MDedge Rheumatology

TOPLINE:

Patients with early psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were significantly more likely to have multiple comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population included 67 adults with early PsA and 61 healthy matched controls with mean ages of 47.9 years and 45 years, respectively.
• Early PsA was defined as symptom duration of less than 2 years; patients with conditions including active infection, malignancy, or other rheumatic or systemic disease were excluded.
• The researchers examined the prevalence of comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors in treatment-naive, newly diagnosed patients with PsA at baseline and after 1 year.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adults with early PsA were significantly more likely to have two or more comorbidities and multiple cardiovascular risk factors at baseline, compared with healthy controls (odds ratios, 1.9 and 2.1, respectively).
• Dyslipidemia was the most prevalent comorbidity among patients with PsA and was more prevalent than in controls (64.2% vs. 39.3%; OR, 1.7).
• Obesity was more common in patients with PsA, compared with controls (40.3% vs. 18.3%, respectively), and more patients with PsA had cardiovascular disease at baseline than did controls (20.9% vs. 6.6%; OR, 3.2).
• Disease activity scores improved after 1 year, but the proportion of patients with comorbidities and CV risk factors remained stable.

IN PRACTICE:

The results support the early assessment of patients with PsA for comorbidities to inform treatment and suggest that comorbidities and CV risk factors are more than a consequence of long-term PsA and chronic systemic inflammation.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Alla Ishchenko, MD, and colleagues in the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. The study was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was exploratory in nature, with a short follow-up period and a relatively small sample size.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Ishchenko disclosed support from PARTNER, an international fellowship program to study disease mechanisms in psoriatic arthritis, as well as grants from Lilly and from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with early psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were significantly more likely to have multiple comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population included 67 adults with early PsA and 61 healthy matched controls with mean ages of 47.9 years and 45 years, respectively.
• Early PsA was defined as symptom duration of less than 2 years; patients with conditions including active infection, malignancy, or other rheumatic or systemic disease were excluded.
• The researchers examined the prevalence of comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors in treatment-naive, newly diagnosed patients with PsA at baseline and after 1 year.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adults with early PsA were significantly more likely to have two or more comorbidities and multiple cardiovascular risk factors at baseline, compared with healthy controls (odds ratios, 1.9 and 2.1, respectively).
• Dyslipidemia was the most prevalent comorbidity among patients with PsA and was more prevalent than in controls (64.2% vs. 39.3%; OR, 1.7).
• Obesity was more common in patients with PsA, compared with controls (40.3% vs. 18.3%, respectively), and more patients with PsA had cardiovascular disease at baseline than did controls (20.9% vs. 6.6%; OR, 3.2).
• Disease activity scores improved after 1 year, but the proportion of patients with comorbidities and CV risk factors remained stable.

IN PRACTICE:

The results support the early assessment of patients with PsA for comorbidities to inform treatment and suggest that comorbidities and CV risk factors are more than a consequence of long-term PsA and chronic systemic inflammation.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Alla Ishchenko, MD, and colleagues in the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. The study was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was exploratory in nature, with a short follow-up period and a relatively small sample size.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Ishchenko disclosed support from PARTNER, an international fellowship program to study disease mechanisms in psoriatic arthritis, as well as grants from Lilly and from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with early psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were significantly more likely to have multiple comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than controls.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population included 67 adults with early PsA and 61 healthy matched controls with mean ages of 47.9 years and 45 years, respectively.
• Early PsA was defined as symptom duration of less than 2 years; patients with conditions including active infection, malignancy, or other rheumatic or systemic disease were excluded.
• The researchers examined the prevalence of comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors in treatment-naive, newly diagnosed patients with PsA at baseline and after 1 year.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adults with early PsA were significantly more likely to have two or more comorbidities and multiple cardiovascular risk factors at baseline, compared with healthy controls (odds ratios, 1.9 and 2.1, respectively).
• Dyslipidemia was the most prevalent comorbidity among patients with PsA and was more prevalent than in controls (64.2% vs. 39.3%; OR, 1.7).
• Obesity was more common in patients with PsA, compared with controls (40.3% vs. 18.3%, respectively), and more patients with PsA had cardiovascular disease at baseline than did controls (20.9% vs. 6.6%; OR, 3.2).
• Disease activity scores improved after 1 year, but the proportion of patients with comorbidities and CV risk factors remained stable.

IN PRACTICE:

The results support the early assessment of patients with PsA for comorbidities to inform treatment and suggest that comorbidities and CV risk factors are more than a consequence of long-term PsA and chronic systemic inflammation.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Alla Ishchenko, MD, and colleagues in the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. The study was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was exploratory in nature, with a short follow-up period and a relatively small sample size.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Ishchenko disclosed support from PARTNER, an international fellowship program to study disease mechanisms in psoriatic arthritis, as well as grants from Lilly and from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

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

The use of colchicine prophylaxis during the process of up-titrating allopurinol slowly to reach target serum urate levels for patients with gout proved necessary to reduce the risk of flares in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial conducted by researchers in New Zealand.

Use of colchicine led to fewer flares during the first 6 months after initiating treatment with allopurinol, but when colchicine and placebo were stopped at 6 months, the number of flares rose, and there was no overall difference in the average number of flares between the placebo and colchicine groups over 12 months.

“Gout flares are common when starting urate-lowering therapy, although may be less frequent using the newer allopurinol ‘start-low, go-slow’ dose escalation strategy,” Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This study was undertaken to determine whether colchicine prophylaxis is required with the more gradual dose escalation of allopurinol to achieve target serum urate.”

The study was published online  in the BMJ.

The researchers randomly assigned 200 participants to receive colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo. At the same time, allopurinol 50 mg daily was initially given to those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 100 mg daily was given to those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2; doses were increased monthly by 50 mg daily for those with eGFR less than 60 and by 100 mg daily for those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 until the target urate level of less than 0.36 mmol/L (about < 6 mg/dL) was achieved. In total, 93% of patients were male, and 69% were White. Patients were enrolled from February 2019 through December 2021. The final study visit was in January 2023. Researchers tracked the mean number of patient-reported gout flares per month with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.12 gout flares/month. After the first 6 months, colchicine and placebo were stopped, and researchers continued to track outcomes up to month 12.

From baseline to 6 months, there were more gout flares per month in the placebo group (0.61) than in the colchicine group (0.35). From 6 to 12 months, there were more gout flares among patients who previously received colchicine, compared with those who received placebo. While 22.8% of patients in the colchicine group experienced flares at month 6, the following month – after stopping the drug – 41.2% experienced flares. For comparison, 30.8% of the placebo group experienced flares at month 6, and in month 7, 23.5% experienced flares. The spike in flares in the colchicine group began to decline after month 9.

Among the colchicine and placebo groups, reductions in serum urate at 6 and 12 months were similar, and mean serum urate levels declined below 0.36 mmol/L at 4 months and thereafter. Both groups reached a mean allopurinol dose of 280 mg/d at 6 months.

It is not clear what caused this rise in flares in the colchicine group, Stamp noted in an email to this news organization. Overall, there was no difference in the average number of gout flares between either group over the entire 12-month study period.

The study findings make a case for continuing colchicine prophylaxis considerably beyond the point at which the target urate serum level is reached, said Robert Terkeltaub, MD, professor emeritus of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego. He was not involved with the research.

“The flare burden with this really conservative allopurinol dosing regimen is really stunning,” he said in an interview. Despite this “start low and go slow” strategy, flares remained a problem, he noted. “It argues that you need at least a year to get out of the woods and have a lower flare burden, even if colchicine prophylaxis is used for the first 6 months.”

The current standard of care in rheumatology for gout treatment includes flare prophylaxis when starting urate-lowering therapy. In daily practice, “this can (and often does) mean continuing flare prophylaxis for longer than the recommended minimum duration from [established] gout treatment guidelines for an individual patient,” explained Elizabeth R. Graef, DO, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center.

There are many different factors to consider when determining a patient’s flare risk beyond serum urate levels and date of last flare, she noted. Flare severity, concurrent diuretic use, dose changes, tophus count, and additional health conditions such as diabetes can all contribute to individual patient outcomes.

“Gout is an erosive arthritis, and every time someone flares, there’s a risk of permanent erosive damage, so I tend to be more aggressive with prophylaxis,” she said.

The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Graef disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Terkeltaub consults for LG Chem, Fortress/Urica, Selecta Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Atom Biosciences, Acquist Therapeutics, Generate Biomedicines, AstraZeneca, and Synlogic. Dr. Terkeltaub serves as the nonsalaried president of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network, which annually receives unrestricted arms-length grant support from pharma donors.

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

The use of colchicine prophylaxis during the process of up-titrating allopurinol slowly to reach target serum urate levels for patients with gout proved necessary to reduce the risk of flares in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial conducted by researchers in New Zealand.

Use of colchicine led to fewer flares during the first 6 months after initiating treatment with allopurinol, but when colchicine and placebo were stopped at 6 months, the number of flares rose, and there was no overall difference in the average number of flares between the placebo and colchicine groups over 12 months.

“Gout flares are common when starting urate-lowering therapy, although may be less frequent using the newer allopurinol ‘start-low, go-slow’ dose escalation strategy,” Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This study was undertaken to determine whether colchicine prophylaxis is required with the more gradual dose escalation of allopurinol to achieve target serum urate.”

The study was published online  in the BMJ.

The researchers randomly assigned 200 participants to receive colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo. At the same time, allopurinol 50 mg daily was initially given to those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 100 mg daily was given to those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2; doses were increased monthly by 50 mg daily for those with eGFR less than 60 and by 100 mg daily for those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 until the target urate level of less than 0.36 mmol/L (about < 6 mg/dL) was achieved. In total, 93% of patients were male, and 69% were White. Patients were enrolled from February 2019 through December 2021. The final study visit was in January 2023. Researchers tracked the mean number of patient-reported gout flares per month with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.12 gout flares/month. After the first 6 months, colchicine and placebo were stopped, and researchers continued to track outcomes up to month 12.

From baseline to 6 months, there were more gout flares per month in the placebo group (0.61) than in the colchicine group (0.35). From 6 to 12 months, there were more gout flares among patients who previously received colchicine, compared with those who received placebo. While 22.8% of patients in the colchicine group experienced flares at month 6, the following month – after stopping the drug – 41.2% experienced flares. For comparison, 30.8% of the placebo group experienced flares at month 6, and in month 7, 23.5% experienced flares. The spike in flares in the colchicine group began to decline after month 9.

Among the colchicine and placebo groups, reductions in serum urate at 6 and 12 months were similar, and mean serum urate levels declined below 0.36 mmol/L at 4 months and thereafter. Both groups reached a mean allopurinol dose of 280 mg/d at 6 months.

It is not clear what caused this rise in flares in the colchicine group, Stamp noted in an email to this news organization. Overall, there was no difference in the average number of gout flares between either group over the entire 12-month study period.

The study findings make a case for continuing colchicine prophylaxis considerably beyond the point at which the target urate serum level is reached, said Robert Terkeltaub, MD, professor emeritus of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego. He was not involved with the research.

“The flare burden with this really conservative allopurinol dosing regimen is really stunning,” he said in an interview. Despite this “start low and go slow” strategy, flares remained a problem, he noted. “It argues that you need at least a year to get out of the woods and have a lower flare burden, even if colchicine prophylaxis is used for the first 6 months.”

The current standard of care in rheumatology for gout treatment includes flare prophylaxis when starting urate-lowering therapy. In daily practice, “this can (and often does) mean continuing flare prophylaxis for longer than the recommended minimum duration from [established] gout treatment guidelines for an individual patient,” explained Elizabeth R. Graef, DO, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center.

There are many different factors to consider when determining a patient’s flare risk beyond serum urate levels and date of last flare, she noted. Flare severity, concurrent diuretic use, dose changes, tophus count, and additional health conditions such as diabetes can all contribute to individual patient outcomes.

“Gout is an erosive arthritis, and every time someone flares, there’s a risk of permanent erosive damage, so I tend to be more aggressive with prophylaxis,” she said.

The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Graef disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Terkeltaub consults for LG Chem, Fortress/Urica, Selecta Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Atom Biosciences, Acquist Therapeutics, Generate Biomedicines, AstraZeneca, and Synlogic. Dr. Terkeltaub serves as the nonsalaried president of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network, which annually receives unrestricted arms-length grant support from pharma donors.

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

The use of colchicine prophylaxis during the process of up-titrating allopurinol slowly to reach target serum urate levels for patients with gout proved necessary to reduce the risk of flares in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial conducted by researchers in New Zealand.

Use of colchicine led to fewer flares during the first 6 months after initiating treatment with allopurinol, but when colchicine and placebo were stopped at 6 months, the number of flares rose, and there was no overall difference in the average number of flares between the placebo and colchicine groups over 12 months.

“Gout flares are common when starting urate-lowering therapy, although may be less frequent using the newer allopurinol ‘start-low, go-slow’ dose escalation strategy,” Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This study was undertaken to determine whether colchicine prophylaxis is required with the more gradual dose escalation of allopurinol to achieve target serum urate.”

The study was published online  in the BMJ.

The researchers randomly assigned 200 participants to receive colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo. At the same time, allopurinol 50 mg daily was initially given to those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 100 mg daily was given to those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2; doses were increased monthly by 50 mg daily for those with eGFR less than 60 and by 100 mg daily for those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 until the target urate level of less than 0.36 mmol/L (about < 6 mg/dL) was achieved. In total, 93% of patients were male, and 69% were White. Patients were enrolled from February 2019 through December 2021. The final study visit was in January 2023. Researchers tracked the mean number of patient-reported gout flares per month with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.12 gout flares/month. After the first 6 months, colchicine and placebo were stopped, and researchers continued to track outcomes up to month 12.

From baseline to 6 months, there were more gout flares per month in the placebo group (0.61) than in the colchicine group (0.35). From 6 to 12 months, there were more gout flares among patients who previously received colchicine, compared with those who received placebo. While 22.8% of patients in the colchicine group experienced flares at month 6, the following month – after stopping the drug – 41.2% experienced flares. For comparison, 30.8% of the placebo group experienced flares at month 6, and in month 7, 23.5% experienced flares. The spike in flares in the colchicine group began to decline after month 9.

Among the colchicine and placebo groups, reductions in serum urate at 6 and 12 months were similar, and mean serum urate levels declined below 0.36 mmol/L at 4 months and thereafter. Both groups reached a mean allopurinol dose of 280 mg/d at 6 months.

It is not clear what caused this rise in flares in the colchicine group, Stamp noted in an email to this news organization. Overall, there was no difference in the average number of gout flares between either group over the entire 12-month study period.

The study findings make a case for continuing colchicine prophylaxis considerably beyond the point at which the target urate serum level is reached, said Robert Terkeltaub, MD, professor emeritus of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego. He was not involved with the research.

“The flare burden with this really conservative allopurinol dosing regimen is really stunning,” he said in an interview. Despite this “start low and go slow” strategy, flares remained a problem, he noted. “It argues that you need at least a year to get out of the woods and have a lower flare burden, even if colchicine prophylaxis is used for the first 6 months.”

The current standard of care in rheumatology for gout treatment includes flare prophylaxis when starting urate-lowering therapy. In daily practice, “this can (and often does) mean continuing flare prophylaxis for longer than the recommended minimum duration from [established] gout treatment guidelines for an individual patient,” explained Elizabeth R. Graef, DO, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center.

There are many different factors to consider when determining a patient’s flare risk beyond serum urate levels and date of last flare, she noted. Flare severity, concurrent diuretic use, dose changes, tophus count, and additional health conditions such as diabetes can all contribute to individual patient outcomes.

“Gout is an erosive arthritis, and every time someone flares, there’s a risk of permanent erosive damage, so I tend to be more aggressive with prophylaxis,” she said.

The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Graef disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Terkeltaub consults for LG Chem, Fortress/Urica, Selecta Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Atom Biosciences, Acquist Therapeutics, Generate Biomedicines, AstraZeneca, and Synlogic. Dr. Terkeltaub serves as the nonsalaried president of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network, which annually receives unrestricted arms-length grant support from pharma donors.

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

By the end of 2021, Anuj Peddada, MD, had hit a wall. He couldn’t sleep, couldn’t concentrate, erupted in anger, and felt isolated personally and professionally. To temper pandemic-driven pressures, the Colorado radiation oncologist took an 8-week stress management and resiliency course, but the feelings kept creeping back.

Still, Dr. Peddada, in his own private practice, pushed through, working 60-hour weeks and carrying the workload of two physicians. It wasn’t until he caught himself making uncharacteristic medical errors, including radiation planning for the wrong site, that he knew he needed help – and possibly a temporary break from medicine.

There was just one hitch: He was closing his private practice to start a new in-house job with Centura Health, the Colorado Springs hospital he’d contracted with for over 20 years.

Given the long-standing relationship – Dr. Peddada’s image graced some of the company’s marketing billboards – he expected Centura would understand when, on his doctor’s recommendation, he requested a short-term medical leave that would delay his start date by 1 month.

Instead, Centura abruptly rescinded the employment offer, leaving Dr. Peddada jobless and with no recourse but to sue.

“I was blindsided. The hospital had a physician resiliency program that claimed to encourage physicians to seek help, [so] I thought they would be completely supportive and understanding,” Dr. Peddada said.

He told this news organization that he was naive to have been so honest with the hospital he’d long served as a contractor, including the decade-plus he›d spent directing its radiation oncology department.

“It is exceedingly painful to see hospital leadership use me in their advertisement[s] ... trying to profit off my reputation and work after devastating my career.”

The lawsuit Dr. Peddada filed in July in Colorado federal district court may offer a rare glimpse of the potential career ramifications of seeking help for physician burnout. Despite employers’ oft-stated support for physician wellness, Dr. Peddada’s experience may serve as a cautionary tale for doctors who are open about their struggles.

Centura Health did not respond to requests for comment. In court documents, the health system’s attorneys asked for more time to respond to Dr. Peddada’s complaint.
 

A plea for help

In the complaint, Dr. Peddada and his attorneys claim that Centura violated the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it failed to offer reasonable accommodations after he began experiencing “physiological and psychological symptoms corresponding to burnout.”

Since 1999, Dr. Peddada had contracted exclusively with Centura to provide oncology services at its hospital, Penrose Cancer Center, and began covering a second Centura location in 2021. As medical director of Penrose’s radiation oncology department, he helped establish a community nurse navigator program and accounted for 75% of Centura’s radiation oncology referrals, according to the complaint.

But when his symptoms and fear for the safety of his patients became unbearable, Dr. Peddada requested an urgent evaluation from his primary care physician, who diagnosed him with “physician burnout” and recommended medical leave.

Shortly after presenting the leave request to Centura, rumors began circulating that he was having a “nervous breakdown,” the complaint noted. Dr. Peddada worried that perhaps his private health information was being shared with hospital employees.

After meeting with the hospital’s head of physician resiliency and agreeing to undergo a peer review evaluation by the Colorado Physician Health Program, which would decide the reinstatement timeline and if further therapy was necessary, Dr. Peddada was assured his leave would be approved.

Five days later, his job offer was revoked.

In an email from hospital leadership, the oncologist was informed that he had “declined employment” by failing to sign a revised employment contract sent to him 2 weeks prior when he was out of state on a preapproved vacation, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Dr. Peddada was wrongfully discharged due to his disability after Centura “exploited [his] extensive patient base, referral network, and reputation to generate growth and profit.”

Colorado employment law attorney Deborah Yim, Esq., who is not involved in Peddada’s case, told this news organization that the ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for physical or mental impairments that substantially limit at least one major life activity, except when the request imposes an undue hardship on the employer.

“Depression and related mental health conditions would qualify, depending on the circumstances, and courts have certainly found them to be qualifying disabilities entitled to ADA protection in the past,” she said.

Not all employers are receptive to doctors’ needs, says the leadership team at Physicians Just Equity, an organization providing peer support to doctors experiencing workplace conflicts like discrimination and retaliation. They say that Dr. Peddada’s experience, where disclosing burnout results in being “ostracized, penalized, and ultimately ousted,” is the rule rather than the exception.

“Dr. Peddada’s case represents the unfortunate reality faced by many physicians in today’s clinical landscape,” the organization’s board of directors said in a written statement. “The imbalance of unreasonable professional demands, the lack of autonomy, moral injury, and disintegrating practice rewards is unsustainable for the medical professional.”

“Retaliation by employers after speaking up against this imbalance [and] requesting support and time to rejuvenate is a grave failure of health care systems that prioritize the business of delivering health care over the health, well-being, and satisfaction of their most valuable resource – the physician,” the board added in their statement.

Dr. Peddada has since closed his private practice and works as an independent contractor and consultant, his attorney, Iris Halpern, JD, said in an interview. She says Centura could have honored the accommodation request or suggested another option that met his needs, but “not only were they unsupportive, they terminated him.” 

Ms. Yim says the parties will have opportunities to reach a settlement and resolve the dispute as the case works through the court system. Otherwise, Dr. Peddada and Centura may eventually head to trial.
 

Current state of physician burnout

The state of physician burnout is certainly a concerning one. More than half (53%) of physicians responding to this year’s Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report said they are burned out. Nearly one-quarter reported feeling depressed. Some of the top reasons they cited were too many bureaucratic tasks (61%), too many work hours (37%), and lack of autonomy (31%).

A 2022 study by the Mayo Clinic found a substantial increase in physician burnout in the first 2 years of the pandemic, with doctors reporting rising emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.

Although burnout affects many physicians and is a priority focus of the National Academy of Medicine’s plan to restore workforce well-being, admitting it is often seen as taboo and can imperil a doctor’s career. In the Medscape report, for example, 39% of physicians said they would not even consider professional treatment for burnout, with many commenting that they would just deal with it themselves.

“Many physicians are frightened to take time out for self-care because [they] fear losing their job, being stigmatized, and potentially ending their careers,” said Dr. Peddada, adding that physicians are commonly asked questions about their mental health when applying for hospital privileges. He says this dynamic forces them to choose between getting help or ignoring their true feelings, leading to poor quality of care and patient safety risks.

Medical licensing boards probe physicians’ mental health, too. As part of its #FightingForDocs campaign, the American Medical Association hopes to remove the stigma around burnout and depression and advocates for licensing boards to revise questions that may discourage physicians from seeking assistance. The AMA recommends that physicians only disclose current physical or mental conditions affecting their ability to practice.

Pringl Miller, MD, founder and executive director of Physician Just Equity, told Medscape that improving physician wellness requires structural change.

“Physicians (who) experience burnout without the proper accommodations run the risk of personal harm, because most physicians will prioritize the health and well-being of their patients over themselves ... [resulting in] suboptimal and unsafe patient care,” she said.
 

Helping doctors regain a sense of purpose

One change involves reframing how the health care industry thinks about and approaches burnout, says Steven Siegel, MD, chief mental health and wellness officer with Keck Medicine of USC. He told this news organization that these discussions should enhance the physician’s sense of purpose. 

“Some people treat burnout as a concrete disorder like cancer, instead of saying, ‘I’m feeling exhausted, demoralized, and don’t enjoy my job anymore. What can we do to restore my enthusiasm for work?’ ”

Dr. Siegel recognizes that these issues existed before the pandemic and have only worsened as physicians feel less connected to and satisfied with their profession – a byproduct, he says, of the commercialization of medicine.

“We’ve moved from practices to systems, then from small to large systems, where it seems the path to survival is cutting costs and increasing margins, even among nonprofits.”
 

The road ahead

Making headway on these problems will take time. Last year, Keck Medicine received a $2 million grant to launch a 3-year randomized clinical trial to help reconnect physicians and other clinicians with their work. Dr. Siegel says the trial may serve as a national pilot program and will eventually grow to include 400 volunteers.

The trial will investigate the effectiveness of three possible interventions: (1) teaching people how to regulate their internal narratives and emotions through techniques like cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy; (2) providing customized EHR training to reduce the burden of navigating the system; and (3) allowing physicians to weigh in on workflow changes. 

“We put physicians on teams that make the decisions about workflows,” said Dr. Siegel. The arrangement can give people the agency they desire and help them understand why an idea might not be plausible, which enriches future suggestions and discussions, he says.

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

By the end of 2021, Anuj Peddada, MD, had hit a wall. He couldn’t sleep, couldn’t concentrate, erupted in anger, and felt isolated personally and professionally. To temper pandemic-driven pressures, the Colorado radiation oncologist took an 8-week stress management and resiliency course, but the feelings kept creeping back.

Still, Dr. Peddada, in his own private practice, pushed through, working 60-hour weeks and carrying the workload of two physicians. It wasn’t until he caught himself making uncharacteristic medical errors, including radiation planning for the wrong site, that he knew he needed help – and possibly a temporary break from medicine.

There was just one hitch: He was closing his private practice to start a new in-house job with Centura Health, the Colorado Springs hospital he’d contracted with for over 20 years.

Given the long-standing relationship – Dr. Peddada’s image graced some of the company’s marketing billboards – he expected Centura would understand when, on his doctor’s recommendation, he requested a short-term medical leave that would delay his start date by 1 month.

Instead, Centura abruptly rescinded the employment offer, leaving Dr. Peddada jobless and with no recourse but to sue.

“I was blindsided. The hospital had a physician resiliency program that claimed to encourage physicians to seek help, [so] I thought they would be completely supportive and understanding,” Dr. Peddada said.

He told this news organization that he was naive to have been so honest with the hospital he’d long served as a contractor, including the decade-plus he›d spent directing its radiation oncology department.

“It is exceedingly painful to see hospital leadership use me in their advertisement[s] ... trying to profit off my reputation and work after devastating my career.”

The lawsuit Dr. Peddada filed in July in Colorado federal district court may offer a rare glimpse of the potential career ramifications of seeking help for physician burnout. Despite employers’ oft-stated support for physician wellness, Dr. Peddada’s experience may serve as a cautionary tale for doctors who are open about their struggles.

Centura Health did not respond to requests for comment. In court documents, the health system’s attorneys asked for more time to respond to Dr. Peddada’s complaint.
 

A plea for help

In the complaint, Dr. Peddada and his attorneys claim that Centura violated the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it failed to offer reasonable accommodations after he began experiencing “physiological and psychological symptoms corresponding to burnout.”

Since 1999, Dr. Peddada had contracted exclusively with Centura to provide oncology services at its hospital, Penrose Cancer Center, and began covering a second Centura location in 2021. As medical director of Penrose’s radiation oncology department, he helped establish a community nurse navigator program and accounted for 75% of Centura’s radiation oncology referrals, according to the complaint.

But when his symptoms and fear for the safety of his patients became unbearable, Dr. Peddada requested an urgent evaluation from his primary care physician, who diagnosed him with “physician burnout” and recommended medical leave.

Shortly after presenting the leave request to Centura, rumors began circulating that he was having a “nervous breakdown,” the complaint noted. Dr. Peddada worried that perhaps his private health information was being shared with hospital employees.

After meeting with the hospital’s head of physician resiliency and agreeing to undergo a peer review evaluation by the Colorado Physician Health Program, which would decide the reinstatement timeline and if further therapy was necessary, Dr. Peddada was assured his leave would be approved.

Five days later, his job offer was revoked.

In an email from hospital leadership, the oncologist was informed that he had “declined employment” by failing to sign a revised employment contract sent to him 2 weeks prior when he was out of state on a preapproved vacation, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Dr. Peddada was wrongfully discharged due to his disability after Centura “exploited [his] extensive patient base, referral network, and reputation to generate growth and profit.”

Colorado employment law attorney Deborah Yim, Esq., who is not involved in Peddada’s case, told this news organization that the ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for physical or mental impairments that substantially limit at least one major life activity, except when the request imposes an undue hardship on the employer.

“Depression and related mental health conditions would qualify, depending on the circumstances, and courts have certainly found them to be qualifying disabilities entitled to ADA protection in the past,” she said.

Not all employers are receptive to doctors’ needs, says the leadership team at Physicians Just Equity, an organization providing peer support to doctors experiencing workplace conflicts like discrimination and retaliation. They say that Dr. Peddada’s experience, where disclosing burnout results in being “ostracized, penalized, and ultimately ousted,” is the rule rather than the exception.

“Dr. Peddada’s case represents the unfortunate reality faced by many physicians in today’s clinical landscape,” the organization’s board of directors said in a written statement. “The imbalance of unreasonable professional demands, the lack of autonomy, moral injury, and disintegrating practice rewards is unsustainable for the medical professional.”

“Retaliation by employers after speaking up against this imbalance [and] requesting support and time to rejuvenate is a grave failure of health care systems that prioritize the business of delivering health care over the health, well-being, and satisfaction of their most valuable resource – the physician,” the board added in their statement.

Dr. Peddada has since closed his private practice and works as an independent contractor and consultant, his attorney, Iris Halpern, JD, said in an interview. She says Centura could have honored the accommodation request or suggested another option that met his needs, but “not only were they unsupportive, they terminated him.” 

Ms. Yim says the parties will have opportunities to reach a settlement and resolve the dispute as the case works through the court system. Otherwise, Dr. Peddada and Centura may eventually head to trial.
 

Current state of physician burnout

The state of physician burnout is certainly a concerning one. More than half (53%) of physicians responding to this year’s Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report said they are burned out. Nearly one-quarter reported feeling depressed. Some of the top reasons they cited were too many bureaucratic tasks (61%), too many work hours (37%), and lack of autonomy (31%).

A 2022 study by the Mayo Clinic found a substantial increase in physician burnout in the first 2 years of the pandemic, with doctors reporting rising emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.

Although burnout affects many physicians and is a priority focus of the National Academy of Medicine’s plan to restore workforce well-being, admitting it is often seen as taboo and can imperil a doctor’s career. In the Medscape report, for example, 39% of physicians said they would not even consider professional treatment for burnout, with many commenting that they would just deal with it themselves.

“Many physicians are frightened to take time out for self-care because [they] fear losing their job, being stigmatized, and potentially ending their careers,” said Dr. Peddada, adding that physicians are commonly asked questions about their mental health when applying for hospital privileges. He says this dynamic forces them to choose between getting help or ignoring their true feelings, leading to poor quality of care and patient safety risks.

Medical licensing boards probe physicians’ mental health, too. As part of its #FightingForDocs campaign, the American Medical Association hopes to remove the stigma around burnout and depression and advocates for licensing boards to revise questions that may discourage physicians from seeking assistance. The AMA recommends that physicians only disclose current physical or mental conditions affecting their ability to practice.

Pringl Miller, MD, founder and executive director of Physician Just Equity, told Medscape that improving physician wellness requires structural change.

“Physicians (who) experience burnout without the proper accommodations run the risk of personal harm, because most physicians will prioritize the health and well-being of their patients over themselves ... [resulting in] suboptimal and unsafe patient care,” she said.
 

Helping doctors regain a sense of purpose

One change involves reframing how the health care industry thinks about and approaches burnout, says Steven Siegel, MD, chief mental health and wellness officer with Keck Medicine of USC. He told this news organization that these discussions should enhance the physician’s sense of purpose. 

“Some people treat burnout as a concrete disorder like cancer, instead of saying, ‘I’m feeling exhausted, demoralized, and don’t enjoy my job anymore. What can we do to restore my enthusiasm for work?’ ”

Dr. Siegel recognizes that these issues existed before the pandemic and have only worsened as physicians feel less connected to and satisfied with their profession – a byproduct, he says, of the commercialization of medicine.

“We’ve moved from practices to systems, then from small to large systems, where it seems the path to survival is cutting costs and increasing margins, even among nonprofits.”
 

The road ahead

Making headway on these problems will take time. Last year, Keck Medicine received a $2 million grant to launch a 3-year randomized clinical trial to help reconnect physicians and other clinicians with their work. Dr. Siegel says the trial may serve as a national pilot program and will eventually grow to include 400 volunteers.

The trial will investigate the effectiveness of three possible interventions: (1) teaching people how to regulate their internal narratives and emotions through techniques like cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy; (2) providing customized EHR training to reduce the burden of navigating the system; and (3) allowing physicians to weigh in on workflow changes. 

“We put physicians on teams that make the decisions about workflows,” said Dr. Siegel. The arrangement can give people the agency they desire and help them understand why an idea might not be plausible, which enriches future suggestions and discussions, he says.

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

By the end of 2021, Anuj Peddada, MD, had hit a wall. He couldn’t sleep, couldn’t concentrate, erupted in anger, and felt isolated personally and professionally. To temper pandemic-driven pressures, the Colorado radiation oncologist took an 8-week stress management and resiliency course, but the feelings kept creeping back.

Still, Dr. Peddada, in his own private practice, pushed through, working 60-hour weeks and carrying the workload of two physicians. It wasn’t until he caught himself making uncharacteristic medical errors, including radiation planning for the wrong site, that he knew he needed help – and possibly a temporary break from medicine.

There was just one hitch: He was closing his private practice to start a new in-house job with Centura Health, the Colorado Springs hospital he’d contracted with for over 20 years.

Given the long-standing relationship – Dr. Peddada’s image graced some of the company’s marketing billboards – he expected Centura would understand when, on his doctor’s recommendation, he requested a short-term medical leave that would delay his start date by 1 month.

Instead, Centura abruptly rescinded the employment offer, leaving Dr. Peddada jobless and with no recourse but to sue.

“I was blindsided. The hospital had a physician resiliency program that claimed to encourage physicians to seek help, [so] I thought they would be completely supportive and understanding,” Dr. Peddada said.

He told this news organization that he was naive to have been so honest with the hospital he’d long served as a contractor, including the decade-plus he›d spent directing its radiation oncology department.

“It is exceedingly painful to see hospital leadership use me in their advertisement[s] ... trying to profit off my reputation and work after devastating my career.”

The lawsuit Dr. Peddada filed in July in Colorado federal district court may offer a rare glimpse of the potential career ramifications of seeking help for physician burnout. Despite employers’ oft-stated support for physician wellness, Dr. Peddada’s experience may serve as a cautionary tale for doctors who are open about their struggles.

Centura Health did not respond to requests for comment. In court documents, the health system’s attorneys asked for more time to respond to Dr. Peddada’s complaint.
 

A plea for help

In the complaint, Dr. Peddada and his attorneys claim that Centura violated the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it failed to offer reasonable accommodations after he began experiencing “physiological and psychological symptoms corresponding to burnout.”

Since 1999, Dr. Peddada had contracted exclusively with Centura to provide oncology services at its hospital, Penrose Cancer Center, and began covering a second Centura location in 2021. As medical director of Penrose’s radiation oncology department, he helped establish a community nurse navigator program and accounted for 75% of Centura’s radiation oncology referrals, according to the complaint.

But when his symptoms and fear for the safety of his patients became unbearable, Dr. Peddada requested an urgent evaluation from his primary care physician, who diagnosed him with “physician burnout” and recommended medical leave.

Shortly after presenting the leave request to Centura, rumors began circulating that he was having a “nervous breakdown,” the complaint noted. Dr. Peddada worried that perhaps his private health information was being shared with hospital employees.

After meeting with the hospital’s head of physician resiliency and agreeing to undergo a peer review evaluation by the Colorado Physician Health Program, which would decide the reinstatement timeline and if further therapy was necessary, Dr. Peddada was assured his leave would be approved.

Five days later, his job offer was revoked.

In an email from hospital leadership, the oncologist was informed that he had “declined employment” by failing to sign a revised employment contract sent to him 2 weeks prior when he was out of state on a preapproved vacation, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Dr. Peddada was wrongfully discharged due to his disability after Centura “exploited [his] extensive patient base, referral network, and reputation to generate growth and profit.”

Colorado employment law attorney Deborah Yim, Esq., who is not involved in Peddada’s case, told this news organization that the ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for physical or mental impairments that substantially limit at least one major life activity, except when the request imposes an undue hardship on the employer.

“Depression and related mental health conditions would qualify, depending on the circumstances, and courts have certainly found them to be qualifying disabilities entitled to ADA protection in the past,” she said.

Not all employers are receptive to doctors’ needs, says the leadership team at Physicians Just Equity, an organization providing peer support to doctors experiencing workplace conflicts like discrimination and retaliation. They say that Dr. Peddada’s experience, where disclosing burnout results in being “ostracized, penalized, and ultimately ousted,” is the rule rather than the exception.

“Dr. Peddada’s case represents the unfortunate reality faced by many physicians in today’s clinical landscape,” the organization’s board of directors said in a written statement. “The imbalance of unreasonable professional demands, the lack of autonomy, moral injury, and disintegrating practice rewards is unsustainable for the medical professional.”

“Retaliation by employers after speaking up against this imbalance [and] requesting support and time to rejuvenate is a grave failure of health care systems that prioritize the business of delivering health care over the health, well-being, and satisfaction of their most valuable resource – the physician,” the board added in their statement.

Dr. Peddada has since closed his private practice and works as an independent contractor and consultant, his attorney, Iris Halpern, JD, said in an interview. She says Centura could have honored the accommodation request or suggested another option that met his needs, but “not only were they unsupportive, they terminated him.” 

Ms. Yim says the parties will have opportunities to reach a settlement and resolve the dispute as the case works through the court system. Otherwise, Dr. Peddada and Centura may eventually head to trial.
 

Current state of physician burnout

The state of physician burnout is certainly a concerning one. More than half (53%) of physicians responding to this year’s Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report said they are burned out. Nearly one-quarter reported feeling depressed. Some of the top reasons they cited were too many bureaucratic tasks (61%), too many work hours (37%), and lack of autonomy (31%).

A 2022 study by the Mayo Clinic found a substantial increase in physician burnout in the first 2 years of the pandemic, with doctors reporting rising emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.

Although burnout affects many physicians and is a priority focus of the National Academy of Medicine’s plan to restore workforce well-being, admitting it is often seen as taboo and can imperil a doctor’s career. In the Medscape report, for example, 39% of physicians said they would not even consider professional treatment for burnout, with many commenting that they would just deal with it themselves.

“Many physicians are frightened to take time out for self-care because [they] fear losing their job, being stigmatized, and potentially ending their careers,” said Dr. Peddada, adding that physicians are commonly asked questions about their mental health when applying for hospital privileges. He says this dynamic forces them to choose between getting help or ignoring their true feelings, leading to poor quality of care and patient safety risks.

Medical licensing boards probe physicians’ mental health, too. As part of its #FightingForDocs campaign, the American Medical Association hopes to remove the stigma around burnout and depression and advocates for licensing boards to revise questions that may discourage physicians from seeking assistance. The AMA recommends that physicians only disclose current physical or mental conditions affecting their ability to practice.

Pringl Miller, MD, founder and executive director of Physician Just Equity, told Medscape that improving physician wellness requires structural change.

“Physicians (who) experience burnout without the proper accommodations run the risk of personal harm, because most physicians will prioritize the health and well-being of their patients over themselves ... [resulting in] suboptimal and unsafe patient care,” she said.
 

Helping doctors regain a sense of purpose

One change involves reframing how the health care industry thinks about and approaches burnout, says Steven Siegel, MD, chief mental health and wellness officer with Keck Medicine of USC. He told this news organization that these discussions should enhance the physician’s sense of purpose. 

“Some people treat burnout as a concrete disorder like cancer, instead of saying, ‘I’m feeling exhausted, demoralized, and don’t enjoy my job anymore. What can we do to restore my enthusiasm for work?’ ”

Dr. Siegel recognizes that these issues existed before the pandemic and have only worsened as physicians feel less connected to and satisfied with their profession – a byproduct, he says, of the commercialization of medicine.

“We’ve moved from practices to systems, then from small to large systems, where it seems the path to survival is cutting costs and increasing margins, even among nonprofits.”
 

The road ahead

Making headway on these problems will take time. Last year, Keck Medicine received a $2 million grant to launch a 3-year randomized clinical trial to help reconnect physicians and other clinicians with their work. Dr. Siegel says the trial may serve as a national pilot program and will eventually grow to include 400 volunteers.

The trial will investigate the effectiveness of three possible interventions: (1) teaching people how to regulate their internal narratives and emotions through techniques like cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy; (2) providing customized EHR training to reduce the burden of navigating the system; and (3) allowing physicians to weigh in on workflow changes. 

“We put physicians on teams that make the decisions about workflows,” said Dr. Siegel. The arrangement can give people the agency they desire and help them understand why an idea might not be plausible, which enriches future suggestions and discussions, he says.

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

The Barbie movie is generating a lot of feelings, ranging from praise to vitriol. However one feels about the movie, let’s all pause and reflect for a moment on the fact that the number-one grossing film of 2023 is about our childhood doll trying to treat her anxiety disorder.

Eva Ritvo

“Life imitates art more than art imitates life.” So said Oscar Wilde in 1889.

When my adult daughter, a childhood Barbie enthusiast, asked me to see the film, we put on pink and went. Twice. Little did I know that it would stir up so many thoughts and feelings. The one I want to share is how blessed I feel at this moment in time to be a mental health care provider! No longer is mental health something to be whispered about at the water cooler; instead, even Barbie is suffering. And with all the controversy in the press about the movie, no one seems at all surprised by this storyline.

I was raised by two child psychiatrists and have been practicing as an adult psychiatrist since 1991. The start of the pandemic was the most difficult time of my career, as almost every patient was struggling simultaneously, as was I. Three long years later, we are gradually emerging from our shared trauma. How ironic, now with the opportunity to go back to work, I have elected to maintain the majority of my practice online from home. It seems that most patients and providers prefer this mode of treatment, with a full 90 percent of practitioners saying they are using a hybrid model.

As mental health professionals, we know that anywhere from 3% to 49% of those experiencing trauma will develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and we have been trained to treat them.

But what happens when an entire global population is exposed simultaneously to trauma? Historians and social scientists refer to such events by many different names, such as: Singularity, Black Swan Event, and Tipping Point. These events are incredibly rare, and afterwards everything is different. These global traumas always lead to massive change.

I think we are at that tipping point. This is the singularity. This is our Black Swan Event. Within a 3-year span, we have experienced the following:

• A global traumatic event (COVID-19).
• A sudden and seemingly permanent shift from office to remote video meetings mostly from home.
• Upending of traditional fundamentals of the stock market as the game literally stopped in January 2021.
• Rapid and widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence.
• The first generation to be fully raised on the Internet and social media (Gen Z) is now entering the workforce.
• Ongoing war in Ukraine.

That’s already an overwhelming list, and I could go on, but let’s get back to Barbie’s anxiety disorder.

The awareness about and acceptance of mental health issues has never been higher. The access to treatment never greater. There are now more online therapy options than ever. Treatment options have dramatically expanded in recent years, from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to ketamine centers and psychedelics, as well as more mainstream options such as dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and so many more.

What is particularly unique about this moment is the direct access to care. Self-help books abound with many making it to the New York Times bestseller list. YouTube is loaded with fantastic content on overcoming many mental health issues, although one should be careful with selecting reliable sources. Apps like HeadSpace and Calm are being downloaded by millions of people around the globe. Investors provided a record-breaking $1.5 billion to mental health startups in 2020 alone.

For most practitioners, our phones have been ringing off the hook since 2020. Applications to psychology, psychiatric residency, social work, and counseling degree programs are on the rise, with workforce shortages expected to continue for decades. Psychological expertise has been embraced by businesses especially for DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Mental health experts are the most asked-for experts through media request services. Elite athletes are talking openly about bringing us on their teams.

In this unique moment, when everything seems set to transform into something else, it is time for mental health professionals to exert some agency and influence over where mental health will go from here. I think the next frontier for mental health specialists is to figure out how to speak collectively and help guide society.

Neil Howe, in his sweeping book “The Fourth Turning is Here,” says we have another 10 years in this “Millennial Crisis” phase. He calls this our “winter,” and it remains to be seen how we will emerge from our current challenges. I think we can make a difference.

If the Barbie movie is indeed a canary in the coal mine, I see positive trends ahead as we move past some of the societal and structural issues facing us, and work together to create a more open and egalitarian society. We must find creative solutions that will solve truly massive problems threatening our well-being and perhaps even our existence.

There has never been a better time to be (or become!) a mental health professional. I am so grateful to be able to continue to practice and share my thoughts with you here from my home office, and I hope you can take a break and see this movie, which is not only entertaining but also thought- and emotion-provoking.

Dr. Ritvo has almost 30 years’ experience in psychiatry and is currently practicing telemedicine. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.

The Barbie movie is generating a lot of feelings, ranging from praise to vitriol. However one feels about the movie, let’s all pause and reflect for a moment on the fact that the number-one grossing film of 2023 is about our childhood doll trying to treat her anxiety disorder.

Eva Ritvo

“Life imitates art more than art imitates life.” So said Oscar Wilde in 1889.

When my adult daughter, a childhood Barbie enthusiast, asked me to see the film, we put on pink and went. Twice. Little did I know that it would stir up so many thoughts and feelings. The one I want to share is how blessed I feel at this moment in time to be a mental health care provider! No longer is mental health something to be whispered about at the water cooler; instead, even Barbie is suffering. And with all the controversy in the press about the movie, no one seems at all surprised by this storyline.

I was raised by two child psychiatrists and have been practicing as an adult psychiatrist since 1991. The start of the pandemic was the most difficult time of my career, as almost every patient was struggling simultaneously, as was I. Three long years later, we are gradually emerging from our shared trauma. How ironic, now with the opportunity to go back to work, I have elected to maintain the majority of my practice online from home. It seems that most patients and providers prefer this mode of treatment, with a full 90 percent of practitioners saying they are using a hybrid model.

As mental health professionals, we know that anywhere from 3% to 49% of those experiencing trauma will develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and we have been trained to treat them.

But what happens when an entire global population is exposed simultaneously to trauma? Historians and social scientists refer to such events by many different names, such as: Singularity, Black Swan Event, and Tipping Point. These events are incredibly rare, and afterwards everything is different. These global traumas always lead to massive change.

I think we are at that tipping point. This is the singularity. This is our Black Swan Event. Within a 3-year span, we have experienced the following:

• A global traumatic event (COVID-19).
• A sudden and seemingly permanent shift from office to remote video meetings mostly from home.
• Upending of traditional fundamentals of the stock market as the game literally stopped in January 2021.
• Rapid and widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence.
• The first generation to be fully raised on the Internet and social media (Gen Z) is now entering the workforce.
• Ongoing war in Ukraine.

That’s already an overwhelming list, and I could go on, but let’s get back to Barbie’s anxiety disorder.

The awareness about and acceptance of mental health issues has never been higher. The access to treatment never greater. There are now more online therapy options than ever. Treatment options have dramatically expanded in recent years, from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to ketamine centers and psychedelics, as well as more mainstream options such as dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and so many more.

What is particularly unique about this moment is the direct access to care. Self-help books abound with many making it to the New York Times bestseller list. YouTube is loaded with fantastic content on overcoming many mental health issues, although one should be careful with selecting reliable sources. Apps like HeadSpace and Calm are being downloaded by millions of people around the globe. Investors provided a record-breaking $1.5 billion to mental health startups in 2020 alone.

For most practitioners, our phones have been ringing off the hook since 2020. Applications to psychology, psychiatric residency, social work, and counseling degree programs are on the rise, with workforce shortages expected to continue for decades. Psychological expertise has been embraced by businesses especially for DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Mental health experts are the most asked-for experts through media request services. Elite athletes are talking openly about bringing us on their teams.

In this unique moment, when everything seems set to transform into something else, it is time for mental health professionals to exert some agency and influence over where mental health will go from here. I think the next frontier for mental health specialists is to figure out how to speak collectively and help guide society.

Neil Howe, in his sweeping book “The Fourth Turning is Here,” says we have another 10 years in this “Millennial Crisis” phase. He calls this our “winter,” and it remains to be seen how we will emerge from our current challenges. I think we can make a difference.

If the Barbie movie is indeed a canary in the coal mine, I see positive trends ahead as we move past some of the societal and structural issues facing us, and work together to create a more open and egalitarian society. We must find creative solutions that will solve truly massive problems threatening our well-being and perhaps even our existence.

There has never been a better time to be (or become!) a mental health professional. I am so grateful to be able to continue to practice and share my thoughts with you here from my home office, and I hope you can take a break and see this movie, which is not only entertaining but also thought- and emotion-provoking.

Dr. Ritvo has almost 30 years’ experience in psychiatry and is currently practicing telemedicine. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.

The Barbie movie is generating a lot of feelings, ranging from praise to vitriol. However one feels about the movie, let’s all pause and reflect for a moment on the fact that the number-one grossing film of 2023 is about our childhood doll trying to treat her anxiety disorder.

Eva Ritvo

“Life imitates art more than art imitates life.” So said Oscar Wilde in 1889.

When my adult daughter, a childhood Barbie enthusiast, asked me to see the film, we put on pink and went. Twice. Little did I know that it would stir up so many thoughts and feelings. The one I want to share is how blessed I feel at this moment in time to be a mental health care provider! No longer is mental health something to be whispered about at the water cooler; instead, even Barbie is suffering. And with all the controversy in the press about the movie, no one seems at all surprised by this storyline.

I was raised by two child psychiatrists and have been practicing as an adult psychiatrist since 1991. The start of the pandemic was the most difficult time of my career, as almost every patient was struggling simultaneously, as was I. Three long years later, we are gradually emerging from our shared trauma. How ironic, now with the opportunity to go back to work, I have elected to maintain the majority of my practice online from home. It seems that most patients and providers prefer this mode of treatment, with a full 90 percent of practitioners saying they are using a hybrid model.

As mental health professionals, we know that anywhere from 3% to 49% of those experiencing trauma will develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and we have been trained to treat them.

But what happens when an entire global population is exposed simultaneously to trauma? Historians and social scientists refer to such events by many different names, such as: Singularity, Black Swan Event, and Tipping Point. These events are incredibly rare, and afterwards everything is different. These global traumas always lead to massive change.

I think we are at that tipping point. This is the singularity. This is our Black Swan Event. Within a 3-year span, we have experienced the following:

• A global traumatic event (COVID-19).
• A sudden and seemingly permanent shift from office to remote video meetings mostly from home.
• Upending of traditional fundamentals of the stock market as the game literally stopped in January 2021.
• Rapid and widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence.
• The first generation to be fully raised on the Internet and social media (Gen Z) is now entering the workforce.
• Ongoing war in Ukraine.

That’s already an overwhelming list, and I could go on, but let’s get back to Barbie’s anxiety disorder.

The awareness about and acceptance of mental health issues has never been higher. The access to treatment never greater. There are now more online therapy options than ever. Treatment options have dramatically expanded in recent years, from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to ketamine centers and psychedelics, as well as more mainstream options such as dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and so many more.

What is particularly unique about this moment is the direct access to care. Self-help books abound with many making it to the New York Times bestseller list. YouTube is loaded with fantastic content on overcoming many mental health issues, although one should be careful with selecting reliable sources. Apps like HeadSpace and Calm are being downloaded by millions of people around the globe. Investors provided a record-breaking $1.5 billion to mental health startups in 2020 alone.

For most practitioners, our phones have been ringing off the hook since 2020. Applications to psychology, psychiatric residency, social work, and counseling degree programs are on the rise, with workforce shortages expected to continue for decades. Psychological expertise has been embraced by businesses especially for DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). Mental health experts are the most asked-for experts through media request services. Elite athletes are talking openly about bringing us on their teams.

In this unique moment, when everything seems set to transform into something else, it is time for mental health professionals to exert some agency and influence over where mental health will go from here. I think the next frontier for mental health specialists is to figure out how to speak collectively and help guide society.

Neil Howe, in his sweeping book “The Fourth Turning is Here,” says we have another 10 years in this “Millennial Crisis” phase. He calls this our “winter,” and it remains to be seen how we will emerge from our current challenges. I think we can make a difference.

If the Barbie movie is indeed a canary in the coal mine, I see positive trends ahead as we move past some of the societal and structural issues facing us, and work together to create a more open and egalitarian society. We must find creative solutions that will solve truly massive problems threatening our well-being and perhaps even our existence.

There has never been a better time to be (or become!) a mental health professional. I am so grateful to be able to continue to practice and share my thoughts with you here from my home office, and I hope you can take a break and see this movie, which is not only entertaining but also thought- and emotion-provoking.

Dr. Ritvo has almost 30 years’ experience in psychiatry and is currently practicing telemedicine. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.

Moderna says its upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should work against the BA.2.86 variant that has caused worry about a possible surge in cases.

“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.

“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.

The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.

BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.

The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.

Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.

COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants. 

Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna says its upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should work against the BA.2.86 variant that has caused worry about a possible surge in cases.

“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.

“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.

The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.

BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.

The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.

Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.

COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants. 

Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna says its upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should work against the BA.2.86 variant that has caused worry about a possible surge in cases.

“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.

“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.

The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.

BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.

The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.

Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.

COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants. 

Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

AMSTERDAM – At the Radical Health Festival Helsinki this past June, Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, was challenged by a young man when he dared to look into the crystal ball. “In the middle of my presentation, a maybe 25-year-old man stood up and said, ‘Dr. Hindricks, in 10 years, we will no longer need you!’ ” Dr. Hindricks noted at the great debate event “Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Cardiologists?” held at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He subsequently had an interesting discussion with the man. In his opinion, the future role of the physician is “an unavoidable discussion for cardiovascular medicine.”

Dr. Hindricks, from the University of Leipzig (Germany), considered artificial intelligence in cardiology to be “potentially the most important topic of the congress” and suggested that “we have to be more open to introducing new technologies into our practice. I sometimes have the impression that we are neither quick nor open enough to introducing new technologies, to leaving the old and to letting the new, better technology be effective in our patients.”
 

Asset or threat?

AI is dramatically changing the field and the role of the physician – but it is not making cardiologists superfluous. In this respect, Dr. Hindricks; Folkert Asselbergs, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Amsterdam Heart Center; and Harriette Van Spall, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., were unanimous: They agreed, although they assess the opportunities and risks posed by AI differently.

Dr. Asselbergs saw AI as less of a threat and more of an asset. In his opinion, a cardiology-specific speech model could be used to the advantage of both patient and physician. A medical chatbot could offer patients information and suggested readings, and it could create the patient’s self-reported medical history and medical summaries for laypersons.

For physicians, a medical chatbot could be beneficial in the creation of patient reports, the selection of relevant literature, the creation of automated laboratory orders, the review of clinical discharge reports, for consultations, and for processing the consultations, as well as for complying with guidelines.

Dr. Asselbergs considered AI’s primary advantage to be the time that it saves, which can then be used “for complex interventions, palliative care, and acute treatment.”

The advantages of AI, he said, include the following:

• Efficiency and scale of AI in data analysis
• Automation
• AI does not get tired and is not biased
• Proactive health care provision and early intervention
• Reduction in health care costs
• Remains up to date with the latest knowledge.

He sees the following disadvantages:

• Lack of human contact, empathy, and the physician-patient relationship
• Ethical implications and challenges
• The potential for AI to make incorrect diagnoses or to be influenced by bias in the training data.

Medical supervision needed

For Dr. Van Spall, AI is primarily a tool. A generative AI could create useful materials such as images, videos, text, sound, 3D models, virtual environments, notes for clinical visits, medical summaries, and answers to clinical queries. But “the use of AI can lead to misinformation and expose the patient to risk, and there are no laws regulating liability.”

Dr. Van Spall stressed that AI could greatly increase efficiency. For example, in echocardiography, chamber volumes and function can be quantified automatically. ECGs can be interpreted automatically. “Even the workload associated with reading off of screens can be reduced, compared with unsupported reading.” However, she maintained that the use of AI requires medical supervision. “AI cannot function without cardiologists,” since it has “enormous limitations.” Dr. Van Spall does not see “any way to close the gaps that cardiologists may leave in terms of knowledge, service, and communication.”

According to the American College of Cardiology, 26% of the 32,000 cardiologists in the United States are older than 61 years. “That is a net loss of 546 cardiologists per year. We must use AI to support cardiologists, not to replace them,” said Dr. Van Spall.
 

Cardiologists becoming supervisors?

Dr. Asselbergs saw AI as a means of creating more equality. “Nearly everyone now has a smartphone. Let’s take ultrasound via AI as an example. There are rural areas that have no access to health care. If nurses or dietitians there create an ultrasound based on AI and send pictures for medical analysis, it will really help people.”

Dr. Hindricks hypothesized that machine learning and AI will make a huge difference in the field of rare diseases. Rare diseases are massively underdiagnosed simply because they are so rare and it requires a lot of experience to recognize them. “Digital elements can significantly support this,” said Dr. Hindricks.

For Dr. Van Spall, AI could make care and treatment safer. There will be more digital tools and virtual models available during training too. “I believe that the cardiologist will continue to occupy an important role, in terms of communication and processes. I do not see this role disappearing,” she said. Efficiency and precision are so important. “To make good decisions, we also want to get in touch with the person we trust.”

For Dr. Asselbergs, the role of cardiologists will change to one of a supervisor. “More joint decision-making, more discussion with our patients: I think this is the direction we’re heading in.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition.

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

AMSTERDAM – At the Radical Health Festival Helsinki this past June, Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, was challenged by a young man when he dared to look into the crystal ball. “In the middle of my presentation, a maybe 25-year-old man stood up and said, ‘Dr. Hindricks, in 10 years, we will no longer need you!’ ” Dr. Hindricks noted at the great debate event “Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Cardiologists?” held at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He subsequently had an interesting discussion with the man. In his opinion, the future role of the physician is “an unavoidable discussion for cardiovascular medicine.”

Dr. Hindricks, from the University of Leipzig (Germany), considered artificial intelligence in cardiology to be “potentially the most important topic of the congress” and suggested that “we have to be more open to introducing new technologies into our practice. I sometimes have the impression that we are neither quick nor open enough to introducing new technologies, to leaving the old and to letting the new, better technology be effective in our patients.”
 

Asset or threat?

AI is dramatically changing the field and the role of the physician – but it is not making cardiologists superfluous. In this respect, Dr. Hindricks; Folkert Asselbergs, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Amsterdam Heart Center; and Harriette Van Spall, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., were unanimous: They agreed, although they assess the opportunities and risks posed by AI differently.

Dr. Asselbergs saw AI as less of a threat and more of an asset. In his opinion, a cardiology-specific speech model could be used to the advantage of both patient and physician. A medical chatbot could offer patients information and suggested readings, and it could create the patient’s self-reported medical history and medical summaries for laypersons.

For physicians, a medical chatbot could be beneficial in the creation of patient reports, the selection of relevant literature, the creation of automated laboratory orders, the review of clinical discharge reports, for consultations, and for processing the consultations, as well as for complying with guidelines.

Dr. Asselbergs considered AI’s primary advantage to be the time that it saves, which can then be used “for complex interventions, palliative care, and acute treatment.”

The advantages of AI, he said, include the following:

• Efficiency and scale of AI in data analysis
• Automation
• AI does not get tired and is not biased
• Proactive health care provision and early intervention
• Reduction in health care costs
• Remains up to date with the latest knowledge.

He sees the following disadvantages:

• Lack of human contact, empathy, and the physician-patient relationship
• Ethical implications and challenges
• The potential for AI to make incorrect diagnoses or to be influenced by bias in the training data.

Medical supervision needed

For Dr. Van Spall, AI is primarily a tool. A generative AI could create useful materials such as images, videos, text, sound, 3D models, virtual environments, notes for clinical visits, medical summaries, and answers to clinical queries. But “the use of AI can lead to misinformation and expose the patient to risk, and there are no laws regulating liability.”

Dr. Van Spall stressed that AI could greatly increase efficiency. For example, in echocardiography, chamber volumes and function can be quantified automatically. ECGs can be interpreted automatically. “Even the workload associated with reading off of screens can be reduced, compared with unsupported reading.” However, she maintained that the use of AI requires medical supervision. “AI cannot function without cardiologists,” since it has “enormous limitations.” Dr. Van Spall does not see “any way to close the gaps that cardiologists may leave in terms of knowledge, service, and communication.”

According to the American College of Cardiology, 26% of the 32,000 cardiologists in the United States are older than 61 years. “That is a net loss of 546 cardiologists per year. We must use AI to support cardiologists, not to replace them,” said Dr. Van Spall.
 

Cardiologists becoming supervisors?

Dr. Asselbergs saw AI as a means of creating more equality. “Nearly everyone now has a smartphone. Let’s take ultrasound via AI as an example. There are rural areas that have no access to health care. If nurses or dietitians there create an ultrasound based on AI and send pictures for medical analysis, it will really help people.”

Dr. Hindricks hypothesized that machine learning and AI will make a huge difference in the field of rare diseases. Rare diseases are massively underdiagnosed simply because they are so rare and it requires a lot of experience to recognize them. “Digital elements can significantly support this,” said Dr. Hindricks.

For Dr. Van Spall, AI could make care and treatment safer. There will be more digital tools and virtual models available during training too. “I believe that the cardiologist will continue to occupy an important role, in terms of communication and processes. I do not see this role disappearing,” she said. Efficiency and precision are so important. “To make good decisions, we also want to get in touch with the person we trust.”

For Dr. Asselbergs, the role of cardiologists will change to one of a supervisor. “More joint decision-making, more discussion with our patients: I think this is the direction we’re heading in.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition.

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

AMSTERDAM – At the Radical Health Festival Helsinki this past June, Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, was challenged by a young man when he dared to look into the crystal ball. “In the middle of my presentation, a maybe 25-year-old man stood up and said, ‘Dr. Hindricks, in 10 years, we will no longer need you!’ ” Dr. Hindricks noted at the great debate event “Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Cardiologists?” held at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He subsequently had an interesting discussion with the man. In his opinion, the future role of the physician is “an unavoidable discussion for cardiovascular medicine.”

Dr. Hindricks, from the University of Leipzig (Germany), considered artificial intelligence in cardiology to be “potentially the most important topic of the congress” and suggested that “we have to be more open to introducing new technologies into our practice. I sometimes have the impression that we are neither quick nor open enough to introducing new technologies, to leaving the old and to letting the new, better technology be effective in our patients.”
 

Asset or threat?

AI is dramatically changing the field and the role of the physician – but it is not making cardiologists superfluous. In this respect, Dr. Hindricks; Folkert Asselbergs, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Amsterdam Heart Center; and Harriette Van Spall, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., were unanimous: They agreed, although they assess the opportunities and risks posed by AI differently.

Dr. Asselbergs saw AI as less of a threat and more of an asset. In his opinion, a cardiology-specific speech model could be used to the advantage of both patient and physician. A medical chatbot could offer patients information and suggested readings, and it could create the patient’s self-reported medical history and medical summaries for laypersons.

For physicians, a medical chatbot could be beneficial in the creation of patient reports, the selection of relevant literature, the creation of automated laboratory orders, the review of clinical discharge reports, for consultations, and for processing the consultations, as well as for complying with guidelines.

Dr. Asselbergs considered AI’s primary advantage to be the time that it saves, which can then be used “for complex interventions, palliative care, and acute treatment.”

The advantages of AI, he said, include the following:

• Efficiency and scale of AI in data analysis
• Automation
• AI does not get tired and is not biased
• Proactive health care provision and early intervention
• Reduction in health care costs
• Remains up to date with the latest knowledge.

He sees the following disadvantages:

• Lack of human contact, empathy, and the physician-patient relationship
• Ethical implications and challenges
• The potential for AI to make incorrect diagnoses or to be influenced by bias in the training data.

Medical supervision needed

For Dr. Van Spall, AI is primarily a tool. A generative AI could create useful materials such as images, videos, text, sound, 3D models, virtual environments, notes for clinical visits, medical summaries, and answers to clinical queries. But “the use of AI can lead to misinformation and expose the patient to risk, and there are no laws regulating liability.”

Dr. Van Spall stressed that AI could greatly increase efficiency. For example, in echocardiography, chamber volumes and function can be quantified automatically. ECGs can be interpreted automatically. “Even the workload associated with reading off of screens can be reduced, compared with unsupported reading.” However, she maintained that the use of AI requires medical supervision. “AI cannot function without cardiologists,” since it has “enormous limitations.” Dr. Van Spall does not see “any way to close the gaps that cardiologists may leave in terms of knowledge, service, and communication.”

According to the American College of Cardiology, 26% of the 32,000 cardiologists in the United States are older than 61 years. “That is a net loss of 546 cardiologists per year. We must use AI to support cardiologists, not to replace them,” said Dr. Van Spall.
 

Cardiologists becoming supervisors?

Dr. Asselbergs saw AI as a means of creating more equality. “Nearly everyone now has a smartphone. Let’s take ultrasound via AI as an example. There are rural areas that have no access to health care. If nurses or dietitians there create an ultrasound based on AI and send pictures for medical analysis, it will really help people.”

Dr. Hindricks hypothesized that machine learning and AI will make a huge difference in the field of rare diseases. Rare diseases are massively underdiagnosed simply because they are so rare and it requires a lot of experience to recognize them. “Digital elements can significantly support this,” said Dr. Hindricks.

For Dr. Van Spall, AI could make care and treatment safer. There will be more digital tools and virtual models available during training too. “I believe that the cardiologist will continue to occupy an important role, in terms of communication and processes. I do not see this role disappearing,” she said. Efficiency and precision are so important. “To make good decisions, we also want to get in touch with the person we trust.”

For Dr. Asselbergs, the role of cardiologists will change to one of a supervisor. “More joint decision-making, more discussion with our patients: I think this is the direction we’re heading in.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition.

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

TOPLINE:

Opioid use, older age, and fracture history increase the risk for fractures in older adults with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) based on a review of registry and Medicare claims data.

METHODOLOGY:

• Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry data were linked to Medicare claims from 2016 to 2018; each patient had two AS International Classification of Diseases–9 and –10 codes at least 30 days apart.
• The study population included 1426 adults with AS (mean age, 69.4 years) who had continuous Medicare enrollment (Parts A and B) for the entire follow-up period but did not have Medicare Advantage Plan (Part C).
• The researchers used a logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with fractures including age, sex, and body mass index.

TAKEAWAYS:

• The overall incidence of fractures was 76.7 per 1,000 person-years.
• Older age, history of fracture, and opioid use at a morphine-equivalent dose > 30 mg (at least one prescription 30 or more days prior to the index date) were significantly associated with increased risk for fracture (odds ratios, 2.8, 5.24, and 1.86, respectively).
• Fracture risk was equally likely for men and women.

IN PRACTICE:

The study supports fracture risk-reduction strategies for men and women with AS and a fracture history, with added attention to opioid users.

SOURCE:

The first author of the study was Rachael Stovall, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published Aug. 22, 2023, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study does not include individuals younger than 65 years and references only first fractures. Some EHR data on variables including race, body mass index, national area deprivation index, and smoking status are incomplete.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by various grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

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

TOPLINE:

Opioid use, older age, and fracture history increase the risk for fractures in older adults with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) based on a review of registry and Medicare claims data.

METHODOLOGY:

• Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry data were linked to Medicare claims from 2016 to 2018; each patient had two AS International Classification of Diseases–9 and –10 codes at least 30 days apart.
• The study population included 1426 adults with AS (mean age, 69.4 years) who had continuous Medicare enrollment (Parts A and B) for the entire follow-up period but did not have Medicare Advantage Plan (Part C).
• The researchers used a logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with fractures including age, sex, and body mass index.

TAKEAWAYS:

• The overall incidence of fractures was 76.7 per 1,000 person-years.
• Older age, history of fracture, and opioid use at a morphine-equivalent dose > 30 mg (at least one prescription 30 or more days prior to the index date) were significantly associated with increased risk for fracture (odds ratios, 2.8, 5.24, and 1.86, respectively).
• Fracture risk was equally likely for men and women.

IN PRACTICE:

The study supports fracture risk-reduction strategies for men and women with AS and a fracture history, with added attention to opioid users.

SOURCE:

The first author of the study was Rachael Stovall, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published Aug. 22, 2023, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study does not include individuals younger than 65 years and references only first fractures. Some EHR data on variables including race, body mass index, national area deprivation index, and smoking status are incomplete.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by various grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

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

TOPLINE:

Opioid use, older age, and fracture history increase the risk for fractures in older adults with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) based on a review of registry and Medicare claims data.

METHODOLOGY:

• Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry data were linked to Medicare claims from 2016 to 2018; each patient had two AS International Classification of Diseases–9 and –10 codes at least 30 days apart.
• The study population included 1426 adults with AS (mean age, 69.4 years) who had continuous Medicare enrollment (Parts A and B) for the entire follow-up period but did not have Medicare Advantage Plan (Part C).
• The researchers used a logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with fractures including age, sex, and body mass index.

TAKEAWAYS:

• The overall incidence of fractures was 76.7 per 1,000 person-years.
• Older age, history of fracture, and opioid use at a morphine-equivalent dose > 30 mg (at least one prescription 30 or more days prior to the index date) were significantly associated with increased risk for fracture (odds ratios, 2.8, 5.24, and 1.86, respectively).
• Fracture risk was equally likely for men and women.

IN PRACTICE:

The study supports fracture risk-reduction strategies for men and women with AS and a fracture history, with added attention to opioid users.

SOURCE:

The first author of the study was Rachael Stovall, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published Aug. 22, 2023, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study does not include individuals younger than 65 years and references only first fractures. Some EHR data on variables including race, body mass index, national area deprivation index, and smoking status are incomplete.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by various grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

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

Medicare will now cover a molecular diagnostic test to predict treatment response for certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The blood test, PrismRA, is the first and only commercially available test that can help predict which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, according to the test manufacturer, Scipher Medicine.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

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

Medicare will now cover a molecular diagnostic test to predict treatment response for certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The blood test, PrismRA, is the first and only commercially available test that can help predict which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, according to the test manufacturer, Scipher Medicine.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

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

Medicare will now cover a molecular diagnostic test to predict treatment response for certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The blood test, PrismRA, is the first and only commercially available test that can help predict which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, according to the test manufacturer, Scipher Medicine.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

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

Michael Victoroff, MD, described the phone call he received from an attorney asking a thorny ethics question involving a patient’s gift to another physician. Dr. Victoroff, a past member of the ethics committee of the American Academy of Family Physicians, had definite thoughts about it.

“The attorney was representing the daughters of an elderly gentleman who had moved from the East Coast to Colorado to be closer to them,” said Dr. Victoroff, who teaches bioethics in the MBA program at the University of Denver and also practices at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“The father visited his new primary care physician frequently because he had multiple health issues.”

The patient was happy with the doctor’s medical care and over time that they developed a friendship. Dr. Victoroff emphasized that no sexual or romantic impropriety ever took place between the patient and his physician.

“But the social relationship went beyond the ordinary doctor-patient boundaries. The patient ultimately named the doctor as his health care proxy in the event that he became unable to make decisions regarding his care. He also mentioned he was going to leave her $100,000 in his will,” says Dr. Victoroff.

The physician did accept the role of proxy, “which raises a whole host of ethical issues,” says Dr. Victoroff. As it happened, she was never called upon to exercise that decision-making authority, since the patient died suddenly and was mentally competent at the time.

After his death, his daughters became aware of the large sum of money he had bequeathed to his doctor. They felt it was unethical for her to accept such a substantial bequest from a patient, and they hired an attorney to contest the will.
 

No law against it

Dennis Hursh, attorney and managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, noted in an interview that, “the problem isn’t legal per se. Rather, the problem is an ethical one.”

Legally speaking, there’s no prohibition against receiving a bequest or other form of gift from a patient. “People are free to dispose of their estates in whatever way they see fit, and no law technically precludes a physician from accepting a bequest,” says Dr. Victoroff. “But this presupposes there is nothing improper going on, such as extortion, deception, coercion, or exercising undue influence.”

The issue of bequeathing money to their physician gained attention in a recent case that took place in Australia. Peter Alexakis, MD, received a whopping bequest of $24 million from a patient. The elderly patient had changed his will to name Dr. Alexakis as the sole beneficiary – after Dr. Alexakis had visited him at home 92 times during the preceding months. The original heirs filed a lawsuit in Australia’s Supreme Court against Dr. Alexakis, contesting the will.

The lawsuit was unsuccessful in court, but Dr. Alexakis was found guilty of malpractice by Australia’s Health Care Complaints Commission after being reported to the HCCC by the palliative care physicians who were treating the patient. They alleged that Dr. Alexakis had interfered with their care of the patient. The more serious allegation was that the doctor had engaged in a deliberate strategy to exploit the relationship for financial gain.

Dr. Alexakis was chastised by the HCCC for engaging in “obtuse” and “suspicious” behavior and for “blurring the boundaries of the doctor-patient relationship.”

There are three domains – legal, ethical, and practical – when it comes to accepting bequests or any gifts from patients, says Dr. Victoroff.

“[In] the legal domain, for example, if you receive a bequest from anyone, patient or otherwise, you have to know your local laws about estates and taxes and so forth and obey them,” he said.

Attorney Hursh pointed out that the Australian doctor wasn’t found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law but rather of unethical conduct by the Australian medical licensing entity.

Patients giving gifts is often a part of a physician’s life

When Ian Schorr, MD, first started out in practice, he was surprised that patients began bringing him gifts of food to express gratitude for his care.

“I thought it was unethical to accept their gifts, so I turned them down and wouldn’t accept so much as a cookie,” Dr. Schorr, a now-retired ophthalmologist, told this news organization. “But that changed because my office staff told me that some patients were feeling disappointed and insulted. I realized that some people want to express appreciation in ways that go beyond a monetary payment.”

The next time he received a gift from a patient, he “accepted it gracefully.” And he wrote a thank you note, which he continued to do any time he received a gift from a patient.

Kenneth Prager, MD, professor of clinical medicine, director of clinical ethics and chairman of the Medical Ethics Committee at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, says, “I have literally received hundreds of gifts, the vast majority being tokens of patients’ appreciation,” he said. “I’ll get boxes of chocolate or cakes, or sometimes articles of clothing.”

Occasionally, Dr. Prager receives a “somewhat larger gift” – for example, two tickets to a baseball game. “To reject these gifts would be a slap in the face to the patient,” he says, but “where it gets more ethically cloudy is when a gift is very substantial.”

Dr. Prager has never been offered a “substantial” gift or bequest personally. “But a patient whose brother I cared for has indicated that she has left instructions in her will to endow an associate chair of ethics in my honor, and I didn’t decline that,” he said.

The AMA Code of Ethics confirms that accepting gifts offered “as an expression of gratitude or a reflection of the patient’s cultural tradition” can “enhance the patient-physician relationship.” But sometimes gifts “may signal psychological needs that require the physician’s attention.” Accepting such gifts is “likely to damage the patient-physician relationship.”

Potential damage to the therapeutic relationship applies to all physicians but especially for psychiatrists and mental health professionals. “There are more stringent ethical requirements when it comes to these disciplines, where gift-giving gets into the territory of transference or may have particular psychological meaning, and accepting the gift may muddy the therapeutic waters,” Dr. Victoroff said.
 

Impact on the patient’s family and on other patients

The AMA statement encourages physicians to be “sensitive to the gift’s value, relative to the patient’s or physician’s means.” Physicians should decline gifts that are “disproportionately or inappropriately large, or when the physician would be uncomfortable to have colleagues know the gift had been accepted.”

They should also decline a bequest from a patient if they have reason to believe that to accept it “would present an emotional or financial hardship to the patient’s family.”

“If Bill Gates were leaving $100,000 to his doctor, I imagine Melinda would be just fine,” Mr. Hursh said. “But under ordinary circumstances, if the patient’s family might feel the impact of the bequest, it would be unethical to accept it and could be grounds for revocation of the doctor’s license.”

The AMA statement also warns physicians that by offering a gift, some patients may be seeking to “secure or influence care or to secure preferential treatment,” which can “undermine physicians’ obligation to provide services fairly to all patients.”

For this reason, bequests are “sticky,” said Laurel Lyckholm, MD, professor of hematology and oncology at West Virginia University School of Medicine. In the case of institutions where patients or community members donate money, “we know whose names are on the plaques that hang on the hospital walls, so it’s a delicate balance. What if there’s only one bed or one ventilator? Will the wife of the donor get preferential treatment?”
 

Follow institutional policy

A “very small gift, such as a fruitcake, is fine,” says Dr. Lyckholm, author of an essay on accepting gifts from patients. She said there’s a dollar amount ($15) that her institution mandates, above which a gift – even food – is considered too expensive to accept. “I was a nurse before I became a physician, and people always tried to give us gifts because we were so close to the minute-by-minute care of the patients,” she said. “We were not allowed to accept money or anything lavish.”

But in the case of small gifts, “the risk-benefit analysis is that there’s much more risk not to take it and to hurt the patient’s feelings.”

Gifts above $15 are given to charity. “I explain to patients that I’m not allowed to take such a large gift, but I’d love to give it to the hospital’s Rosenbaum Family House that provides patients and their relatives with lodging, or to the homeless shelter in Morgantown.”

Dr. Lyckholm, who serves on the ethics committee at J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital, once was offered expensive tickets and said to the patient, “This is so incredibly thoughtful and kind, but I can’t accept them. I would like to give the tickets to a charity that can auction them off.”

She advises physicians to find out their institution’s policies. Many institutions have policies about what gifts their staff – whether physicians, nurses, or other health care professionals – can accept.
 

Passing the ‘smell test’

Accepting a large gift from a patient could potentially make it look like you might have exercised undue influence.

“That concern brings us to the third domain, which is very practical and all about appearances and perceptions,” Dr. Victoroff said.

He noted that there is “an inherent power differential between a physician and a patient. The very nature of the relationship can create a risk of ‘undue influence’ on the doctor’s part, even if it’s not apparent to the doctor.” For this reason, it’s necessary to be utterly transparent about how the bequest came about.

He suggests that if a patient informs you that he or she would like to leave money to you, it might be wise to suggest a meeting with the patient’s family, thus establishing some transparency.

It may not be possible to meet with the patient’s family for logistical reasons or because the patient would prefer not to involve their family in their estate planning. But in any case, it’s advisable to document any conversation in the patient’s chart, Dr. Victoroff advised.

“You should make a contemporaneous note that the patient initiated the suggestion and that you counseled them about the implications, no differently than you would with an interaction of a clinical nature,” he suggests. That way, if money has been left to you and is disputed, there’s a clear record that you didn’t solicit it or use any undue influence to bring it about.

He also recommended getting advice from a trusted colleague or a member of your institution’s ethics committee. “Taking time to get a second opinion about an ethical question is a safeguard, like having a chaperone in the room during an examination.”

Ultimately, “there is no human relationship without potential conflicts of interest. Our job is to manage those as best as we can, and sunlight is the best antidote to bad appearances,” Dr. Victoroff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Michael Victoroff, MD, described the phone call he received from an attorney asking a thorny ethics question involving a patient’s gift to another physician. Dr. Victoroff, a past member of the ethics committee of the American Academy of Family Physicians, had definite thoughts about it.

“The attorney was representing the daughters of an elderly gentleman who had moved from the East Coast to Colorado to be closer to them,” said Dr. Victoroff, who teaches bioethics in the MBA program at the University of Denver and also practices at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“The father visited his new primary care physician frequently because he had multiple health issues.”

The patient was happy with the doctor’s medical care and over time that they developed a friendship. Dr. Victoroff emphasized that no sexual or romantic impropriety ever took place between the patient and his physician.

“But the social relationship went beyond the ordinary doctor-patient boundaries. The patient ultimately named the doctor as his health care proxy in the event that he became unable to make decisions regarding his care. He also mentioned he was going to leave her $100,000 in his will,” says Dr. Victoroff.

The physician did accept the role of proxy, “which raises a whole host of ethical issues,” says Dr. Victoroff. As it happened, she was never called upon to exercise that decision-making authority, since the patient died suddenly and was mentally competent at the time.

After his death, his daughters became aware of the large sum of money he had bequeathed to his doctor. They felt it was unethical for her to accept such a substantial bequest from a patient, and they hired an attorney to contest the will.
 

No law against it

Dennis Hursh, attorney and managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, noted in an interview that, “the problem isn’t legal per se. Rather, the problem is an ethical one.”

Legally speaking, there’s no prohibition against receiving a bequest or other form of gift from a patient. “People are free to dispose of their estates in whatever way they see fit, and no law technically precludes a physician from accepting a bequest,” says Dr. Victoroff. “But this presupposes there is nothing improper going on, such as extortion, deception, coercion, or exercising undue influence.”

The issue of bequeathing money to their physician gained attention in a recent case that took place in Australia. Peter Alexakis, MD, received a whopping bequest of $24 million from a patient. The elderly patient had changed his will to name Dr. Alexakis as the sole beneficiary – after Dr. Alexakis had visited him at home 92 times during the preceding months. The original heirs filed a lawsuit in Australia’s Supreme Court against Dr. Alexakis, contesting the will.

The lawsuit was unsuccessful in court, but Dr. Alexakis was found guilty of malpractice by Australia’s Health Care Complaints Commission after being reported to the HCCC by the palliative care physicians who were treating the patient. They alleged that Dr. Alexakis had interfered with their care of the patient. The more serious allegation was that the doctor had engaged in a deliberate strategy to exploit the relationship for financial gain.

Dr. Alexakis was chastised by the HCCC for engaging in “obtuse” and “suspicious” behavior and for “blurring the boundaries of the doctor-patient relationship.”

There are three domains – legal, ethical, and practical – when it comes to accepting bequests or any gifts from patients, says Dr. Victoroff.

“[In] the legal domain, for example, if you receive a bequest from anyone, patient or otherwise, you have to know your local laws about estates and taxes and so forth and obey them,” he said.

Attorney Hursh pointed out that the Australian doctor wasn’t found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law but rather of unethical conduct by the Australian medical licensing entity.

Patients giving gifts is often a part of a physician’s life

When Ian Schorr, MD, first started out in practice, he was surprised that patients began bringing him gifts of food to express gratitude for his care.

“I thought it was unethical to accept their gifts, so I turned them down and wouldn’t accept so much as a cookie,” Dr. Schorr, a now-retired ophthalmologist, told this news organization. “But that changed because my office staff told me that some patients were feeling disappointed and insulted. I realized that some people want to express appreciation in ways that go beyond a monetary payment.”

The next time he received a gift from a patient, he “accepted it gracefully.” And he wrote a thank you note, which he continued to do any time he received a gift from a patient.

Kenneth Prager, MD, professor of clinical medicine, director of clinical ethics and chairman of the Medical Ethics Committee at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, says, “I have literally received hundreds of gifts, the vast majority being tokens of patients’ appreciation,” he said. “I’ll get boxes of chocolate or cakes, or sometimes articles of clothing.”

Occasionally, Dr. Prager receives a “somewhat larger gift” – for example, two tickets to a baseball game. “To reject these gifts would be a slap in the face to the patient,” he says, but “where it gets more ethically cloudy is when a gift is very substantial.”

Dr. Prager has never been offered a “substantial” gift or bequest personally. “But a patient whose brother I cared for has indicated that she has left instructions in her will to endow an associate chair of ethics in my honor, and I didn’t decline that,” he said.

The AMA Code of Ethics confirms that accepting gifts offered “as an expression of gratitude or a reflection of the patient’s cultural tradition” can “enhance the patient-physician relationship.” But sometimes gifts “may signal psychological needs that require the physician’s attention.” Accepting such gifts is “likely to damage the patient-physician relationship.”

Potential damage to the therapeutic relationship applies to all physicians but especially for psychiatrists and mental health professionals. “There are more stringent ethical requirements when it comes to these disciplines, where gift-giving gets into the territory of transference or may have particular psychological meaning, and accepting the gift may muddy the therapeutic waters,” Dr. Victoroff said.
 

Impact on the patient’s family and on other patients

The AMA statement encourages physicians to be “sensitive to the gift’s value, relative to the patient’s or physician’s means.” Physicians should decline gifts that are “disproportionately or inappropriately large, or when the physician would be uncomfortable to have colleagues know the gift had been accepted.”

They should also decline a bequest from a patient if they have reason to believe that to accept it “would present an emotional or financial hardship to the patient’s family.”

“If Bill Gates were leaving $100,000 to his doctor, I imagine Melinda would be just fine,” Mr. Hursh said. “But under ordinary circumstances, if the patient’s family might feel the impact of the bequest, it would be unethical to accept it and could be grounds for revocation of the doctor’s license.”

The AMA statement also warns physicians that by offering a gift, some patients may be seeking to “secure or influence care or to secure preferential treatment,” which can “undermine physicians’ obligation to provide services fairly to all patients.”

For this reason, bequests are “sticky,” said Laurel Lyckholm, MD, professor of hematology and oncology at West Virginia University School of Medicine. In the case of institutions where patients or community members donate money, “we know whose names are on the plaques that hang on the hospital walls, so it’s a delicate balance. What if there’s only one bed or one ventilator? Will the wife of the donor get preferential treatment?”
 

Follow institutional policy

A “very small gift, such as a fruitcake, is fine,” says Dr. Lyckholm, author of an essay on accepting gifts from patients. She said there’s a dollar amount ($15) that her institution mandates, above which a gift – even food – is considered too expensive to accept. “I was a nurse before I became a physician, and people always tried to give us gifts because we were so close to the minute-by-minute care of the patients,” she said. “We were not allowed to accept money or anything lavish.”

But in the case of small gifts, “the risk-benefit analysis is that there’s much more risk not to take it and to hurt the patient’s feelings.”

Gifts above $15 are given to charity. “I explain to patients that I’m not allowed to take such a large gift, but I’d love to give it to the hospital’s Rosenbaum Family House that provides patients and their relatives with lodging, or to the homeless shelter in Morgantown.”

Dr. Lyckholm, who serves on the ethics committee at J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital, once was offered expensive tickets and said to the patient, “This is so incredibly thoughtful and kind, but I can’t accept them. I would like to give the tickets to a charity that can auction them off.”

She advises physicians to find out their institution’s policies. Many institutions have policies about what gifts their staff – whether physicians, nurses, or other health care professionals – can accept.
 

Passing the ‘smell test’

Accepting a large gift from a patient could potentially make it look like you might have exercised undue influence.

“That concern brings us to the third domain, which is very practical and all about appearances and perceptions,” Dr. Victoroff said.

He noted that there is “an inherent power differential between a physician and a patient. The very nature of the relationship can create a risk of ‘undue influence’ on the doctor’s part, even if it’s not apparent to the doctor.” For this reason, it’s necessary to be utterly transparent about how the bequest came about.

He suggests that if a patient informs you that he or she would like to leave money to you, it might be wise to suggest a meeting with the patient’s family, thus establishing some transparency.

It may not be possible to meet with the patient’s family for logistical reasons or because the patient would prefer not to involve their family in their estate planning. But in any case, it’s advisable to document any conversation in the patient’s chart, Dr. Victoroff advised.

“You should make a contemporaneous note that the patient initiated the suggestion and that you counseled them about the implications, no differently than you would with an interaction of a clinical nature,” he suggests. That way, if money has been left to you and is disputed, there’s a clear record that you didn’t solicit it or use any undue influence to bring it about.

He also recommended getting advice from a trusted colleague or a member of your institution’s ethics committee. “Taking time to get a second opinion about an ethical question is a safeguard, like having a chaperone in the room during an examination.”

Ultimately, “there is no human relationship without potential conflicts of interest. Our job is to manage those as best as we can, and sunlight is the best antidote to bad appearances,” Dr. Victoroff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Michael Victoroff, MD, described the phone call he received from an attorney asking a thorny ethics question involving a patient’s gift to another physician. Dr. Victoroff, a past member of the ethics committee of the American Academy of Family Physicians, had definite thoughts about it.

“The attorney was representing the daughters of an elderly gentleman who had moved from the East Coast to Colorado to be closer to them,” said Dr. Victoroff, who teaches bioethics in the MBA program at the University of Denver and also practices at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“The father visited his new primary care physician frequently because he had multiple health issues.”

The patient was happy with the doctor’s medical care and over time that they developed a friendship. Dr. Victoroff emphasized that no sexual or romantic impropriety ever took place between the patient and his physician.

“But the social relationship went beyond the ordinary doctor-patient boundaries. The patient ultimately named the doctor as his health care proxy in the event that he became unable to make decisions regarding his care. He also mentioned he was going to leave her $100,000 in his will,” says Dr. Victoroff.

The physician did accept the role of proxy, “which raises a whole host of ethical issues,” says Dr. Victoroff. As it happened, she was never called upon to exercise that decision-making authority, since the patient died suddenly and was mentally competent at the time.

After his death, his daughters became aware of the large sum of money he had bequeathed to his doctor. They felt it was unethical for her to accept such a substantial bequest from a patient, and they hired an attorney to contest the will.
 

No law against it

Dennis Hursh, attorney and managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, noted in an interview that, “the problem isn’t legal per se. Rather, the problem is an ethical one.”

Legally speaking, there’s no prohibition against receiving a bequest or other form of gift from a patient. “People are free to dispose of their estates in whatever way they see fit, and no law technically precludes a physician from accepting a bequest,” says Dr. Victoroff. “But this presupposes there is nothing improper going on, such as extortion, deception, coercion, or exercising undue influence.”

The issue of bequeathing money to their physician gained attention in a recent case that took place in Australia. Peter Alexakis, MD, received a whopping bequest of $24 million from a patient. The elderly patient had changed his will to name Dr. Alexakis as the sole beneficiary – after Dr. Alexakis had visited him at home 92 times during the preceding months. The original heirs filed a lawsuit in Australia’s Supreme Court against Dr. Alexakis, contesting the will.

The lawsuit was unsuccessful in court, but Dr. Alexakis was found guilty of malpractice by Australia’s Health Care Complaints Commission after being reported to the HCCC by the palliative care physicians who were treating the patient. They alleged that Dr. Alexakis had interfered with their care of the patient. The more serious allegation was that the doctor had engaged in a deliberate strategy to exploit the relationship for financial gain.

Dr. Alexakis was chastised by the HCCC for engaging in “obtuse” and “suspicious” behavior and for “blurring the boundaries of the doctor-patient relationship.”

There are three domains – legal, ethical, and practical – when it comes to accepting bequests or any gifts from patients, says Dr. Victoroff.

“[In] the legal domain, for example, if you receive a bequest from anyone, patient or otherwise, you have to know your local laws about estates and taxes and so forth and obey them,” he said.

Attorney Hursh pointed out that the Australian doctor wasn’t found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law but rather of unethical conduct by the Australian medical licensing entity.

Patients giving gifts is often a part of a physician’s life

When Ian Schorr, MD, first started out in practice, he was surprised that patients began bringing him gifts of food to express gratitude for his care.

“I thought it was unethical to accept their gifts, so I turned them down and wouldn’t accept so much as a cookie,” Dr. Schorr, a now-retired ophthalmologist, told this news organization. “But that changed because my office staff told me that some patients were feeling disappointed and insulted. I realized that some people want to express appreciation in ways that go beyond a monetary payment.”

The next time he received a gift from a patient, he “accepted it gracefully.” And he wrote a thank you note, which he continued to do any time he received a gift from a patient.

Kenneth Prager, MD, professor of clinical medicine, director of clinical ethics and chairman of the Medical Ethics Committee at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, says, “I have literally received hundreds of gifts, the vast majority being tokens of patients’ appreciation,” he said. “I’ll get boxes of chocolate or cakes, or sometimes articles of clothing.”

Occasionally, Dr. Prager receives a “somewhat larger gift” – for example, two tickets to a baseball game. “To reject these gifts would be a slap in the face to the patient,” he says, but “where it gets more ethically cloudy is when a gift is very substantial.”

Dr. Prager has never been offered a “substantial” gift or bequest personally. “But a patient whose brother I cared for has indicated that she has left instructions in her will to endow an associate chair of ethics in my honor, and I didn’t decline that,” he said.

The AMA Code of Ethics confirms that accepting gifts offered “as an expression of gratitude or a reflection of the patient’s cultural tradition” can “enhance the patient-physician relationship.” But sometimes gifts “may signal psychological needs that require the physician’s attention.” Accepting such gifts is “likely to damage the patient-physician relationship.”

Potential damage to the therapeutic relationship applies to all physicians but especially for psychiatrists and mental health professionals. “There are more stringent ethical requirements when it comes to these disciplines, where gift-giving gets into the territory of transference or may have particular psychological meaning, and accepting the gift may muddy the therapeutic waters,” Dr. Victoroff said.
 

Impact on the patient’s family and on other patients

The AMA statement encourages physicians to be “sensitive to the gift’s value, relative to the patient’s or physician’s means.” Physicians should decline gifts that are “disproportionately or inappropriately large, or when the physician would be uncomfortable to have colleagues know the gift had been accepted.”

They should also decline a bequest from a patient if they have reason to believe that to accept it “would present an emotional or financial hardship to the patient’s family.”

“If Bill Gates were leaving $100,000 to his doctor, I imagine Melinda would be just fine,” Mr. Hursh said. “But under ordinary circumstances, if the patient’s family might feel the impact of the bequest, it would be unethical to accept it and could be grounds for revocation of the doctor’s license.”

The AMA statement also warns physicians that by offering a gift, some patients may be seeking to “secure or influence care or to secure preferential treatment,” which can “undermine physicians’ obligation to provide services fairly to all patients.”

For this reason, bequests are “sticky,” said Laurel Lyckholm, MD, professor of hematology and oncology at West Virginia University School of Medicine. In the case of institutions where patients or community members donate money, “we know whose names are on the plaques that hang on the hospital walls, so it’s a delicate balance. What if there’s only one bed or one ventilator? Will the wife of the donor get preferential treatment?”
 

Follow institutional policy

A “very small gift, such as a fruitcake, is fine,” says Dr. Lyckholm, author of an essay on accepting gifts from patients. She said there’s a dollar amount ($15) that her institution mandates, above which a gift – even food – is considered too expensive to accept. “I was a nurse before I became a physician, and people always tried to give us gifts because we were so close to the minute-by-minute care of the patients,” she said. “We were not allowed to accept money or anything lavish.”

But in the case of small gifts, “the risk-benefit analysis is that there’s much more risk not to take it and to hurt the patient’s feelings.”

Gifts above $15 are given to charity. “I explain to patients that I’m not allowed to take such a large gift, but I’d love to give it to the hospital’s Rosenbaum Family House that provides patients and their relatives with lodging, or to the homeless shelter in Morgantown.”

Dr. Lyckholm, who serves on the ethics committee at J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital, once was offered expensive tickets and said to the patient, “This is so incredibly thoughtful and kind, but I can’t accept them. I would like to give the tickets to a charity that can auction them off.”

She advises physicians to find out their institution’s policies. Many institutions have policies about what gifts their staff – whether physicians, nurses, or other health care professionals – can accept.
 

Passing the ‘smell test’

Accepting a large gift from a patient could potentially make it look like you might have exercised undue influence.

“That concern brings us to the third domain, which is very practical and all about appearances and perceptions,” Dr. Victoroff said.

He noted that there is “an inherent power differential between a physician and a patient. The very nature of the relationship can create a risk of ‘undue influence’ on the doctor’s part, even if it’s not apparent to the doctor.” For this reason, it’s necessary to be utterly transparent about how the bequest came about.

He suggests that if a patient informs you that he or she would like to leave money to you, it might be wise to suggest a meeting with the patient’s family, thus establishing some transparency.

It may not be possible to meet with the patient’s family for logistical reasons or because the patient would prefer not to involve their family in their estate planning. But in any case, it’s advisable to document any conversation in the patient’s chart, Dr. Victoroff advised.

“You should make a contemporaneous note that the patient initiated the suggestion and that you counseled them about the implications, no differently than you would with an interaction of a clinical nature,” he suggests. That way, if money has been left to you and is disputed, there’s a clear record that you didn’t solicit it or use any undue influence to bring it about.

He also recommended getting advice from a trusted colleague or a member of your institution’s ethics committee. “Taking time to get a second opinion about an ethical question is a safeguard, like having a chaperone in the room during an examination.”

Ultimately, “there is no human relationship without potential conflicts of interest. Our job is to manage those as best as we can, and sunlight is the best antidote to bad appearances,” Dr. Victoroff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

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