maturity. They are prone to worry and distress about the big events that they can understand, at least in concrete terms, but have never faced before. These children usually have been able to use social media and online games to stay connected to friends, but they are less likely than their older siblings to independently exercise or explore new interests without a parent or teacher to guide and support them. These children are likely to be spending a lot of their time online on websites their parents don’t know about, and most likely to be curious about the events of Jan. 6. Parents should close their own device and invite their school-age children to show them what they are working on in school. Be curious about all of it, even how they are doing gym or music class. Then ask about what they have seen or heard about the election and its aftermath at school, from friends, or on their own. Let them be the teachers about what happened and how they learned about it. Parents can correct misinformation or offer reliable sources of information they can investigate together. What they will need is validation of the difficult feelings that events like these can cause; that is, acknowledgment, acceptance, and understanding of big feelings, without trying to just make those feelings go away. Parents might help them to be curious about what can make people get angry, break laws, and even hurt others, and how we protest injustices in a democracy. These children may be ready to take a deeper dive into history, via a good film or documentary, with their parents’ company for discussion afterward. Be their audience and model curiosity and patience, all the while validating the feelings that might arise.

Teenagers are developmentally focused on building their own identities, cultivating independence, and deeper relationships beyond their family. While they may be well equipped to manage online learning and to stay connected to their friends and teachers through electronic means, they are also facing considerable challenge, as their ability to explore new interests, build new relationships, and be meaningfully independent has been profoundly restrained over the past year. And they are facing other losses, as milestones like proms, performances, and competitions have been altered or missed. Parents still know when their teenager is most likely to talk, and they should check in with them during those times. They can ask them about what classes are working online and which ones aren’t, and what extracurriculars are still possible. They should not be discouraged if their teenager only offers cursory responses, it matters that they are showing up and showing interest. The election and its aftermath provide a meaningful matter to discuss; parents can find out if it is being discussed by any teachers or friends. What do they think triggered the events of Jan. 6? Who should be held responsible? How to reasonably protest injustice? What does a society do when citizens can’t agree on facts? More than offering reassurance, parents should be curious about their adolescent’s developing identity and their values, how they are thinking about complex issues around free speech and justice. It is a wonderful opportunity for parents to learn about their adolescent’s emerging identity, to be tolerant of their autonomy, and an opportunity to offer their perspective and values.

At every age, parents need to be present by listening and drawing their children out without distraction. Now is a time to build relationships and to use the difficult events of the day to shed light on deeper issues and values. This is hard, but far better than having children deal with these issues in darkness or alone.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

The first weeks of 2021 have us considering how best to face compound challenges and we expect parents will be looking to their pediatricians for guidance. There are daily stories of the COVID-19 death toll, an abstraction made real by tragic stories of shattered families. Most families are approaching the first anniversary of their children being in virtual school, with growing concerns about the quality of virtual education, loss of socialization and group activities, and additional risks facing poor and vulnerable children. There are real concerns about the future impact of children spending so much time every day on their screens for school, extracurricular activities, social time, and relaxation. While the COVID-19 vaccines promise a return to “normal” sometime in 2021, in-person school may not return until late in the spring or next fall.

After the events of Jan. 6, families face an additional challenge: Discussing the violent invasion of the U.S. Capitol by the president’s supporters. This event was shocking, frightening, and confusing for most, and continues to be heavily covered in the news and online. There is a light in all this darkness. We have the opportunity to talk with our children – and to share explanations, perspectives, values, and even the discomfort of the unknowns – about COVID-19, use of the Internet, and the violence of Jan 6. We will consider how parents can approach this challenge for three age groups. With each group, parents will need to be calm and curious and will need time to give their children their full attention. We are all living through history. When parents can be fully present with their children, even for short periods at meals or at bedtime, it will help all to get their balance back and start to make sense of the extraordinary events we have been facing.

The youngest children (aged 3-6 years), those who were in preschool or kindergarten before the pandemic, need the most from their parents during this time. If they are attending school virtually, their online school days are likely short and challenging. Children at this age are mastering behavior rather than cognitive tasks. They are learning how to manage their bodies in space (stay in their seats!), how to be patient and kind (take turns!), and how to manage frustration (math is hard, try again!). Without the physical presence of their teacher and classmates, these lessons are tougher to internalize. Given their age-appropriate short attention spans, they often walk away from a screen, even if it’s class time. They are more likely to be paying attention to their parents, responding to the emotional climate at home. Even if they are not watching news websites themselves, they are likely to have overheard or noticed the news about recent events. Parents of young children should take care to turn off the television or their own computer, as repeated frightening videos of the insurrection can cause their children to worry that these events continue to unfold. These children need their parents’ undivided attention, even just for a little while. Play a board game with them (good chance to stay in their seats, take turns, and manage losing). Or get them outside for some physical play. While playing, parents can ask what they have seen, heard, or understand about what happened in the Capitol. Then they can correct misperceptions that might be frightening and offer reasonable reassurances in language these young children can understand. They might tell their children that sometimes people get angry when they have lost, and even adults can behave badly and make mistakes. They can focus on who the helpers are, and what they could do to help also. They could write letters of appreciation to their elected officials or to the Capitol police who were so brave in protecting others. If their children are curious, parents can find books or videos that are age appropriate about the Constitution and how elections work in a democracy. Parents don’t need to be able to answer every question, watching “Schoolhouse Rock” videos on YouTube together is a wonderful way to complement their online school and support their healthy development.

School-aged children (7-12 years) are developmentally focused on mastery experiences, whether they are social, academic, or athletic. They may be better equipped to pay attention and do homework than their younger siblings, but they will miss building friendships and having a real audience for their efforts as they build emotional maturity. They are prone to worry and distress about the big events that they can understand, at least in concrete terms, but have never faced before. These children usually have been able to use social media and online games to stay connected to friends, but they are less likely than their older siblings to independently exercise or explore new interests without a parent or teacher to guide and support them. These children are likely to be spending a lot of their time online on websites their parents don’t know about, and most likely to be curious about the events of Jan. 6. Parents should close their own device and invite their school-age children to show them what they are working on in school. Be curious about all of it, even how they are doing gym or music class. Then ask about what they have seen or heard about the election and its aftermath at school, from friends, or on their own. Let them be the teachers about what happened and how they learned about it. Parents can correct misinformation or offer reliable sources of information they can investigate together. What they will need is validation of the difficult feelings that events like these can cause; that is, acknowledgment, acceptance, and understanding of big feelings, without trying to just make those feelings go away. Parents might help them to be curious about what can make people get angry, break laws, and even hurt others, and how we protest injustices in a democracy. These children may be ready to take a deeper dive into history, via a good film or documentary, with their parents’ company for discussion afterward. Be their audience and model curiosity and patience, all the while validating the feelings that might arise.

Teenagers are developmentally focused on building their own identities, cultivating independence, and deeper relationships beyond their family. While they may be well equipped to manage online learning and to stay connected to their friends and teachers through electronic means, they are also facing considerable challenge, as their ability to explore new interests, build new relationships, and be meaningfully independent has been profoundly restrained over the past year. And they are facing other losses, as milestones like proms, performances, and competitions have been altered or missed. Parents still know when their teenager is most likely to talk, and they should check in with them during those times. They can ask them about what classes are working online and which ones aren’t, and what extracurriculars are still possible. They should not be discouraged if their teenager only offers cursory responses, it matters that they are showing up and showing interest. The election and its aftermath provide a meaningful matter to discuss; parents can find out if it is being discussed by any teachers or friends. What do they think triggered the events of Jan. 6? Who should be held responsible? How to reasonably protest injustice? What does a society do when citizens can’t agree on facts? More than offering reassurance, parents should be curious about their adolescent’s developing identity and their values, how they are thinking about complex issues around free speech and justice. It is a wonderful opportunity for parents to learn about their adolescent’s emerging identity, to be tolerant of their autonomy, and an opportunity to offer their perspective and values.

At every age, parents need to be present by listening and drawing their children out without distraction. Now is a time to build relationships and to use the difficult events of the day to shed light on deeper issues and values. This is hard, but far better than having children deal with these issues in darkness or alone.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

The first weeks of 2021 have us considering how best to face compound challenges and we expect parents will be looking to their pediatricians for guidance. There are daily stories of the COVID-19 death toll, an abstraction made real by tragic stories of shattered families. Most families are approaching the first anniversary of their children being in virtual school, with growing concerns about the quality of virtual education, loss of socialization and group activities, and additional risks facing poor and vulnerable children. There are real concerns about the future impact of children spending so much time every day on their screens for school, extracurricular activities, social time, and relaxation. While the COVID-19 vaccines promise a return to “normal” sometime in 2021, in-person school may not return until late in the spring or next fall.

After the events of Jan. 6, families face an additional challenge: Discussing the violent invasion of the U.S. Capitol by the president’s supporters. This event was shocking, frightening, and confusing for most, and continues to be heavily covered in the news and online. There is a light in all this darkness. We have the opportunity to talk with our children – and to share explanations, perspectives, values, and even the discomfort of the unknowns – about COVID-19, use of the Internet, and the violence of Jan 6. We will consider how parents can approach this challenge for three age groups. With each group, parents will need to be calm and curious and will need time to give their children their full attention. We are all living through history. When parents can be fully present with their children, even for short periods at meals or at bedtime, it will help all to get their balance back and start to make sense of the extraordinary events we have been facing.

The youngest children (aged 3-6 years), those who were in preschool or kindergarten before the pandemic, need the most from their parents during this time. If they are attending school virtually, their online school days are likely short and challenging. Children at this age are mastering behavior rather than cognitive tasks. They are learning how to manage their bodies in space (stay in their seats!), how to be patient and kind (take turns!), and how to manage frustration (math is hard, try again!). Without the physical presence of their teacher and classmates, these lessons are tougher to internalize. Given their age-appropriate short attention spans, they often walk away from a screen, even if it’s class time. They are more likely to be paying attention to their parents, responding to the emotional climate at home. Even if they are not watching news websites themselves, they are likely to have overheard or noticed the news about recent events. Parents of young children should take care to turn off the television or their own computer, as repeated frightening videos of the insurrection can cause their children to worry that these events continue to unfold. These children need their parents’ undivided attention, even just for a little while. Play a board game with them (good chance to stay in their seats, take turns, and manage losing). Or get them outside for some physical play. While playing, parents can ask what they have seen, heard, or understand about what happened in the Capitol. Then they can correct misperceptions that might be frightening and offer reasonable reassurances in language these young children can understand. They might tell their children that sometimes people get angry when they have lost, and even adults can behave badly and make mistakes. They can focus on who the helpers are, and what they could do to help also. They could write letters of appreciation to their elected officials or to the Capitol police who were so brave in protecting others. If their children are curious, parents can find books or videos that are age appropriate about the Constitution and how elections work in a democracy. Parents don’t need to be able to answer every question, watching “Schoolhouse Rock” videos on YouTube together is a wonderful way to complement their online school and support their healthy development.

School-aged children (7-12 years) are developmentally focused on mastery experiences, whether they are social, academic, or athletic. They may be better equipped to pay attention and do homework than their younger siblings, but they will miss building friendships and having a real audience for their efforts as they build emotional maturity. They are prone to worry and distress about the big events that they can understand, at least in concrete terms, but have never faced before. These children usually have been able to use social media and online games to stay connected to friends, but they are less likely than their older siblings to independently exercise or explore new interests without a parent or teacher to guide and support them. These children are likely to be spending a lot of their time online on websites their parents don’t know about, and most likely to be curious about the events of Jan. 6. Parents should close their own device and invite their school-age children to show them what they are working on in school. Be curious about all of it, even how they are doing gym or music class. Then ask about what they have seen or heard about the election and its aftermath at school, from friends, or on their own. Let them be the teachers about what happened and how they learned about it. Parents can correct misinformation or offer reliable sources of information they can investigate together. What they will need is validation of the difficult feelings that events like these can cause; that is, acknowledgment, acceptance, and understanding of big feelings, without trying to just make those feelings go away. Parents might help them to be curious about what can make people get angry, break laws, and even hurt others, and how we protest injustices in a democracy. These children may be ready to take a deeper dive into history, via a good film or documentary, with their parents’ company for discussion afterward. Be their audience and model curiosity and patience, all the while validating the feelings that might arise.

Teenagers are developmentally focused on building their own identities, cultivating independence, and deeper relationships beyond their family. While they may be well equipped to manage online learning and to stay connected to their friends and teachers through electronic means, they are also facing considerable challenge, as their ability to explore new interests, build new relationships, and be meaningfully independent has been profoundly restrained over the past year. And they are facing other losses, as milestones like proms, performances, and competitions have been altered or missed. Parents still know when their teenager is most likely to talk, and they should check in with them during those times. They can ask them about what classes are working online and which ones aren’t, and what extracurriculars are still possible. They should not be discouraged if their teenager only offers cursory responses, it matters that they are showing up and showing interest. The election and its aftermath provide a meaningful matter to discuss; parents can find out if it is being discussed by any teachers or friends. What do they think triggered the events of Jan. 6? Who should be held responsible? How to reasonably protest injustice? What does a society do when citizens can’t agree on facts? More than offering reassurance, parents should be curious about their adolescent’s developing identity and their values, how they are thinking about complex issues around free speech and justice. It is a wonderful opportunity for parents to learn about their adolescent’s emerging identity, to be tolerant of their autonomy, and an opportunity to offer their perspective and values.

At every age, parents need to be present by listening and drawing their children out without distraction. Now is a time to build relationships and to use the difficult events of the day to shed light on deeper issues and values. This is hard, but far better than having children deal with these issues in darkness or alone.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

The Tiger Woods saga, which has been broadcast on HBO, is a “child” of the ESPN Michael Jordan series – which riveted early pandemic America. It is likely to exert a similar vicelike hold on the imagination of Biden transition/Trump impeachment II United States, despite not having the express participation of Woods himself.

The differences in parenting styles of these young African American men, at least superficially, appears in amazingly stark contrast.

Whereas Michael Jordan’s parents appear to have shown good old, red-blooded North Carolina ambitious and hard-driven tough parenting, Earl and Kultida Woods seem to have exerted a textbook example of what we call “achievement by proxy distortion” (ABPD) parenting style.^1-5

By deciding, even prior to birth, what their son’s future career would be, Earl, aided by Kultida Woods, created a master plan that came to fruition when Eldrick Tont “Tiger” Woods won his first Masters Tournament at the ripe old age of 21.

His parents’ fine-tuning of the ABPD template for professional sports parenting is often emulated. It had been earlier developed, in an industrial model – especially in women’s gymnastics – where Bela Karolyi and others in the Romanian Eastern Bloc system had developed Nadia Comaneci and others to be prepubescent superstars of the 1970s. When it was transferred to the more financially supportive, fertile base of the U.S., physical and sexual abuse were the acceptable price paid for Olympic gold medals.

When Tiger first appeared on the U.S. radar at the age of 2 on the Mike Douglas show in 1977, he was already definitively on the way to “prodigy” territory. Earl, a retired Vietnam veteran and product of the U.S. Marines, was able to model his own extraordinarily rigorous training where breaking down soldiers psychologically helps them survive special ops behind enemy lines. He trained his son essentially from birth, imprinting through somatic and postural echo these golf skills and habits for playing under pressure, handling annoying distraction, and self-hypnosis. These all clearly accelerated his son’s ability to enter the “zone,” a level of high attunement required, even demanded, at the highest levels of professional golf.

His parents’ ruthless approach, clearly accompanied by undoubted love and enthusiasm, to ending what appears to have been an age-appropriate high school relationship with his then “sweetheart,” appears on the surface a little cruel. But their approach achieved its purpose of sacrificing a distraction on the glorious golden path toward inevitable success and superstardom. This likely also produced a degree of self-objectification and further compartmentalization.

The typical outcome of ABPD is a fairly unidimensional identity defined by the activity, or in this case, the sport. In this case, where Earl was building or imagining a Messianic role for Tiger, multidimensionality was important as the self-described “Cablinasian” moniker suggests, whereby all of Tiger’s background of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian ancestry was acknowledged as they all became lifelong fans.

What most likely saved Tiger Woods from the most debilitating aspects of his father’s master plan was that golfers cannot compete and achieve mega endorsements at the professional level until they have established credentials and grow into their adult bodies, when their stroke making becomes fully competitive and their product image ideal.

Therefore, a 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey competing in beauty contests, or a 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff flying across country could have been Tiger, but they were not.

While awaiting his preordained career and endorsement deals, Tiger still needed to at least spend some time at college, in his case on a Stanford (Calif.) University golfing scholarship, while he accumulated U.S. amateur titles and fully established his credentials during this crucial time of normal development and “adolescent moratorium.”

According to the documentary,* being exposed to the “secret” extracurricular fringe benefits and sexual proclivities of golf pros with his father is likely to have been part of a traumatic “adultification” and compartmentalizing process. Whereby, one of Tiger’s roles became keeping his parents’ marriage together. That alleged exposure may also have planted the seeds for the “groupie” and sexual acting out challenges he so publicly experienced later in his career.

While Michael Jordan’s career has almost receded into the ancient and “hoary” past, Tiger Woods’s career at age 45, after overcoming significant back injuries and multiple failed surgeries, continues to astonish the golf and sporting world in general.

Most of his now deceased father Earl’s ambitions have indeed been realized despite some hiccups, setbacks, and loss of endorsements.

As parents in these challenging times, we all make sacrifices for our children, and in turn, expect them to step up to the plate and within reason, sacrifice and defer short-term excitement and fun for long-term educational, social, and life goals. How we as parents, and that includes Tiger Woods now, rise to this challenge is often a daily and humbling struggle.

While you watch this series, please keep your psychiatrist and family dynamics eyes wide open.
 

Dr. Tofler is a child and adolescent, sport psychiatrist, and is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Psychiatry in West Los Angeles. He also is a visiting faculty member in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Tofler has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tofler IR et al. N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 25;335(4):281-3.

2. Jellinek MS et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;38(2):213-6.

3. Tofler IR and DiGeronimo TF. “Keeping Your Kids Out Front Without Kicking Them From Behind: How to Nurture High-Achieving Athletes, Scholars, and Performing Artists.” (Hoboken, N.J,: Jossey-Bass, 2000).

4. Tofler IR et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):805-28.

5. Clark TP et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):959-71.

*Updated 1/25/2021

The Tiger Woods saga, which has been broadcast on HBO, is a “child” of the ESPN Michael Jordan series – which riveted early pandemic America. It is likely to exert a similar vicelike hold on the imagination of Biden transition/Trump impeachment II United States, despite not having the express participation of Woods himself.

The differences in parenting styles of these young African American men, at least superficially, appears in amazingly stark contrast.

Whereas Michael Jordan’s parents appear to have shown good old, red-blooded North Carolina ambitious and hard-driven tough parenting, Earl and Kultida Woods seem to have exerted a textbook example of what we call “achievement by proxy distortion” (ABPD) parenting style.^1-5

By deciding, even prior to birth, what their son’s future career would be, Earl, aided by Kultida Woods, created a master plan that came to fruition when Eldrick Tont “Tiger” Woods won his first Masters Tournament at the ripe old age of 21.

His parents’ fine-tuning of the ABPD template for professional sports parenting is often emulated. It had been earlier developed, in an industrial model – especially in women’s gymnastics – where Bela Karolyi and others in the Romanian Eastern Bloc system had developed Nadia Comaneci and others to be prepubescent superstars of the 1970s. When it was transferred to the more financially supportive, fertile base of the U.S., physical and sexual abuse were the acceptable price paid for Olympic gold medals.

When Tiger first appeared on the U.S. radar at the age of 2 on the Mike Douglas show in 1977, he was already definitively on the way to “prodigy” territory. Earl, a retired Vietnam veteran and product of the U.S. Marines, was able to model his own extraordinarily rigorous training where breaking down soldiers psychologically helps them survive special ops behind enemy lines. He trained his son essentially from birth, imprinting through somatic and postural echo these golf skills and habits for playing under pressure, handling annoying distraction, and self-hypnosis. These all clearly accelerated his son’s ability to enter the “zone,” a level of high attunement required, even demanded, at the highest levels of professional golf.

His parents’ ruthless approach, clearly accompanied by undoubted love and enthusiasm, to ending what appears to have been an age-appropriate high school relationship with his then “sweetheart,” appears on the surface a little cruel. But their approach achieved its purpose of sacrificing a distraction on the glorious golden path toward inevitable success and superstardom. This likely also produced a degree of self-objectification and further compartmentalization.

The typical outcome of ABPD is a fairly unidimensional identity defined by the activity, or in this case, the sport. In this case, where Earl was building or imagining a Messianic role for Tiger, multidimensionality was important as the self-described “Cablinasian” moniker suggests, whereby all of Tiger’s background of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian ancestry was acknowledged as they all became lifelong fans.

What most likely saved Tiger Woods from the most debilitating aspects of his father’s master plan was that golfers cannot compete and achieve mega endorsements at the professional level until they have established credentials and grow into their adult bodies, when their stroke making becomes fully competitive and their product image ideal.

Therefore, a 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey competing in beauty contests, or a 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff flying across country could have been Tiger, but they were not.

While awaiting his preordained career and endorsement deals, Tiger still needed to at least spend some time at college, in his case on a Stanford (Calif.) University golfing scholarship, while he accumulated U.S. amateur titles and fully established his credentials during this crucial time of normal development and “adolescent moratorium.”

According to the documentary,* being exposed to the “secret” extracurricular fringe benefits and sexual proclivities of golf pros with his father is likely to have been part of a traumatic “adultification” and compartmentalizing process. Whereby, one of Tiger’s roles became keeping his parents’ marriage together. That alleged exposure may also have planted the seeds for the “groupie” and sexual acting out challenges he so publicly experienced later in his career.

While Michael Jordan’s career has almost receded into the ancient and “hoary” past, Tiger Woods’s career at age 45, after overcoming significant back injuries and multiple failed surgeries, continues to astonish the golf and sporting world in general.

Most of his now deceased father Earl’s ambitions have indeed been realized despite some hiccups, setbacks, and loss of endorsements.

As parents in these challenging times, we all make sacrifices for our children, and in turn, expect them to step up to the plate and within reason, sacrifice and defer short-term excitement and fun for long-term educational, social, and life goals. How we as parents, and that includes Tiger Woods now, rise to this challenge is often a daily and humbling struggle.

While you watch this series, please keep your psychiatrist and family dynamics eyes wide open.
 

Dr. Tofler is a child and adolescent, sport psychiatrist, and is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Psychiatry in West Los Angeles. He also is a visiting faculty member in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Tofler has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tofler IR et al. N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 25;335(4):281-3.

2. Jellinek MS et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;38(2):213-6.

3. Tofler IR and DiGeronimo TF. “Keeping Your Kids Out Front Without Kicking Them From Behind: How to Nurture High-Achieving Athletes, Scholars, and Performing Artists.” (Hoboken, N.J,: Jossey-Bass, 2000).

4. Tofler IR et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):805-28.

5. Clark TP et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):959-71.

*Updated 1/25/2021

The Tiger Woods saga, which has been broadcast on HBO, is a “child” of the ESPN Michael Jordan series – which riveted early pandemic America. It is likely to exert a similar vicelike hold on the imagination of Biden transition/Trump impeachment II United States, despite not having the express participation of Woods himself.

The differences in parenting styles of these young African American men, at least superficially, appears in amazingly stark contrast.

Whereas Michael Jordan’s parents appear to have shown good old, red-blooded North Carolina ambitious and hard-driven tough parenting, Earl and Kultida Woods seem to have exerted a textbook example of what we call “achievement by proxy distortion” (ABPD) parenting style.^1-5

By deciding, even prior to birth, what their son’s future career would be, Earl, aided by Kultida Woods, created a master plan that came to fruition when Eldrick Tont “Tiger” Woods won his first Masters Tournament at the ripe old age of 21.

His parents’ fine-tuning of the ABPD template for professional sports parenting is often emulated. It had been earlier developed, in an industrial model – especially in women’s gymnastics – where Bela Karolyi and others in the Romanian Eastern Bloc system had developed Nadia Comaneci and others to be prepubescent superstars of the 1970s. When it was transferred to the more financially supportive, fertile base of the U.S., physical and sexual abuse were the acceptable price paid for Olympic gold medals.

When Tiger first appeared on the U.S. radar at the age of 2 on the Mike Douglas show in 1977, he was already definitively on the way to “prodigy” territory. Earl, a retired Vietnam veteran and product of the U.S. Marines, was able to model his own extraordinarily rigorous training where breaking down soldiers psychologically helps them survive special ops behind enemy lines. He trained his son essentially from birth, imprinting through somatic and postural echo these golf skills and habits for playing under pressure, handling annoying distraction, and self-hypnosis. These all clearly accelerated his son’s ability to enter the “zone,” a level of high attunement required, even demanded, at the highest levels of professional golf.

His parents’ ruthless approach, clearly accompanied by undoubted love and enthusiasm, to ending what appears to have been an age-appropriate high school relationship with his then “sweetheart,” appears on the surface a little cruel. But their approach achieved its purpose of sacrificing a distraction on the glorious golden path toward inevitable success and superstardom. This likely also produced a degree of self-objectification and further compartmentalization.

The typical outcome of ABPD is a fairly unidimensional identity defined by the activity, or in this case, the sport. In this case, where Earl was building or imagining a Messianic role for Tiger, multidimensionality was important as the self-described “Cablinasian” moniker suggests, whereby all of Tiger’s background of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian ancestry was acknowledged as they all became lifelong fans.

What most likely saved Tiger Woods from the most debilitating aspects of his father’s master plan was that golfers cannot compete and achieve mega endorsements at the professional level until they have established credentials and grow into their adult bodies, when their stroke making becomes fully competitive and their product image ideal.

Therefore, a 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey competing in beauty contests, or a 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff flying across country could have been Tiger, but they were not.

While awaiting his preordained career and endorsement deals, Tiger still needed to at least spend some time at college, in his case on a Stanford (Calif.) University golfing scholarship, while he accumulated U.S. amateur titles and fully established his credentials during this crucial time of normal development and “adolescent moratorium.”

According to the documentary,* being exposed to the “secret” extracurricular fringe benefits and sexual proclivities of golf pros with his father is likely to have been part of a traumatic “adultification” and compartmentalizing process. Whereby, one of Tiger’s roles became keeping his parents’ marriage together. That alleged exposure may also have planted the seeds for the “groupie” and sexual acting out challenges he so publicly experienced later in his career.

While Michael Jordan’s career has almost receded into the ancient and “hoary” past, Tiger Woods’s career at age 45, after overcoming significant back injuries and multiple failed surgeries, continues to astonish the golf and sporting world in general.

Most of his now deceased father Earl’s ambitions have indeed been realized despite some hiccups, setbacks, and loss of endorsements.

As parents in these challenging times, we all make sacrifices for our children, and in turn, expect them to step up to the plate and within reason, sacrifice and defer short-term excitement and fun for long-term educational, social, and life goals. How we as parents, and that includes Tiger Woods now, rise to this challenge is often a daily and humbling struggle.

While you watch this series, please keep your psychiatrist and family dynamics eyes wide open.
 

Dr. Tofler is a child and adolescent, sport psychiatrist, and is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Psychiatry in West Los Angeles. He also is a visiting faculty member in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Tofler has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tofler IR et al. N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 25;335(4):281-3.

2. Jellinek MS et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;38(2):213-6.

3. Tofler IR and DiGeronimo TF. “Keeping Your Kids Out Front Without Kicking Them From Behind: How to Nurture High-Achieving Athletes, Scholars, and Performing Artists.” (Hoboken, N.J,: Jossey-Bass, 2000).

4. Tofler IR et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):805-28.

5. Clark TP et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):959-71.

*Updated 1/25/2021

Federal officials on Thursday announced a plan to largely drop the so-called X-waiver requirement for buprenorphine prescriptions for physicians in a bid to remove an administrative procedure widely seen as a barrier to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.

The Department of Health & Human Services unveiled new practice guidelines that include an exemption from current certification requirements. The exemption applies to physicians already registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A restriction included in the new HHS policy is a limit of treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. There is an exception to this limit for hospital-based physicians, such as those working in emergency departments, HHS said.

The policy change applies only to the prescription of drugs or formulations covered under the so-called X-waiver of the Controlled Substance Act, such as buprenorphine, and does not apply to methadone. The new guidelines say the date on which they will take effect will be added after publication in the Federal Register. HHS did not immediately answer a request from this news organization for a more specific timeline.
 

Welcomed change

The change in prescribing rule was widely welcomed, with the American Medical Association issuing a statement endorsing the revision. The AMA and many prescribers and researchers had seen the X-waiver as a hurdle to address the nation’s opioid epidemic.

There were more than 83,000 deaths attributed to drug overdoses in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. This is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period, HHS said in a press release, which cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a tweet about the new policy, Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston internist and author of the memoir “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” contrasted the relative ease with which clinicians can give medicines that carry a risk for abuse with the challenge that has existed in trying to provide patients with buprenorphine.

“Absolutely insane that we need a special waiver for buprenorphine to TREAT opioid addiction, but not to prescribe oxycodone, Vicodin, etc., which can get people in trouble in the first place!!” Dr. Grinspoon tweeted.

Patrice Harris, MD, chair of the AMA’s Opioid Task Force and the organization’s immediate past president, said removing the X-waiver requirement can help lessen the stigma associated with this OUD treatment. The AMA had urged HHS to change the regulation.

“With this change, office-based physicians and physician-led teams working with patients to manage their other medical conditions can also treat them for their opioid use disorder without being subjected to a separate and burdensome regulatory regime,” Dr. Harris said in the AMA statement.

Researchers have in recent years sought to highlight what they described as missed opportunities for OUD treatment because of the need for the X-waiver. 

Buprenorphine is a cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder, which reduces the risk of injection-related infections and mortality risk, notes a study published online last month in JAMA Network Open.  

However, results showed that fewer than 2% of obstetrician-gynecologists who examined women enrolled in Medicaid were trained to prescribe buprenorphine. The study, which was based on data from 31, 211 ob.gyns. who accepted Medicaid insurance, was created to quantify how many were on the list of Drug Addiction Treatment Act buprenorphine-waived clinicians.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has required 8 hours of training for physicians and 24 hours for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for the X-waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, the investigators report.
 

‘X the X-waiver’

Only 10% of recent family residency graduates reported being adequately trained to prescribe buprenorphine and only 7% reported actually prescribing the drug, write Kevin Fiscella, MD, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and colleagues in a 2018 Viewpoint article published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In the article, which was subtitled “X the X Waiver,” they called for deregulation of buprenorphine as a way of mainstreaming treatment for OUD.

“The DATA 2000 has failed – too few physicians have obtained X-waivers,” the authors write. “Regulations reinforce the stigma surrounding buprenorphine prescribers and patients who receive it while constraining access and discouraging patient engagement and retention in treatment.”

The change, announced Jan. 14, leaves in place restrictions on prescribing for clinicians other than physicians. On a call with reporters, Adm. Brett P. Giroir, MD, assistant secretary for health, suggested that federal officials should take further steps to remove hurdles to buprenorphine prescriptions.

“Many people will say this has gone too far,” Dr. Giroir said of the drive to end the X-waiver for clinicians. “But I believe more people will say this has not gone far enough.”

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

Federal officials on Thursday announced a plan to largely drop the so-called X-waiver requirement for buprenorphine prescriptions for physicians in a bid to remove an administrative procedure widely seen as a barrier to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.

The Department of Health & Human Services unveiled new practice guidelines that include an exemption from current certification requirements. The exemption applies to physicians already registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A restriction included in the new HHS policy is a limit of treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. There is an exception to this limit for hospital-based physicians, such as those working in emergency departments, HHS said.

The policy change applies only to the prescription of drugs or formulations covered under the so-called X-waiver of the Controlled Substance Act, such as buprenorphine, and does not apply to methadone. The new guidelines say the date on which they will take effect will be added after publication in the Federal Register. HHS did not immediately answer a request from this news organization for a more specific timeline.
 

Welcomed change

The change in prescribing rule was widely welcomed, with the American Medical Association issuing a statement endorsing the revision. The AMA and many prescribers and researchers had seen the X-waiver as a hurdle to address the nation’s opioid epidemic.

There were more than 83,000 deaths attributed to drug overdoses in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. This is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period, HHS said in a press release, which cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a tweet about the new policy, Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston internist and author of the memoir “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” contrasted the relative ease with which clinicians can give medicines that carry a risk for abuse with the challenge that has existed in trying to provide patients with buprenorphine.

“Absolutely insane that we need a special waiver for buprenorphine to TREAT opioid addiction, but not to prescribe oxycodone, Vicodin, etc., which can get people in trouble in the first place!!” Dr. Grinspoon tweeted.

Patrice Harris, MD, chair of the AMA’s Opioid Task Force and the organization’s immediate past president, said removing the X-waiver requirement can help lessen the stigma associated with this OUD treatment. The AMA had urged HHS to change the regulation.

“With this change, office-based physicians and physician-led teams working with patients to manage their other medical conditions can also treat them for their opioid use disorder without being subjected to a separate and burdensome regulatory regime,” Dr. Harris said in the AMA statement.

Researchers have in recent years sought to highlight what they described as missed opportunities for OUD treatment because of the need for the X-waiver. 

Buprenorphine is a cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder, which reduces the risk of injection-related infections and mortality risk, notes a study published online last month in JAMA Network Open.  

However, results showed that fewer than 2% of obstetrician-gynecologists who examined women enrolled in Medicaid were trained to prescribe buprenorphine. The study, which was based on data from 31, 211 ob.gyns. who accepted Medicaid insurance, was created to quantify how many were on the list of Drug Addiction Treatment Act buprenorphine-waived clinicians.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has required 8 hours of training for physicians and 24 hours for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for the X-waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, the investigators report.
 

‘X the X-waiver’

Only 10% of recent family residency graduates reported being adequately trained to prescribe buprenorphine and only 7% reported actually prescribing the drug, write Kevin Fiscella, MD, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and colleagues in a 2018 Viewpoint article published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In the article, which was subtitled “X the X Waiver,” they called for deregulation of buprenorphine as a way of mainstreaming treatment for OUD.

“The DATA 2000 has failed – too few physicians have obtained X-waivers,” the authors write. “Regulations reinforce the stigma surrounding buprenorphine prescribers and patients who receive it while constraining access and discouraging patient engagement and retention in treatment.”

The change, announced Jan. 14, leaves in place restrictions on prescribing for clinicians other than physicians. On a call with reporters, Adm. Brett P. Giroir, MD, assistant secretary for health, suggested that federal officials should take further steps to remove hurdles to buprenorphine prescriptions.

“Many people will say this has gone too far,” Dr. Giroir said of the drive to end the X-waiver for clinicians. “But I believe more people will say this has not gone far enough.”

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

Federal officials on Thursday announced a plan to largely drop the so-called X-waiver requirement for buprenorphine prescriptions for physicians in a bid to remove an administrative procedure widely seen as a barrier to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.

The Department of Health & Human Services unveiled new practice guidelines that include an exemption from current certification requirements. The exemption applies to physicians already registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A restriction included in the new HHS policy is a limit of treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. There is an exception to this limit for hospital-based physicians, such as those working in emergency departments, HHS said.

The policy change applies only to the prescription of drugs or formulations covered under the so-called X-waiver of the Controlled Substance Act, such as buprenorphine, and does not apply to methadone. The new guidelines say the date on which they will take effect will be added after publication in the Federal Register. HHS did not immediately answer a request from this news organization for a more specific timeline.
 

Welcomed change

The change in prescribing rule was widely welcomed, with the American Medical Association issuing a statement endorsing the revision. The AMA and many prescribers and researchers had seen the X-waiver as a hurdle to address the nation’s opioid epidemic.

There were more than 83,000 deaths attributed to drug overdoses in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. This is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period, HHS said in a press release, which cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a tweet about the new policy, Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston internist and author of the memoir “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” contrasted the relative ease with which clinicians can give medicines that carry a risk for abuse with the challenge that has existed in trying to provide patients with buprenorphine.

“Absolutely insane that we need a special waiver for buprenorphine to TREAT opioid addiction, but not to prescribe oxycodone, Vicodin, etc., which can get people in trouble in the first place!!” Dr. Grinspoon tweeted.

Patrice Harris, MD, chair of the AMA’s Opioid Task Force and the organization’s immediate past president, said removing the X-waiver requirement can help lessen the stigma associated with this OUD treatment. The AMA had urged HHS to change the regulation.

“With this change, office-based physicians and physician-led teams working with patients to manage their other medical conditions can also treat them for their opioid use disorder without being subjected to a separate and burdensome regulatory regime,” Dr. Harris said in the AMA statement.

Researchers have in recent years sought to highlight what they described as missed opportunities for OUD treatment because of the need for the X-waiver. 

Buprenorphine is a cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder, which reduces the risk of injection-related infections and mortality risk, notes a study published online last month in JAMA Network Open.  

However, results showed that fewer than 2% of obstetrician-gynecologists who examined women enrolled in Medicaid were trained to prescribe buprenorphine. The study, which was based on data from 31, 211 ob.gyns. who accepted Medicaid insurance, was created to quantify how many were on the list of Drug Addiction Treatment Act buprenorphine-waived clinicians.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has required 8 hours of training for physicians and 24 hours for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for the X-waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, the investigators report.
 

‘X the X-waiver’

Only 10% of recent family residency graduates reported being adequately trained to prescribe buprenorphine and only 7% reported actually prescribing the drug, write Kevin Fiscella, MD, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and colleagues in a 2018 Viewpoint article published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In the article, which was subtitled “X the X Waiver,” they called for deregulation of buprenorphine as a way of mainstreaming treatment for OUD.

“The DATA 2000 has failed – too few physicians have obtained X-waivers,” the authors write. “Regulations reinforce the stigma surrounding buprenorphine prescribers and patients who receive it while constraining access and discouraging patient engagement and retention in treatment.”

The change, announced Jan. 14, leaves in place restrictions on prescribing for clinicians other than physicians. On a call with reporters, Adm. Brett P. Giroir, MD, assistant secretary for health, suggested that federal officials should take further steps to remove hurdles to buprenorphine prescriptions.

“Many people will say this has gone too far,” Dr. Giroir said of the drive to end the X-waiver for clinicians. “But I believe more people will say this has not gone far enough.”

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