Commentary

Managing psychiatric illnesses is rapidly becoming routine practice for primary care pediatricians, whether screening for symptoms of anxiety and depression, starting medication, or providing psychoeducation to youth and parents. Pediatricians can provide strategies to address the impairments of sleep, energy, motivation and appetite that can accompany these illnesses. Psychotherapy, a relationship based on understanding and providing support, should be a core element of treatment for emotional disorders, but there is a great deal of uncertainty around what therapies are supported by evidence. This month, we offer a primer on the evidence-based psychotherapies for youth and we also recognize that research defining the effectiveness of psychotherapy is limited and complex.

Cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CBT)

Mention psychotherapy and most people think of a patient reclining on a couch free-associating about their childhood while a therapist sits behind them taking notes. This potent image stems from psychoanalytic psychotherapy, developed in the 19th century by Sigmund Freud, and was based on his theory that unconscious conflicts drove most of the puzzling behaviors and emotional distress associated with “neurosis.” Psychoanalysis became popular in 20th century America, even for use with children. Evidence is hard to develop since psychoanalytic therapy often lasts years, there are a limited number of patients, and the method is hard to standardize.

A focus on how to shape behaviors directly also emerged in the early 20th century (in the work of John Watson and Ivan Pavlov). Aaron Beck, MD, the father of CBT, observed in his psychoanalytic treatments that many patients appeared to be experiencing emotional distress around thoughts that were not unconscious. Instead, his patients were experiencing “automatic thoughts,” or rapid, often-distorted thoughts that have the force of truth in the thinker. These thoughts create emotional distress and behaviors that may reinforce the thoughts and emotional distress. For example, a depressed patient who is uncomfortable in social situations may think “nobody ever likes me.” This may cause them to appear uncomfortable or unfriendly in a new social situation and prevent them from making connections, perpetuating a cycle of isolation, insecurity, and loneliness. Identifying these automatic thoughts, and their connection to painful feelings and perpetuating behaviors is at the core of CBT.

In CBT the therapist is much more active than in psychoanalysis. They engage patients in identifying thought distortions together, challenging them on the truth of these thoughts and recognizing the connection to emotional distress. They also identify maladaptive behaviors and focus on strategies to build new more effective behavioral responses to thoughts, feelings, and situations. This is often done with gradual “exposures” to new behaviors, which are naturally reinforced by better outcomes or lowered distress. When performed with high fidelity, CBT is a very structured treatment that is closer to an emotionally supportive form of coaching and skill building. CBT is at the core of most evidence-based psychotherapies that have emerged in the past 60 years.

CBT is the first-line treatment for anxiety disorders in children, adolescents, and adults. A variant called “exposure and response prevention” is the first-line treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder, and is predominantly behavioral. It is focused on preventing patients with anxiety disorders from engaging in the maladaptive behaviors that lower their anxiety in the short term but cause worsened anxiety and impairment over time (such as avoiding social situations when they are worried that others won’t like them).

CBT is also a first-line treatment for major depressive episodes in teenagers and adults, although those for whom the symptoms are severe often need medication to be able to fully participate in therapy. There are variants of CBT that have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia, and even psychosis. It makes developmental sense that therapies with a problem-focused coaching approach might be more effective in children and adolescents than open-ended exploratory psychotherapies.

Traditional CBT was not very effective for patients with a variant of depression that is marked by stormy relationships, irritability, chronic suicidality, and impulsive attempts to regulate discomfort (including bingeing, purging, sexual acting-out, drug use, and self-injury or cutting), a symptom pattern called “borderline personality disorder.” These patients often ended up on multiple medications with only modest improvements in their function and well-being.

But in the 1990s, a research psychologist named Marsha Linnehan developed a modified version of CBT to use with these patients called dialectical-behavioral therapy (DBT). The “dialectic” emphasizes the role of two things being true at once, in this case the need for acceptance and change. DBT helps patients develop distress tolerance and emotional regulation skills alongside adaptive social and communication skills. DBT has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of these patients as well as in the treatment of other disorders marked by poor distress tolerance and self-regulation (such as substance use disorders, binge-eating disorder, and PTSD).

DBT was adapted for use in adolescents given the prevalence of these problems in this age group, and it is the first-line treatment for adolescents with these specific mood and behavioral symptoms. High-fidelity DBT has an individual, group, and family component that are all essential for the treatment to be effective.

Instruction about the principles of CBT and DBT is a part of graduate school in psychology, but not every postgraduate training program includes thorough training in their practice. Completion of this specialized training leads to certification. It is very important that families understand that anyone may call themselves a psychotherapist. Those therapists who have master’s degrees (MSW, MFT, PCC, and others) may not have had exposure to these evidence-based treatments in their shorter graduate programs. Even doctoral-level training programs often do not include complete training in the high-fidelity delivery of these therapies.

It is critical that you help families be educated consumers and ask therapists if they have training and certification in the recommended therapy. The Psychology Today website has a therapist referral resource that includes this information. Training programs can provide access to therapists who are learning these therapies; with skilled supervision, they can provide excellent treatment.

We should note that there are several other evidence-based therapies, including family-based treatment for anorexia nervosa, motivational interviewing for substance use disorders, and interpersonal psychotherapy for depression associated with high family conflict in adolescents.

There is good evidence that the quality of the alliance between therapist and patient is a critical predictor of whether a therapy will be effective. It is appropriate for your patient to look for a therapist that they can trust and talk to and that their therapist be trained in the recommended psychotherapy. Otherwise, your patient is spending valuable time and money on an enterprise that may not be effective. This can leave them and their parents feeling discouraged or even hopeless about the prospects for recovery and promote an overreliance on medications. In addition to providing your patients with effective screening, initiating medication treatment, and psychoeducation, you can enhance their ability to find an optimal therapist to relieve their suffering.

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

Managing psychiatric illnesses is rapidly becoming routine practice for primary care pediatricians, whether screening for symptoms of anxiety and depression, starting medication, or providing psychoeducation to youth and parents. Pediatricians can provide strategies to address the impairments of sleep, energy, motivation and appetite that can accompany these illnesses. Psychotherapy, a relationship based on understanding and providing support, should be a core element of treatment for emotional disorders, but there is a great deal of uncertainty around what therapies are supported by evidence. This month, we offer a primer on the evidence-based psychotherapies for youth and we also recognize that research defining the effectiveness of psychotherapy is limited and complex.

Cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CBT)

Mention psychotherapy and most people think of a patient reclining on a couch free-associating about their childhood while a therapist sits behind them taking notes. This potent image stems from psychoanalytic psychotherapy, developed in the 19th century by Sigmund Freud, and was based on his theory that unconscious conflicts drove most of the puzzling behaviors and emotional distress associated with “neurosis.” Psychoanalysis became popular in 20th century America, even for use with children. Evidence is hard to develop since psychoanalytic therapy often lasts years, there are a limited number of patients, and the method is hard to standardize.

A focus on how to shape behaviors directly also emerged in the early 20th century (in the work of John Watson and Ivan Pavlov). Aaron Beck, MD, the father of CBT, observed in his psychoanalytic treatments that many patients appeared to be experiencing emotional distress around thoughts that were not unconscious. Instead, his patients were experiencing “automatic thoughts,” or rapid, often-distorted thoughts that have the force of truth in the thinker. These thoughts create emotional distress and behaviors that may reinforce the thoughts and emotional distress. For example, a depressed patient who is uncomfortable in social situations may think “nobody ever likes me.” This may cause them to appear uncomfortable or unfriendly in a new social situation and prevent them from making connections, perpetuating a cycle of isolation, insecurity, and loneliness. Identifying these automatic thoughts, and their connection to painful feelings and perpetuating behaviors is at the core of CBT.

In CBT the therapist is much more active than in psychoanalysis. They engage patients in identifying thought distortions together, challenging them on the truth of these thoughts and recognizing the connection to emotional distress. They also identify maladaptive behaviors and focus on strategies to build new more effective behavioral responses to thoughts, feelings, and situations. This is often done with gradual “exposures” to new behaviors, which are naturally reinforced by better outcomes or lowered distress. When performed with high fidelity, CBT is a very structured treatment that is closer to an emotionally supportive form of coaching and skill building. CBT is at the core of most evidence-based psychotherapies that have emerged in the past 60 years.

CBT is the first-line treatment for anxiety disorders in children, adolescents, and adults. A variant called “exposure and response prevention” is the first-line treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder, and is predominantly behavioral. It is focused on preventing patients with anxiety disorders from engaging in the maladaptive behaviors that lower their anxiety in the short term but cause worsened anxiety and impairment over time (such as avoiding social situations when they are worried that others won’t like them).

CBT is also a first-line treatment for major depressive episodes in teenagers and adults, although those for whom the symptoms are severe often need medication to be able to fully participate in therapy. There are variants of CBT that have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia, and even psychosis. It makes developmental sense that therapies with a problem-focused coaching approach might be more effective in children and adolescents than open-ended exploratory psychotherapies.

Traditional CBT was not very effective for patients with a variant of depression that is marked by stormy relationships, irritability, chronic suicidality, and impulsive attempts to regulate discomfort (including bingeing, purging, sexual acting-out, drug use, and self-injury or cutting), a symptom pattern called “borderline personality disorder.” These patients often ended up on multiple medications with only modest improvements in their function and well-being.

But in the 1990s, a research psychologist named Marsha Linnehan developed a modified version of CBT to use with these patients called dialectical-behavioral therapy (DBT). The “dialectic” emphasizes the role of two things being true at once, in this case the need for acceptance and change. DBT helps patients develop distress tolerance and emotional regulation skills alongside adaptive social and communication skills. DBT has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of these patients as well as in the treatment of other disorders marked by poor distress tolerance and self-regulation (such as substance use disorders, binge-eating disorder, and PTSD).

DBT was adapted for use in adolescents given the prevalence of these problems in this age group, and it is the first-line treatment for adolescents with these specific mood and behavioral symptoms. High-fidelity DBT has an individual, group, and family component that are all essential for the treatment to be effective.

Instruction about the principles of CBT and DBT is a part of graduate school in psychology, but not every postgraduate training program includes thorough training in their practice. Completion of this specialized training leads to certification. It is very important that families understand that anyone may call themselves a psychotherapist. Those therapists who have master’s degrees (MSW, MFT, PCC, and others) may not have had exposure to these evidence-based treatments in their shorter graduate programs. Even doctoral-level training programs often do not include complete training in the high-fidelity delivery of these therapies.

It is critical that you help families be educated consumers and ask therapists if they have training and certification in the recommended therapy. The Psychology Today website has a therapist referral resource that includes this information. Training programs can provide access to therapists who are learning these therapies; with skilled supervision, they can provide excellent treatment.

We should note that there are several other evidence-based therapies, including family-based treatment for anorexia nervosa, motivational interviewing for substance use disorders, and interpersonal psychotherapy for depression associated with high family conflict in adolescents.

There is good evidence that the quality of the alliance between therapist and patient is a critical predictor of whether a therapy will be effective. It is appropriate for your patient to look for a therapist that they can trust and talk to and that their therapist be trained in the recommended psychotherapy. Otherwise, your patient is spending valuable time and money on an enterprise that may not be effective. This can leave them and their parents feeling discouraged or even hopeless about the prospects for recovery and promote an overreliance on medications. In addition to providing your patients with effective screening, initiating medication treatment, and psychoeducation, you can enhance their ability to find an optimal therapist to relieve their suffering.

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

Managing psychiatric illnesses is rapidly becoming routine practice for primary care pediatricians, whether screening for symptoms of anxiety and depression, starting medication, or providing psychoeducation to youth and parents. Pediatricians can provide strategies to address the impairments of sleep, energy, motivation and appetite that can accompany these illnesses. Psychotherapy, a relationship based on understanding and providing support, should be a core element of treatment for emotional disorders, but there is a great deal of uncertainty around what therapies are supported by evidence. This month, we offer a primer on the evidence-based psychotherapies for youth and we also recognize that research defining the effectiveness of psychotherapy is limited and complex.

Cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CBT)

Mention psychotherapy and most people think of a patient reclining on a couch free-associating about their childhood while a therapist sits behind them taking notes. This potent image stems from psychoanalytic psychotherapy, developed in the 19th century by Sigmund Freud, and was based on his theory that unconscious conflicts drove most of the puzzling behaviors and emotional distress associated with “neurosis.” Psychoanalysis became popular in 20th century America, even for use with children. Evidence is hard to develop since psychoanalytic therapy often lasts years, there are a limited number of patients, and the method is hard to standardize.

A focus on how to shape behaviors directly also emerged in the early 20th century (in the work of John Watson and Ivan Pavlov). Aaron Beck, MD, the father of CBT, observed in his psychoanalytic treatments that many patients appeared to be experiencing emotional distress around thoughts that were not unconscious. Instead, his patients were experiencing “automatic thoughts,” or rapid, often-distorted thoughts that have the force of truth in the thinker. These thoughts create emotional distress and behaviors that may reinforce the thoughts and emotional distress. For example, a depressed patient who is uncomfortable in social situations may think “nobody ever likes me.” This may cause them to appear uncomfortable or unfriendly in a new social situation and prevent them from making connections, perpetuating a cycle of isolation, insecurity, and loneliness. Identifying these automatic thoughts, and their connection to painful feelings and perpetuating behaviors is at the core of CBT.

In CBT the therapist is much more active than in psychoanalysis. They engage patients in identifying thought distortions together, challenging them on the truth of these thoughts and recognizing the connection to emotional distress. They also identify maladaptive behaviors and focus on strategies to build new more effective behavioral responses to thoughts, feelings, and situations. This is often done with gradual “exposures” to new behaviors, which are naturally reinforced by better outcomes or lowered distress. When performed with high fidelity, CBT is a very structured treatment that is closer to an emotionally supportive form of coaching and skill building. CBT is at the core of most evidence-based psychotherapies that have emerged in the past 60 years.

CBT is the first-line treatment for anxiety disorders in children, adolescents, and adults. A variant called “exposure and response prevention” is the first-line treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder, and is predominantly behavioral. It is focused on preventing patients with anxiety disorders from engaging in the maladaptive behaviors that lower their anxiety in the short term but cause worsened anxiety and impairment over time (such as avoiding social situations when they are worried that others won’t like them).

CBT is also a first-line treatment for major depressive episodes in teenagers and adults, although those for whom the symptoms are severe often need medication to be able to fully participate in therapy. There are variants of CBT that have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder, bulimia, and even psychosis. It makes developmental sense that therapies with a problem-focused coaching approach might be more effective in children and adolescents than open-ended exploratory psychotherapies.

Traditional CBT was not very effective for patients with a variant of depression that is marked by stormy relationships, irritability, chronic suicidality, and impulsive attempts to regulate discomfort (including bingeing, purging, sexual acting-out, drug use, and self-injury or cutting), a symptom pattern called “borderline personality disorder.” These patients often ended up on multiple medications with only modest improvements in their function and well-being.

But in the 1990s, a research psychologist named Marsha Linnehan developed a modified version of CBT to use with these patients called dialectical-behavioral therapy (DBT). The “dialectic” emphasizes the role of two things being true at once, in this case the need for acceptance and change. DBT helps patients develop distress tolerance and emotional regulation skills alongside adaptive social and communication skills. DBT has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of these patients as well as in the treatment of other disorders marked by poor distress tolerance and self-regulation (such as substance use disorders, binge-eating disorder, and PTSD).

DBT was adapted for use in adolescents given the prevalence of these problems in this age group, and it is the first-line treatment for adolescents with these specific mood and behavioral symptoms. High-fidelity DBT has an individual, group, and family component that are all essential for the treatment to be effective.

Instruction about the principles of CBT and DBT is a part of graduate school in psychology, but not every postgraduate training program includes thorough training in their practice. Completion of this specialized training leads to certification. It is very important that families understand that anyone may call themselves a psychotherapist. Those therapists who have master’s degrees (MSW, MFT, PCC, and others) may not have had exposure to these evidence-based treatments in their shorter graduate programs. Even doctoral-level training programs often do not include complete training in the high-fidelity delivery of these therapies.

It is critical that you help families be educated consumers and ask therapists if they have training and certification in the recommended therapy. The Psychology Today website has a therapist referral resource that includes this information. Training programs can provide access to therapists who are learning these therapies; with skilled supervision, they can provide excellent treatment.

We should note that there are several other evidence-based therapies, including family-based treatment for anorexia nervosa, motivational interviewing for substance use disorders, and interpersonal psychotherapy for depression associated with high family conflict in adolescents.

There is good evidence that the quality of the alliance between therapist and patient is a critical predictor of whether a therapy will be effective. It is appropriate for your patient to look for a therapist that they can trust and talk to and that their therapist be trained in the recommended psychotherapy. Otherwise, your patient is spending valuable time and money on an enterprise that may not be effective. This can leave them and their parents feeling discouraged or even hopeless about the prospects for recovery and promote an overreliance on medications. In addition to providing your patients with effective screening, initiating medication treatment, and psychoeducation, you can enhance their ability to find an optimal therapist to relieve their suffering.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet received 26,500 likes and almost 3,000 retweets. The 400 comments from medical and non–health care personnel ranged from agreeable to contrary to offensive.

Regardless of your opinion on BMI (body mass index), this conversation highlighted that the medical community needs to discuss the limitations of BMI and decide its future.

As a Black woman who is an obesity expert living with the impact of obesity in my own life, I know the emotion that a BMI conversation can evoke. Before emotions hijack the conversation, let’s discuss BMI’s past, present, and future.
 

BMI: From observational measurement to clinical use

Imagine walking into your favorite clothing store where an eager clerk greets you with a shirt to try on. The fit is off, but the clerk insists that the shirt must fit because everyone who’s your height should be able to wear it. This scenario seems ridiculous. But this is how we’ve come to use the BMI. Instead of thinking that people of the same height may be the same size, we declare that they must be the same size.

The idea behind the BMI was conceived in 1832 by Belgian anthropologist and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet, but he didn’t intend for it to be a health measure. Instead, it was simply an observation of how people’s weight changed in proportion to height over their lifetime.

Fast-forward to the 20th century, when insurance companies began using weight as an indicator of health status. Weights were recorded in a “Life Table.” Individual health status was determined on the basis of arbitrary cut-offs for weight on the Life Tables. Furthermore, White men set the “normal” weight standards because they were the primary insurance holders.

In 1972, Dr. Ancel Keys, a physician and leading expert in body composition at the time, cried foul on this practice and sought to standardize the use of weight as a health indicator. Dr. Keys used Quetelet’s calculation and termed it the Body Mass Index.

By 1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization adopted the BMI. By the 21st century, BMI had become widely used in clinical settings. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted BMI as a quality-of-care measure, placing even more pressure on clinicians to use BMI as a health screening tool.
 

BMI as a tool to diagnose obesity

We can’t discuss BMI without discussing the disease of obesity. BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. In the United States, one-third of Americans meet the criteria for obesity. Another one-third are at risk for obesity.

Compared with BMI’s relatively quick acceptance into clinical practice, however, obesity was only recently recognized as a disease.

Historically, obesity has been viewed as a lifestyle choice, fueled by misinformation and multiple forms of bias. The historical bias associated with BMI and discrimination has led some public health officials and scholars to dismiss the use of BMI or fail to recognize obesity as disease.

This is a dangerous conclusion, because it comes to the detriment of the very people disproportionately impacted by obesity-related health disparities.

Furthermore, weight bias continues to prevent people living with obesity from receiving insurance coverage for life-enhancing obesity medications and interventions.
 

Is it time to phase out BMI?

The BMI is intertwined with many forms of bias: age, gender, racial, ethnic, and even weight. Therefore, it is time to phase out BMI. However, phasing out BMI is complex and will take time, given that:

• Obesity is still a relatively “young” disease. 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of obesity’s recognition as a disease by the American Medical Association. Currently, BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. Tools such as waist circumference, body composition, and metabolic health assessment will need to replace the BMI. Shifting from BMI emphasizes that obesity is more than a number on the scale. Obesity, as defined by the Obesity Medicine Association, is indeed a “chronic, relapsing, multi-factorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”
• Much of our health research is tied to BMI. There have been some shifts in looking at non–weight-related health indicators. However, we need more robust studies evaluating other health indicators beyond weight and BMI. The availability of this data will help eliminate the need for BMI and promote individualized health assessment.
• Current treatment guidelines for obesity medications are based on BMI. (Note: Medications to treat obesity are called “anti-obesity” medications or AOMs. However, given the stigma associated with obesity, I prefer not to use the term “anti-obesity.”) Presently this interferes with long-term obesity treatment. Once BMI is “normal,” many patients lose insurance coverage for their obesity medication, despite needing long-term metabolic support to overcome the compensatory mechanism of weight regain. Obesity is a chronic disease that exists independent of weight status. Therefore, using non-BMI measures will help ensure appropriate lifetime support for obesity.

The preceding are barriers, not impossibilities. In the interim, if BMI is still used in any capacity, the BMI reference chart should be an adjusted BMI chart based on age, race, ethnicity, biological sex, and obesity-related conditions. Furthermore, BMI isn’t the sole determining factor of health status.

Instead, an “abnormal” BMI should initiate conversation and further testing, if needed, to determine an individual’s health. For example, compare two people of the same height with different BMIs and lifestyles. Current studies support that a person flagged as having a high adjusted BMI but practicing a healthy lifestyle and having no metabolic diseases is less at risk than a person with a “normal” BMI but high waist circumference and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts are clear. Technology empowers us with better tools than BMI to determine health status. Therefore, it’s not a matter of if we will stop using BMI but when.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist who specializes in individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” is Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s picks for the 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet received 26,500 likes and almost 3,000 retweets. The 400 comments from medical and non–health care personnel ranged from agreeable to contrary to offensive.

Regardless of your opinion on BMI (body mass index), this conversation highlighted that the medical community needs to discuss the limitations of BMI and decide its future.

As a Black woman who is an obesity expert living with the impact of obesity in my own life, I know the emotion that a BMI conversation can evoke. Before emotions hijack the conversation, let’s discuss BMI’s past, present, and future.
 

BMI: From observational measurement to clinical use

Imagine walking into your favorite clothing store where an eager clerk greets you with a shirt to try on. The fit is off, but the clerk insists that the shirt must fit because everyone who’s your height should be able to wear it. This scenario seems ridiculous. But this is how we’ve come to use the BMI. Instead of thinking that people of the same height may be the same size, we declare that they must be the same size.

The idea behind the BMI was conceived in 1832 by Belgian anthropologist and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet, but he didn’t intend for it to be a health measure. Instead, it was simply an observation of how people’s weight changed in proportion to height over their lifetime.

Fast-forward to the 20th century, when insurance companies began using weight as an indicator of health status. Weights were recorded in a “Life Table.” Individual health status was determined on the basis of arbitrary cut-offs for weight on the Life Tables. Furthermore, White men set the “normal” weight standards because they were the primary insurance holders.

In 1972, Dr. Ancel Keys, a physician and leading expert in body composition at the time, cried foul on this practice and sought to standardize the use of weight as a health indicator. Dr. Keys used Quetelet’s calculation and termed it the Body Mass Index.

By 1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization adopted the BMI. By the 21st century, BMI had become widely used in clinical settings. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted BMI as a quality-of-care measure, placing even more pressure on clinicians to use BMI as a health screening tool.
 

BMI as a tool to diagnose obesity

We can’t discuss BMI without discussing the disease of obesity. BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. In the United States, one-third of Americans meet the criteria for obesity. Another one-third are at risk for obesity.

Compared with BMI’s relatively quick acceptance into clinical practice, however, obesity was only recently recognized as a disease.

Historically, obesity has been viewed as a lifestyle choice, fueled by misinformation and multiple forms of bias. The historical bias associated with BMI and discrimination has led some public health officials and scholars to dismiss the use of BMI or fail to recognize obesity as disease.

This is a dangerous conclusion, because it comes to the detriment of the very people disproportionately impacted by obesity-related health disparities.

Furthermore, weight bias continues to prevent people living with obesity from receiving insurance coverage for life-enhancing obesity medications and interventions.
 

Is it time to phase out BMI?

The BMI is intertwined with many forms of bias: age, gender, racial, ethnic, and even weight. Therefore, it is time to phase out BMI. However, phasing out BMI is complex and will take time, given that:

• Obesity is still a relatively “young” disease. 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of obesity’s recognition as a disease by the American Medical Association. Currently, BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. Tools such as waist circumference, body composition, and metabolic health assessment will need to replace the BMI. Shifting from BMI emphasizes that obesity is more than a number on the scale. Obesity, as defined by the Obesity Medicine Association, is indeed a “chronic, relapsing, multi-factorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”
• Much of our health research is tied to BMI. There have been some shifts in looking at non–weight-related health indicators. However, we need more robust studies evaluating other health indicators beyond weight and BMI. The availability of this data will help eliminate the need for BMI and promote individualized health assessment.
• Current treatment guidelines for obesity medications are based on BMI. (Note: Medications to treat obesity are called “anti-obesity” medications or AOMs. However, given the stigma associated with obesity, I prefer not to use the term “anti-obesity.”) Presently this interferes with long-term obesity treatment. Once BMI is “normal,” many patients lose insurance coverage for their obesity medication, despite needing long-term metabolic support to overcome the compensatory mechanism of weight regain. Obesity is a chronic disease that exists independent of weight status. Therefore, using non-BMI measures will help ensure appropriate lifetime support for obesity.

The preceding are barriers, not impossibilities. In the interim, if BMI is still used in any capacity, the BMI reference chart should be an adjusted BMI chart based on age, race, ethnicity, biological sex, and obesity-related conditions. Furthermore, BMI isn’t the sole determining factor of health status.

Instead, an “abnormal” BMI should initiate conversation and further testing, if needed, to determine an individual’s health. For example, compare two people of the same height with different BMIs and lifestyles. Current studies support that a person flagged as having a high adjusted BMI but practicing a healthy lifestyle and having no metabolic diseases is less at risk than a person with a “normal” BMI but high waist circumference and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts are clear. Technology empowers us with better tools than BMI to determine health status. Therefore, it’s not a matter of if we will stop using BMI but when.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist who specializes in individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” is Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s picks for the 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet received 26,500 likes and almost 3,000 retweets. The 400 comments from medical and non–health care personnel ranged from agreeable to contrary to offensive.

Regardless of your opinion on BMI (body mass index), this conversation highlighted that the medical community needs to discuss the limitations of BMI and decide its future.

As a Black woman who is an obesity expert living with the impact of obesity in my own life, I know the emotion that a BMI conversation can evoke. Before emotions hijack the conversation, let’s discuss BMI’s past, present, and future.
 

BMI: From observational measurement to clinical use

Imagine walking into your favorite clothing store where an eager clerk greets you with a shirt to try on. The fit is off, but the clerk insists that the shirt must fit because everyone who’s your height should be able to wear it. This scenario seems ridiculous. But this is how we’ve come to use the BMI. Instead of thinking that people of the same height may be the same size, we declare that they must be the same size.

The idea behind the BMI was conceived in 1832 by Belgian anthropologist and mathematician Adolphe Quetelet, but he didn’t intend for it to be a health measure. Instead, it was simply an observation of how people’s weight changed in proportion to height over their lifetime.

Fast-forward to the 20th century, when insurance companies began using weight as an indicator of health status. Weights were recorded in a “Life Table.” Individual health status was determined on the basis of arbitrary cut-offs for weight on the Life Tables. Furthermore, White men set the “normal” weight standards because they were the primary insurance holders.

In 1972, Dr. Ancel Keys, a physician and leading expert in body composition at the time, cried foul on this practice and sought to standardize the use of weight as a health indicator. Dr. Keys used Quetelet’s calculation and termed it the Body Mass Index.

By 1985, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization adopted the BMI. By the 21st century, BMI had become widely used in clinical settings. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adopted BMI as a quality-of-care measure, placing even more pressure on clinicians to use BMI as a health screening tool.
 

BMI as a tool to diagnose obesity

We can’t discuss BMI without discussing the disease of obesity. BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. In the United States, one-third of Americans meet the criteria for obesity. Another one-third are at risk for obesity.

Compared with BMI’s relatively quick acceptance into clinical practice, however, obesity was only recently recognized as a disease.

Historically, obesity has been viewed as a lifestyle choice, fueled by misinformation and multiple forms of bias. The historical bias associated with BMI and discrimination has led some public health officials and scholars to dismiss the use of BMI or fail to recognize obesity as disease.

This is a dangerous conclusion, because it comes to the detriment of the very people disproportionately impacted by obesity-related health disparities.

Furthermore, weight bias continues to prevent people living with obesity from receiving insurance coverage for life-enhancing obesity medications and interventions.
 

Is it time to phase out BMI?

The BMI is intertwined with many forms of bias: age, gender, racial, ethnic, and even weight. Therefore, it is time to phase out BMI. However, phasing out BMI is complex and will take time, given that:

• Obesity is still a relatively “young” disease. 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of obesity’s recognition as a disease by the American Medical Association. Currently, BMI is the most widely used tool to diagnose obesity. Tools such as waist circumference, body composition, and metabolic health assessment will need to replace the BMI. Shifting from BMI emphasizes that obesity is more than a number on the scale. Obesity, as defined by the Obesity Medicine Association, is indeed a “chronic, relapsing, multi-factorial, neurobehavioral disease, wherein an increase in body fat promotes adipose tissue dysfunction and abnormal fat mass physical forces, resulting in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.”
• Much of our health research is tied to BMI. There have been some shifts in looking at non–weight-related health indicators. However, we need more robust studies evaluating other health indicators beyond weight and BMI. The availability of this data will help eliminate the need for BMI and promote individualized health assessment.
• Current treatment guidelines for obesity medications are based on BMI. (Note: Medications to treat obesity are called “anti-obesity” medications or AOMs. However, given the stigma associated with obesity, I prefer not to use the term “anti-obesity.”) Presently this interferes with long-term obesity treatment. Once BMI is “normal,” many patients lose insurance coverage for their obesity medication, despite needing long-term metabolic support to overcome the compensatory mechanism of weight regain. Obesity is a chronic disease that exists independent of weight status. Therefore, using non-BMI measures will help ensure appropriate lifetime support for obesity.

The preceding are barriers, not impossibilities. In the interim, if BMI is still used in any capacity, the BMI reference chart should be an adjusted BMI chart based on age, race, ethnicity, biological sex, and obesity-related conditions. Furthermore, BMI isn’t the sole determining factor of health status.

Instead, an “abnormal” BMI should initiate conversation and further testing, if needed, to determine an individual’s health. For example, compare two people of the same height with different BMIs and lifestyles. Current studies support that a person flagged as having a high adjusted BMI but practicing a healthy lifestyle and having no metabolic diseases is less at risk than a person with a “normal” BMI but high waist circumference and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Regardless of your personal feelings, the facts are clear. Technology empowers us with better tools than BMI to determine health status. Therefore, it’s not a matter of if we will stop using BMI but when.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist who specializes in individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” is Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s picks for the 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022.

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

The US government has a legacy of providing support for veterans. Pensions were offered to disabled veterans as early as 1776, and benefits were expanded to cover medical needs as the country grew and modernized.^1,2 Enacted during the Civil War, the General Pension Act increased benefits for widows and dependents.² Rehabilitation and vocational training assistance benefits were added after World War I, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was created in 1930 to consolidate all benefits under one umbrella organization.^2,3

Prior to World War II, the VA lacked the bed capacity for the 4 million veterans who were eligible for care. This shortage became more acute by the end of the war, when the number of eligible veterans increased by 15 million.⁴ Although the VA successfully built bed capacity through acquisition of military hospitals, VA hospitals struggled to recruit clinical staff.² Physicians were hesitant to join the VA because civil service salaries were lower than comparable positions in the community, and the VA offered limited opportunities for research or continuing education. These limitations negatively impacted the overall reputation of the VA. The American Medical Association (AMA) was reluctant to directly admit VA physicians for membership because of a “lower” standard of care at VA hospitals.² This review will describe how passage of 2 legislative actions, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act and Public Law (PL)79-293, and a key policy memorandum set the foundation for the partnership between the VA and academic medical centers. This led to improved medical care for veterans and expansion of health professions education for VA and the nation.^5,6

GI Bill of Rights

The passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill of Rights, provided education assistance, guaranteed home loans, and unemployment payments to veterans.⁵ All medical officers serving during the war were eligible for this benefit, which effectively increased the number of potential physician trainees at the end of World War II by almost 60,000.⁷ Medical education at the time was simultaneously undergoing a transformation with more rigorous training and a push to standardize medical education across state lines. While prerequisite training was not required for admission to many medical schools and curricula varied in length based on state licensing requirements, more programs were adding premedical education requirements and transitioning to the 4-year curricula seen today. At this time, only 23 states required postgraduate internships for licensure, but this number was growing.⁸ The American Board of Medical Specialties was established several years prior to World War II in 1934 to elevate the quality of care; the desire for residency training and board certification continued to gain traction during the 1940s.⁹

Medical Training

In anticipation of an influx of medical trainees, the Committee on Postwar Medical Service conducted a comprehensive survey to understand the training needs of physician veterans returning from World War II.⁷ The survey collected data from medical officers on their desired length of training, interest in specialty board certification, time served, and type of medical practice prior to enlisting. Length of desired training was categorized as short (up to 6 months), which would serve as a refresher course and provide updates on recent advances in medicine and surgery, and long (> 6 months), which resembled a modern internship or residency. Nineteen percent did not want additional training, 22% wished to pursue short courses, and 51% were interested in longer courses. Most respondents also wished to obtain board certification.⁷ The AMA played a significant role in supporting the expansion of training opportunities, encouraging all accredited hospitals to assess their capacity to determine the number of additional residents they could accommodate. The AMA also awarded hospitals with existing internship programs temporary accreditation to allow them to add extended training through residency programs.⁷

Medical schools devised creative solutions to meet the needs of returning physician veterans and capitalize on the available educational benefits. Postgraduate refresher courses that varied in length from hours to months were developed focusing on an array of topics. In addition to basic medical principles, courses covered general topics, such as advances in medicine, to specialty topics, such as nutrition or ophthalmology.⁷ Although the courses could not be counted toward board certification, participation increased by almost 300% in the 1945/1946 academic year relative to the previous year.⁷ Increasing access to the longer training courses, including internships and residencies, was often achieved through experiences outside the clinical setting. Yale University modified its curriculum to reduce time devoted to lectures on published materials and encourage active learning and community outreach.¹⁰ Northwestern University assigned residents to spend 1 of their 3 years “out of residence” in basic science and clinical instruction provided by the medical school. Tuition assistance from the GI Bill supported the additional expenses incurred by the medical school to fund laboratory space, equipment, and the salaries of the basic science instructors and administrative staff.¹¹

Public Law 79-293

Public Law 79-293 was passed on January 3, 1946, establishing the Department of Medicine and Surgery within the VA. The law, which became the basis for Title 38 chapters 73 and 74, allowed VA hospitals flexibility to hire doctors, dentists, and nurses without regard to the civil service regulations and salary restrictions associated with other federal positions.⁶

Concerns about quality of care had been mounting for years, and the release of several sensationalized and critical articles motivated VA leadership to make sweeping changes. One article described neglect at VA hospitals.¹² Excessive paperwork and low economic benefits were identified as barriers to the recruitment of qualified clinicians at the VA.² The VA Special Medical Advisory Group investigating the claims recommended that the VA encourage their hospitals to affiliate with medical schools to improve the quality of care. This group also recommended that new VA hospitals be constructed near academic medical centers to allow access to consultants.² Three large veterans service organizations (American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans) conducted their own investigations in response to the media reports. The organizations reported that the quality of care in most VA hospitals was already on par with the community but indicated that the VA would benefit from expansion of medical research and training, increased bed capacity, reduction in the administrative burden on clinicians, and increased salaries for clinical staff.²

Policy Memorandum No. 2

The relationship between VA and academic medical centers was solidified on January 30, 1946, with adoption of Policy Memorandum No. 2.¹³ This memorandum allowed for the establishment of relationships with academic medical centers to provide “the veteran a much higher standard of medical care than could be given him with a wholly full-time medical staff.” Shortly after this memorandum was signed, residents from Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicago began clinical rotations at the Hines VA facility in Chicago, Illinois.² By 1947, 62 medical schools had committed to an affiliation with local VA hospitals and 21 deans’ committees were in operation, which were responsible for the appointment of physician residents and consultants. The AMA extended direct membership privileges to VA physicians, and by 1947 the number of residency positions doubled nationally.^14,15 The almost universal support of the relationship between VA and academic affiliates provided educational opportunities for returning veterans and raised standards for medical education nationally.

Current State

Since the passage of PL 79-293 and PM No. 2, the VA-academic health professions education partnership has grown to include 113,000 trainees rotating through 150 VA medical centers annually from more than 1400 colleges and universities.¹⁶ Most VA podiatrists, psychologists, optometrists, and physicians working in VA medical centers also trained at VA, and trainees are 37% more likely to consider a job at VA after completing their clinical rotations. This unique partnership began 76 years ago and continues to provide clinicians “for VA and the nation.”

The US government has a legacy of providing support for veterans. Pensions were offered to disabled veterans as early as 1776, and benefits were expanded to cover medical needs as the country grew and modernized.^1,2 Enacted during the Civil War, the General Pension Act increased benefits for widows and dependents.² Rehabilitation and vocational training assistance benefits were added after World War I, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was created in 1930 to consolidate all benefits under one umbrella organization.^2,3

Prior to World War II, the VA lacked the bed capacity for the 4 million veterans who were eligible for care. This shortage became more acute by the end of the war, when the number of eligible veterans increased by 15 million.⁴ Although the VA successfully built bed capacity through acquisition of military hospitals, VA hospitals struggled to recruit clinical staff.² Physicians were hesitant to join the VA because civil service salaries were lower than comparable positions in the community, and the VA offered limited opportunities for research or continuing education. These limitations negatively impacted the overall reputation of the VA. The American Medical Association (AMA) was reluctant to directly admit VA physicians for membership because of a “lower” standard of care at VA hospitals.² This review will describe how passage of 2 legislative actions, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act and Public Law (PL)79-293, and a key policy memorandum set the foundation for the partnership between the VA and academic medical centers. This led to improved medical care for veterans and expansion of health professions education for VA and the nation.^5,6

GI Bill of Rights

The passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill of Rights, provided education assistance, guaranteed home loans, and unemployment payments to veterans.⁵ All medical officers serving during the war were eligible for this benefit, which effectively increased the number of potential physician trainees at the end of World War II by almost 60,000.⁷ Medical education at the time was simultaneously undergoing a transformation with more rigorous training and a push to standardize medical education across state lines. While prerequisite training was not required for admission to many medical schools and curricula varied in length based on state licensing requirements, more programs were adding premedical education requirements and transitioning to the 4-year curricula seen today. At this time, only 23 states required postgraduate internships for licensure, but this number was growing.⁸ The American Board of Medical Specialties was established several years prior to World War II in 1934 to elevate the quality of care; the desire for residency training and board certification continued to gain traction during the 1940s.⁹

Medical Training

In anticipation of an influx of medical trainees, the Committee on Postwar Medical Service conducted a comprehensive survey to understand the training needs of physician veterans returning from World War II.⁷ The survey collected data from medical officers on their desired length of training, interest in specialty board certification, time served, and type of medical practice prior to enlisting. Length of desired training was categorized as short (up to 6 months), which would serve as a refresher course and provide updates on recent advances in medicine and surgery, and long (> 6 months), which resembled a modern internship or residency. Nineteen percent did not want additional training, 22% wished to pursue short courses, and 51% were interested in longer courses. Most respondents also wished to obtain board certification.⁷ The AMA played a significant role in supporting the expansion of training opportunities, encouraging all accredited hospitals to assess their capacity to determine the number of additional residents they could accommodate. The AMA also awarded hospitals with existing internship programs temporary accreditation to allow them to add extended training through residency programs.⁷

Medical schools devised creative solutions to meet the needs of returning physician veterans and capitalize on the available educational benefits. Postgraduate refresher courses that varied in length from hours to months were developed focusing on an array of topics. In addition to basic medical principles, courses covered general topics, such as advances in medicine, to specialty topics, such as nutrition or ophthalmology.⁷ Although the courses could not be counted toward board certification, participation increased by almost 300% in the 1945/1946 academic year relative to the previous year.⁷ Increasing access to the longer training courses, including internships and residencies, was often achieved through experiences outside the clinical setting. Yale University modified its curriculum to reduce time devoted to lectures on published materials and encourage active learning and community outreach.¹⁰ Northwestern University assigned residents to spend 1 of their 3 years “out of residence” in basic science and clinical instruction provided by the medical school. Tuition assistance from the GI Bill supported the additional expenses incurred by the medical school to fund laboratory space, equipment, and the salaries of the basic science instructors and administrative staff.¹¹

Public Law 79-293

Public Law 79-293 was passed on January 3, 1946, establishing the Department of Medicine and Surgery within the VA. The law, which became the basis for Title 38 chapters 73 and 74, allowed VA hospitals flexibility to hire doctors, dentists, and nurses without regard to the civil service regulations and salary restrictions associated with other federal positions.⁶

Concerns about quality of care had been mounting for years, and the release of several sensationalized and critical articles motivated VA leadership to make sweeping changes. One article described neglect at VA hospitals.¹² Excessive paperwork and low economic benefits were identified as barriers to the recruitment of qualified clinicians at the VA.² The VA Special Medical Advisory Group investigating the claims recommended that the VA encourage their hospitals to affiliate with medical schools to improve the quality of care. This group also recommended that new VA hospitals be constructed near academic medical centers to allow access to consultants.² Three large veterans service organizations (American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans) conducted their own investigations in response to the media reports. The organizations reported that the quality of care in most VA hospitals was already on par with the community but indicated that the VA would benefit from expansion of medical research and training, increased bed capacity, reduction in the administrative burden on clinicians, and increased salaries for clinical staff.²

Policy Memorandum No. 2

The relationship between VA and academic medical centers was solidified on January 30, 1946, with adoption of Policy Memorandum No. 2.¹³ This memorandum allowed for the establishment of relationships with academic medical centers to provide “the veteran a much higher standard of medical care than could be given him with a wholly full-time medical staff.” Shortly after this memorandum was signed, residents from Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicago began clinical rotations at the Hines VA facility in Chicago, Illinois.² By 1947, 62 medical schools had committed to an affiliation with local VA hospitals and 21 deans’ committees were in operation, which were responsible for the appointment of physician residents and consultants. The AMA extended direct membership privileges to VA physicians, and by 1947 the number of residency positions doubled nationally.^14,15 The almost universal support of the relationship between VA and academic affiliates provided educational opportunities for returning veterans and raised standards for medical education nationally.

Current State

Since the passage of PL 79-293 and PM No. 2, the VA-academic health professions education partnership has grown to include 113,000 trainees rotating through 150 VA medical centers annually from more than 1400 colleges and universities.¹⁶ Most VA podiatrists, psychologists, optometrists, and physicians working in VA medical centers also trained at VA, and trainees are 37% more likely to consider a job at VA after completing their clinical rotations. This unique partnership began 76 years ago and continues to provide clinicians “for VA and the nation.”

The US government has a legacy of providing support for veterans. Pensions were offered to disabled veterans as early as 1776, and benefits were expanded to cover medical needs as the country grew and modernized.^1,2 Enacted during the Civil War, the General Pension Act increased benefits for widows and dependents.² Rehabilitation and vocational training assistance benefits were added after World War I, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was created in 1930 to consolidate all benefits under one umbrella organization.^2,3

Prior to World War II, the VA lacked the bed capacity for the 4 million veterans who were eligible for care. This shortage became more acute by the end of the war, when the number of eligible veterans increased by 15 million.⁴ Although the VA successfully built bed capacity through acquisition of military hospitals, VA hospitals struggled to recruit clinical staff.² Physicians were hesitant to join the VA because civil service salaries were lower than comparable positions in the community, and the VA offered limited opportunities for research or continuing education. These limitations negatively impacted the overall reputation of the VA. The American Medical Association (AMA) was reluctant to directly admit VA physicians for membership because of a “lower” standard of care at VA hospitals.² This review will describe how passage of 2 legislative actions, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act and Public Law (PL)79-293, and a key policy memorandum set the foundation for the partnership between the VA and academic medical centers. This led to improved medical care for veterans and expansion of health professions education for VA and the nation.^5,6

GI Bill of Rights

The passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill of Rights, provided education assistance, guaranteed home loans, and unemployment payments to veterans.⁵ All medical officers serving during the war were eligible for this benefit, which effectively increased the number of potential physician trainees at the end of World War II by almost 60,000.⁷ Medical education at the time was simultaneously undergoing a transformation with more rigorous training and a push to standardize medical education across state lines. While prerequisite training was not required for admission to many medical schools and curricula varied in length based on state licensing requirements, more programs were adding premedical education requirements and transitioning to the 4-year curricula seen today. At this time, only 23 states required postgraduate internships for licensure, but this number was growing.⁸ The American Board of Medical Specialties was established several years prior to World War II in 1934 to elevate the quality of care; the desire for residency training and board certification continued to gain traction during the 1940s.⁹

Medical Training

In anticipation of an influx of medical trainees, the Committee on Postwar Medical Service conducted a comprehensive survey to understand the training needs of physician veterans returning from World War II.⁷ The survey collected data from medical officers on their desired length of training, interest in specialty board certification, time served, and type of medical practice prior to enlisting. Length of desired training was categorized as short (up to 6 months), which would serve as a refresher course and provide updates on recent advances in medicine and surgery, and long (> 6 months), which resembled a modern internship or residency. Nineteen percent did not want additional training, 22% wished to pursue short courses, and 51% were interested in longer courses. Most respondents also wished to obtain board certification.⁷ The AMA played a significant role in supporting the expansion of training opportunities, encouraging all accredited hospitals to assess their capacity to determine the number of additional residents they could accommodate. The AMA also awarded hospitals with existing internship programs temporary accreditation to allow them to add extended training through residency programs.⁷

Medical schools devised creative solutions to meet the needs of returning physician veterans and capitalize on the available educational benefits. Postgraduate refresher courses that varied in length from hours to months were developed focusing on an array of topics. In addition to basic medical principles, courses covered general topics, such as advances in medicine, to specialty topics, such as nutrition or ophthalmology.⁷ Although the courses could not be counted toward board certification, participation increased by almost 300% in the 1945/1946 academic year relative to the previous year.⁷ Increasing access to the longer training courses, including internships and residencies, was often achieved through experiences outside the clinical setting. Yale University modified its curriculum to reduce time devoted to lectures on published materials and encourage active learning and community outreach.¹⁰ Northwestern University assigned residents to spend 1 of their 3 years “out of residence” in basic science and clinical instruction provided by the medical school. Tuition assistance from the GI Bill supported the additional expenses incurred by the medical school to fund laboratory space, equipment, and the salaries of the basic science instructors and administrative staff.¹¹

Public Law 79-293

Public Law 79-293 was passed on January 3, 1946, establishing the Department of Medicine and Surgery within the VA. The law, which became the basis for Title 38 chapters 73 and 74, allowed VA hospitals flexibility to hire doctors, dentists, and nurses without regard to the civil service regulations and salary restrictions associated with other federal positions.⁶

Concerns about quality of care had been mounting for years, and the release of several sensationalized and critical articles motivated VA leadership to make sweeping changes. One article described neglect at VA hospitals.¹² Excessive paperwork and low economic benefits were identified as barriers to the recruitment of qualified clinicians at the VA.² The VA Special Medical Advisory Group investigating the claims recommended that the VA encourage their hospitals to affiliate with medical schools to improve the quality of care. This group also recommended that new VA hospitals be constructed near academic medical centers to allow access to consultants.² Three large veterans service organizations (American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans) conducted their own investigations in response to the media reports. The organizations reported that the quality of care in most VA hospitals was already on par with the community but indicated that the VA would benefit from expansion of medical research and training, increased bed capacity, reduction in the administrative burden on clinicians, and increased salaries for clinical staff.²

Policy Memorandum No. 2

The relationship between VA and academic medical centers was solidified on January 30, 1946, with adoption of Policy Memorandum No. 2.¹³ This memorandum allowed for the establishment of relationships with academic medical centers to provide “the veteran a much higher standard of medical care than could be given him with a wholly full-time medical staff.” Shortly after this memorandum was signed, residents from Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicago began clinical rotations at the Hines VA facility in Chicago, Illinois.² By 1947, 62 medical schools had committed to an affiliation with local VA hospitals and 21 deans’ committees were in operation, which were responsible for the appointment of physician residents and consultants. The AMA extended direct membership privileges to VA physicians, and by 1947 the number of residency positions doubled nationally.^14,15 The almost universal support of the relationship between VA and academic affiliates provided educational opportunities for returning veterans and raised standards for medical education nationally.

Current State

Since the passage of PL 79-293 and PM No. 2, the VA-academic health professions education partnership has grown to include 113,000 trainees rotating through 150 VA medical centers annually from more than 1400 colleges and universities.¹⁶ Most VA podiatrists, psychologists, optometrists, and physicians working in VA medical centers also trained at VA, and trainees are 37% more likely to consider a job at VA after completing their clinical rotations. This unique partnership began 76 years ago and continues to provide clinicians “for VA and the nation.”

Not long ago, the grandmother of my son’s friend died of COVID-19 infection. She was elderly and unvaccinated. Her grandson had no regrets over her unvaccinated status. “Why would she inject poison into her body?” he said, and then expressed a strong opinion that she had died because the hospital physicians refused to give her ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. My son, wisely, did not push the issue.

Soon thereafter, my personal family physician emailed a newsletter to his patients (me included) with 3 important messages: (1) COVID vaccines were available in the office; (2) He was not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, no matter how adamantly it was requested; and (3) He warned against threatening him or his staff with lawsuits or violence over refusal to prescribe any unproven medication.

Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. This is the scientific process in action.

How, as a country, have we come to this? A sizeable portion of the public trusts the advice of quacks, hacks, and political opportunists over that of the nation’s most expert scientists and physicians. The National Institutes of Health maintains a website with up-to-date recommendations on the use of treatments for COVID-19. They assess the existing evidence and make recommendations for or against a wide array of interventions. (They recommend against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes extensively about the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Neither agency is part of a “deep state” or conspiracy. They are comprised of some of the nation’s leading scientists, including physicians, trying to protect the public from disease and foster good health.

Sadly, some physicians have been a source of inaccurate vaccine information; some even prescribe ineffective treatments despite the evidence. These physicians are either letting their politics override their good sense or are improperly assessing the scientific literature, or both. Medical licensing agencies, and specialty certification boards, need to find ways to prevent this—ways that can survive judicial scrutiny and allow for legitimate scientific debate.

I have been tempted to just accept the current situation as the inevitable outcome of social media–fueled tribalism. But when we know that the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated is 9 times that of people who have received a booster dose,¹ I can’t sit idly and watch the Internet pundits prevail. Instead, I continue to advise and teach my students to have confidence in trustworthy authorities and websites. Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. However, this is not evidence of malintent or incompetence, but rather, the scientific process in action.

I tell my students that one of the biggest challenges facing them and society is to figure out how to stop, or at least minimize the effects of, incorrect information, misleading statements, and outright lies in a society that values free speech. Physicians—young and old alike—must remain committed to communicating factual information to a not-always-receptive audience. And I wish my young colleagues luck; I hope that their passion for family medicine and their insights into social media may be just the combination that’s needed to redirect the public’s trust back to where it belongs during a health care crisis.

Not long ago, the grandmother of my son’s friend died of COVID-19 infection. She was elderly and unvaccinated. Her grandson had no regrets over her unvaccinated status. “Why would she inject poison into her body?” he said, and then expressed a strong opinion that she had died because the hospital physicians refused to give her ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. My son, wisely, did not push the issue.

Soon thereafter, my personal family physician emailed a newsletter to his patients (me included) with 3 important messages: (1) COVID vaccines were available in the office; (2) He was not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, no matter how adamantly it was requested; and (3) He warned against threatening him or his staff with lawsuits or violence over refusal to prescribe any unproven medication.

Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. This is the scientific process in action.

How, as a country, have we come to this? A sizeable portion of the public trusts the advice of quacks, hacks, and political opportunists over that of the nation’s most expert scientists and physicians. The National Institutes of Health maintains a website with up-to-date recommendations on the use of treatments for COVID-19. They assess the existing evidence and make recommendations for or against a wide array of interventions. (They recommend against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes extensively about the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Neither agency is part of a “deep state” or conspiracy. They are comprised of some of the nation’s leading scientists, including physicians, trying to protect the public from disease and foster good health.

Sadly, some physicians have been a source of inaccurate vaccine information; some even prescribe ineffective treatments despite the evidence. These physicians are either letting their politics override their good sense or are improperly assessing the scientific literature, or both. Medical licensing agencies, and specialty certification boards, need to find ways to prevent this—ways that can survive judicial scrutiny and allow for legitimate scientific debate.

I have been tempted to just accept the current situation as the inevitable outcome of social media–fueled tribalism. But when we know that the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated is 9 times that of people who have received a booster dose,¹ I can’t sit idly and watch the Internet pundits prevail. Instead, I continue to advise and teach my students to have confidence in trustworthy authorities and websites. Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. However, this is not evidence of malintent or incompetence, but rather, the scientific process in action.

I tell my students that one of the biggest challenges facing them and society is to figure out how to stop, or at least minimize the effects of, incorrect information, misleading statements, and outright lies in a society that values free speech. Physicians—young and old alike—must remain committed to communicating factual information to a not-always-receptive audience. And I wish my young colleagues luck; I hope that their passion for family medicine and their insights into social media may be just the combination that’s needed to redirect the public’s trust back to where it belongs during a health care crisis.

Not long ago, the grandmother of my son’s friend died of COVID-19 infection. She was elderly and unvaccinated. Her grandson had no regrets over her unvaccinated status. “Why would she inject poison into her body?” he said, and then expressed a strong opinion that she had died because the hospital physicians refused to give her ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. My son, wisely, did not push the issue.

Soon thereafter, my personal family physician emailed a newsletter to his patients (me included) with 3 important messages: (1) COVID vaccines were available in the office; (2) He was not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, no matter how adamantly it was requested; and (3) He warned against threatening him or his staff with lawsuits or violence over refusal to prescribe any unproven medication.

Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. This is the scientific process in action.

How, as a country, have we come to this? A sizeable portion of the public trusts the advice of quacks, hacks, and political opportunists over that of the nation’s most expert scientists and physicians. The National Institutes of Health maintains a website with up-to-date recommendations on the use of treatments for COVID-19. They assess the existing evidence and make recommendations for or against a wide array of interventions. (They recommend against the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes extensively about the current knowledge on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Neither agency is part of a “deep state” or conspiracy. They are comprised of some of the nation’s leading scientists, including physicians, trying to protect the public from disease and foster good health.

Sadly, some physicians have been a source of inaccurate vaccine information; some even prescribe ineffective treatments despite the evidence. These physicians are either letting their politics override their good sense or are improperly assessing the scientific literature, or both. Medical licensing agencies, and specialty certification boards, need to find ways to prevent this—ways that can survive judicial scrutiny and allow for legitimate scientific debate.

I have been tempted to just accept the current situation as the inevitable outcome of social media–fueled tribalism. But when we know that the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated is 9 times that of people who have received a booster dose,¹ I can’t sit idly and watch the Internet pundits prevail. Instead, I continue to advise and teach my students to have confidence in trustworthy authorities and websites. Mistakes will be made; corrections will be issued. However, this is not evidence of malintent or incompetence, but rather, the scientific process in action.

I tell my students that one of the biggest challenges facing them and society is to figure out how to stop, or at least minimize the effects of, incorrect information, misleading statements, and outright lies in a society that values free speech. Physicians—young and old alike—must remain committed to communicating factual information to a not-always-receptive audience. And I wish my young colleagues luck; I hope that their passion for family medicine and their insights into social media may be just the combination that’s needed to redirect the public’s trust back to where it belongs during a health care crisis.

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

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

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

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

We’ve been told for decades that a child who doesn’t start the day with a good breakfast is entering school at a serious disadvantage. The brain needs a good supply of energy to learn optimally. So the standard wisdom goes. Subsidized school breakfast programs have been built around this chestnut. But, is there solid evidence to support the notion that simply adding a morning meal to a child’s schedule will improve his or her school performance? It sounds like common sense, but is it just one of those old grandmother’s nuggets that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny?

A recent study from Spain suggests that the relationship between breakfast and school performance is not merely related to the nutritional needs of a growing brain. Using data from nearly 4,000 Spanish children aged 4-14 collected in a 2017 national health survey, the investigators found “skipping breakfast and eating breakfast out of the home were linked to greater odds of psychosocial behavioral problems than eating breakfast at home.” And, we already know that, in general, children who misbehave in school don’t thrive academically.

There were also associations between the absence or presence of certain food groups in the morning meal with behavioral problems. But the data lacked the granularity to draw any firm conclusions – although the authors felt that what they consider a healthy Spanish diet may have had a positive influence on behavior.

The findings in this study may simply be another example of the many positive influences that have been associated with family meals and have little to do with what is actually consumed. The association may not have much to do with the family gathering together at a single Norman Rockwell sitting, a reality that I suspect seldom occurs. The apparent positive influence of breakfast may be that it reflects a family’s priorities: that food is important, that sleep is important, and that school is important – so important that scheduling the morning should focus on sending the child off well prepared. The child who is allowed to stay up to an unhealthy hour is likely to be difficult to arouse in the morning for breakfast and getting off to school.

It may be that the child’s behavior problems are so disruptive and taxing for the family that even with their best efforts, the parents can’t find the time and energy to provide a breakfast in the home.

On the other hand, the study doesn’t tell us how many children aren’t offered breakfast at home because their families simply can’t afford it. Obviously, the answer depends on the socioeconomic mix of a given community. In some localities this may represent a sizable percentage of the population.

So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, as I read through the discussion at the end of this paper I felt that the authors were leaning too much toward further research based on the potential associations between behavior and specific food groups their data suggested.

For me, the take-home message from this paper is that our existing efforts to improve academic success with food offered in school should also include strategies that promote eating breakfast at home. For example, the backpack take-home food distribution programs that seem to have been effective could include breakfast-targeted items packaged in a way that encourage families to provide breakfast at home.

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

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Recruiting health care workers is a challenge these days for both private practice and hospital employers, and competition can be fierce. In order to be competitive, employers need to review the package they are offering potential candidates and understand that it’s more than just compensation and benefits that matter.

When all else is equal, contract language can end up being the difference between capturing or losing a candidate.

As someone who reviews physician contracts extensively, there are some common examples of language that may cause a candidate to choose a different position.
 

Probationary period

Although every employer wants to find out if they like the physician or midlevel employee that they have just hired before fully committing, the inclusion of a probationary period (usually 90 days) is offensive to a candidate, especially one with a choice of contracts.

Essentially, the employer is asking the employee to (potentially) relocate, go through the credentialing process, and turn down other potential offers, all for the possibility that they could easily be terminated. Probationary periods typically allow an employee to be immediately terminated without notice or cause, which can then leave them stranded without a paycheck (and with a new home and/or other recent commitments).

Moreover, contracts with probationary periods tend to terminate the employee without covering any tail costs or clarifying that the employer will not enforce restrictive provisions (even if unlikely to be legally enforceable based on the short relationship).

It is important to understand that the process of a person finding a new position, which includes interviewing, contract negotiation, and credentialing, can take up to 6 months. For this reason, probationary provisions create real job insecurity for a candidate.

Entering into a new affiliation is a leap of faith both for the employer and the employee. If the circumstances do not work out, the employer should fairly compensate the employee for the notice period and ask them not to return to work or otherwise allow them to keep working the notice period while they search for a new position.
 

Acceleration of notice

Another objectionable provision that employers like to include in their contracts is one which allows the employer to accelerate and immediately terminate an employee who has given proper notice.

The contract will contain a standard notice provision, but when the health care professional submits notice, their last date is suddenly accelerated, and they are released without further compensation, notice, or benefits. This type of provision is particularly offensive to health care employees who take the step of giving proper contractual notice and, similar to the probationary language, can create real job insecurity for an employee who suddenly loses their paycheck and has no new job to start.

Medical workers should be paid for the entire notice period whether or not they are allowed to work. Unfortunately, this type of provision is sometimes hidden in contracts and not noticed by employees, who tend to focus on the notice provision itself. I consider this provision to be a red flag about the employer when I review clients’ contracts.
 

Malpractice tail

Although many employers will claim it is not unusual for an employee to pay for their own malpractice tail, in the current marketplace, the payment of tail can be a deciding factor in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

At a minimum, employers should consider paying for the tail under circumstances where they non-renew a contract, terminate without cause, or the contract is terminated for the employer’s breach. Similarly, I like to seek out payment of the tail by the employer where the contract is terminated owing to a change in the law, use of a force majeure provision, loss of the employer’s hospital contract, or similar provisions where termination is outside the control of the employee.

Employers should also consider a provision where they share the cost of a tail or cover the entire cost on the basis of years of service in order to stand out to a potential candidate.
 

Noncompete provisions

I do not find noncompete provisions to be generally unacceptable when properly written; however, employers should reevaluate the reasonableness of their noncompete language frequently, because such language can make the difference in whether a candidate accepts a contract.

A reasonable noncompete that only protects the employer as necessary and does not restrict the reasonable practice of medicine is always preferable and can be the deciding factor for a candidate. Tying enforcement of a noncompete to reasons for termination (similar to the tail) can also make a positive difference in a candidate’s review of a contract.

Egregious noncompetes, where the candidate is simply informed that the language is “not negotiable,” are unlikely to be compelling to a candidate with other options.
 

Specifics on location, call, schedule

One item potential employees find extremely frustrating about contracts is when it fails to include promises made regarding location, call, and schedule.

These particular items affect a physician’s expectations about a job, including commute time, family life, and lifestyle. An employer or recruiter that makes a lot of promises on these points but won’t commit to the details in writing (or at least offer mutual agreement on these issues) can cause an uncertain candidate to choose the job that offers greater certainty.

There are many provisions of a contract that can make a difference to a particular job applicant. A savvy employer seeking to capture a particular health care professional should find out what the specific goals and needs of the candidate might be and consider adjusting the contract to best satisfy the candidate.

At the end of the day, however, at least for those physicians and others reviewing contracts that are fairly equivalent, it may be the fairness of the contract provisions that end up being the deciding factor.

Ms. Adler is Health Law Group Practice Leader for the law firm Roetzel in Chicago. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

Health literacy is a multifaceted construct that encompasses the knowledge of health and health systems, utilization of information related to health, and ability to maintain health.¹ Low health literacy impairs health outcomes, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, including racial minorities and the older population. Consistently, it is associated with fewer vaccinations and screenings, higher health care utilization, and poorer ability to take medications or interpret health information.²

With growing utilization of the Internet for health information,³ much patient education now occurs outside the clinic. Differential utilization of the Internet can exacerbate disparities in health outcomes: people with a lower family income more frequently engage in health information and dialogue online.³ Despite opportunities to improve literacy and narrow gaps in care, a lack of awareness, advocacy, and funding limit patient- and community-based initiatives. Herein, we discuss health literacy challenges in dermatology, offer potential solutions, and propose ways that stakeholders can prioritize health literacy advocacy to improve outcomes.

The Importance of Health Literacy in Dermatology

Dermatology patients often face challenges that demand greater health literacy. Active participation in health promotion, protection, and maintenance can remarkably improve outcomes. When patients understand disease pathogenesis and the rationale behind treatment choices, adherence to a treatment regimen might improve.

However, understanding dermatologic diseases and disorders can be challenging. First, many are chronic inflammatory conditions that require intricate treatment regimens. Second, the complexity of those diseases and disorders continues to grow in the era of new research and unprecedented expansion of treatment options.

For chronic conditions that require ongoing complex management, researchers have developed advanced patient tools. For instance, the eczema action plan helps atopic dermatitis patients manage conditions from home.⁴ However, patients with greater literacy and the ability to participate will better utilize such tools and have fewer uncontrolled flares. Patient tools meant to improve outcomes might, instead, widen gaps in care. Even with nonchronic conditions, such as nonmelanoma skin cancer, continued awareness and the need for preventive care, timely diagnosis, and appropriate intervention remain critical.

Limited Accessibility of Patient Education Materials

Patient education in dermatology occurs through several formats. Because online health resources are more readily available to those with less access to health care, the potential for such resources to narrow health disparities is immense. However, online resources have not adequately taken advantage of the opportunity to make health information openly accessible to its users. The readability of online patient education materials on a large expanse of dermatologic conditions is far too advanced.⁵ The readability level of some resources is as high as 17th grade (graduate school), which is much higher than the American Medical Association recommendation⁶ that patient education materials be presented at a 6th-grade level or less. Furthermore, the quality and comprehensiveness of content is highly variable. Rather than serving as an equalizer, the Internet may widen the gap as low health literacy continues to impair the accessibility of health information.

Solutions to Level the Playing Field

What can be done to increase the readability of patient education materials? Leveling the playing field begins with creating materials at an appropriate readability level, including online content, printed handouts, and after-visit summaries in the clinic. Writers of patient education materials should be cognizant of their choice of language and routinely use a free readability checker (https://readabilityformulas.com). Patient education materials should reflect the American Medical Association’s recommended 6th-grade level. Creators should maintain a high standard of quality and comprehensiveness; prior studies note no inverse correlation between readability and quality.⁵ In the age of multimedia presentation, non–print-based materials can be explored, such as audio or video for online content, podcasts, and webinars. Providers also should take the opportunity to be mindful of health literacy in clinic. Beyond assessing the readability of written resources for a patient, assessing that patient’s health literacy and tailoring one’s language will maximize engagement.

Systemic Change Is Needed

Ultimately, systemic change is needed to address the root causes of health literacy disparity, requiring advocacy for social welfare, public health, and public policy initiatives. In recognizing existing efforts, such as community outreach teams and hospital committees to evaluate health literacy materials, numerous barriers remain. Despite the notable impact of health literacy on health outcomes, there is a lack of advocacy and funds to conduct health literacy–related work.⁷ Because dermatologists provide holistic care and remain mindful of patients’ health literacy in the clinic, they should continue to advocate for increased awareness, improved funding, and support for local and federal initiatives.

Final Thoughts

With more opportunities to narrow gaps in care, it is more pertinent than ever to acknowledge the impact of health literacy on dermatology outcomes. Leveling the playing field begins with (1) an awareness of health literacy and (2) creating readable and comprehensible patient education content. Greater advocacy from community and professional organizations; increased funding from nonprofit organizations, industry, and federal institutions; and increased involvement by dermatologists in bringing greater attention to health literacy will improve outcomes in dermatology.

The unfortunate death of Lori McClintock, wife of northern California congressman Tom McClintock, shortly after consuming the herbal remedy white mulberry leaf on Dec. 15, 2021, gives us the opportunity to discuss how to better protect the American public from nutritional supplements with claims to aid health. Mulberry leaf has been purported to lower blood glucose levels, cholesterol, and inflammation as well as promote weight loss.

Many people desire to improve their health with concoctions purported to be “natural” or “from nature” instead of seeing a doctor and taking a medication or other therapy that is evidenced-based and backed by approval from the Food and Drug Administration. With the burgeoning prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country (and worldwide) and the lack of a magic bullet that can stop the progression of these life-threatening diseases, many Americans turn to herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to promote weight loss and improve health.

Passed in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed manufacturers of herbal and nutritional supplements to be “off the radar” of government regulators, unless their products have been shown to do harm – which is the government’s burden to prove.

A dietary supplement is defined as a product containing one or more vitamin, mineral, herb, or other botanical; amino acid; or other substance that would increase the total dietary intake of that product.

DSHEA exempted dietary supplements from the rigorous safety and efficacy testing that medications must undergo for various disease states, which is regulated by the FDA.
 

People with obesity may fall prey to dietary supplements’ claims

Persons suffering from obesity and its metabolic sequelae may be susceptible to the claims of dietary supplements because:

• The stigma associated with obesity, including the lack of understanding that obesity is a disease not under a person’s control, may make those with the disease wish to remedy it on their own out of shame and peer pressure.
• Clinicians and doctors traditionally have not been trained in obesity medicine so they aren’t comfortable treating obesity.
• It’s only fairly recently that obesity was recognized as a disease, so many insurance companies still don’t reimburse for obesity treatments, including the agents that can suppress appetite and result in weight loss.

For all of these reasons and more, only 2% or less of the millions of Americans suffering from obesity are treated with an antiobesity agent each year.

This has paved the way for the dietary supplement industry to prey on a desperate population, in much the same way that fad diets continue to attract multitudes of Americans. These supplements, however, carry much more risk than fad diets.

The solution, of course, is better regulation of the supplement industry, but it’s also improvement of how obesity is treated by the medical community.
 

How can clinicians and the community help?

Government, academic, community, clinical, and lay persons are more frequently recognizing obesity as a disease. Stigma will slowly come to a halt, as it has for other diseases such as depression and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Medications that have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy eventually will be prescribed more and covered by healthcare insurance. Clinicians, and specifically physicians, are the most trusted persons in terms of giving medical advice. We need to ask patients whether they are taking supplements and be vocal about their lack of protection against harm, as allowed by DSHEA.

It would not be overkill to add prompts to the medical record to ask patients not only about smoking, alcohol, and drug use but also about supplements of all kinds. Some medical records do use these prompts but they are not as ubiquitous as those for smoking, alcohol, and drug use.

The supplement industry is powerful, but so is the medical industry when it comes to lobbying for change. It is ironic that Lori McClintock was the wife of a congressman. Perhaps the silver lining is future work toward legislation advocating for an end to these tragic deaths from poorly regulated supplements. Alignment with government in pushing for stricter regulations could save lives in the future.

Dr. Apovian is a faculty member, department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension; and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Boston. She disclosed ties with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.



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

The unfortunate death of Lori McClintock, wife of northern California congressman Tom McClintock, shortly after consuming the herbal remedy white mulberry leaf on Dec. 15, 2021, gives us the opportunity to discuss how to better protect the American public from nutritional supplements with claims to aid health. Mulberry leaf has been purported to lower blood glucose levels, cholesterol, and inflammation as well as promote weight loss.

Many people desire to improve their health with concoctions purported to be “natural” or “from nature” instead of seeing a doctor and taking a medication or other therapy that is evidenced-based and backed by approval from the Food and Drug Administration. With the burgeoning prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country (and worldwide) and the lack of a magic bullet that can stop the progression of these life-threatening diseases, many Americans turn to herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to promote weight loss and improve health.

Passed in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed manufacturers of herbal and nutritional supplements to be “off the radar” of government regulators, unless their products have been shown to do harm – which is the government’s burden to prove.

A dietary supplement is defined as a product containing one or more vitamin, mineral, herb, or other botanical; amino acid; or other substance that would increase the total dietary intake of that product.

DSHEA exempted dietary supplements from the rigorous safety and efficacy testing that medications must undergo for various disease states, which is regulated by the FDA.
 

People with obesity may fall prey to dietary supplements’ claims

Persons suffering from obesity and its metabolic sequelae may be susceptible to the claims of dietary supplements because:

• The stigma associated with obesity, including the lack of understanding that obesity is a disease not under a person’s control, may make those with the disease wish to remedy it on their own out of shame and peer pressure.
• Clinicians and doctors traditionally have not been trained in obesity medicine so they aren’t comfortable treating obesity.
• It’s only fairly recently that obesity was recognized as a disease, so many insurance companies still don’t reimburse for obesity treatments, including the agents that can suppress appetite and result in weight loss.

For all of these reasons and more, only 2% or less of the millions of Americans suffering from obesity are treated with an antiobesity agent each year.

This has paved the way for the dietary supplement industry to prey on a desperate population, in much the same way that fad diets continue to attract multitudes of Americans. These supplements, however, carry much more risk than fad diets.

The solution, of course, is better regulation of the supplement industry, but it’s also improvement of how obesity is treated by the medical community.
 

How can clinicians and the community help?

Government, academic, community, clinical, and lay persons are more frequently recognizing obesity as a disease. Stigma will slowly come to a halt, as it has for other diseases such as depression and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Medications that have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy eventually will be prescribed more and covered by healthcare insurance. Clinicians, and specifically physicians, are the most trusted persons in terms of giving medical advice. We need to ask patients whether they are taking supplements and be vocal about their lack of protection against harm, as allowed by DSHEA.

It would not be overkill to add prompts to the medical record to ask patients not only about smoking, alcohol, and drug use but also about supplements of all kinds. Some medical records do use these prompts but they are not as ubiquitous as those for smoking, alcohol, and drug use.

The supplement industry is powerful, but so is the medical industry when it comes to lobbying for change. It is ironic that Lori McClintock was the wife of a congressman. Perhaps the silver lining is future work toward legislation advocating for an end to these tragic deaths from poorly regulated supplements. Alignment with government in pushing for stricter regulations could save lives in the future.

Dr. Apovian is a faculty member, department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension; and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Boston. She disclosed ties with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.



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

The unfortunate death of Lori McClintock, wife of northern California congressman Tom McClintock, shortly after consuming the herbal remedy white mulberry leaf on Dec. 15, 2021, gives us the opportunity to discuss how to better protect the American public from nutritional supplements with claims to aid health. Mulberry leaf has been purported to lower blood glucose levels, cholesterol, and inflammation as well as promote weight loss.

Many people desire to improve their health with concoctions purported to be “natural” or “from nature” instead of seeing a doctor and taking a medication or other therapy that is evidenced-based and backed by approval from the Food and Drug Administration. With the burgeoning prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in this country (and worldwide) and the lack of a magic bullet that can stop the progression of these life-threatening diseases, many Americans turn to herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to promote weight loss and improve health.

Passed in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed manufacturers of herbal and nutritional supplements to be “off the radar” of government regulators, unless their products have been shown to do harm – which is the government’s burden to prove.

A dietary supplement is defined as a product containing one or more vitamin, mineral, herb, or other botanical; amino acid; or other substance that would increase the total dietary intake of that product.

DSHEA exempted dietary supplements from the rigorous safety and efficacy testing that medications must undergo for various disease states, which is regulated by the FDA.
 

People with obesity may fall prey to dietary supplements’ claims

Persons suffering from obesity and its metabolic sequelae may be susceptible to the claims of dietary supplements because:

• The stigma associated with obesity, including the lack of understanding that obesity is a disease not under a person’s control, may make those with the disease wish to remedy it on their own out of shame and peer pressure.
• Clinicians and doctors traditionally have not been trained in obesity medicine so they aren’t comfortable treating obesity.
• It’s only fairly recently that obesity was recognized as a disease, so many insurance companies still don’t reimburse for obesity treatments, including the agents that can suppress appetite and result in weight loss.

For all of these reasons and more, only 2% or less of the millions of Americans suffering from obesity are treated with an antiobesity agent each year.

This has paved the way for the dietary supplement industry to prey on a desperate population, in much the same way that fad diets continue to attract multitudes of Americans. These supplements, however, carry much more risk than fad diets.

The solution, of course, is better regulation of the supplement industry, but it’s also improvement of how obesity is treated by the medical community.
 

How can clinicians and the community help?

Government, academic, community, clinical, and lay persons are more frequently recognizing obesity as a disease. Stigma will slowly come to a halt, as it has for other diseases such as depression and addiction to alcohol and drugs. Medications that have undergone rigorous testing for safety and efficacy eventually will be prescribed more and covered by healthcare insurance. Clinicians, and specifically physicians, are the most trusted persons in terms of giving medical advice. We need to ask patients whether they are taking supplements and be vocal about their lack of protection against harm, as allowed by DSHEA.

It would not be overkill to add prompts to the medical record to ask patients not only about smoking, alcohol, and drug use but also about supplements of all kinds. Some medical records do use these prompts but they are not as ubiquitous as those for smoking, alcohol, and drug use.

The supplement industry is powerful, but so is the medical industry when it comes to lobbying for change. It is ironic that Lori McClintock was the wife of a congressman. Perhaps the silver lining is future work toward legislation advocating for an end to these tragic deaths from poorly regulated supplements. Alignment with government in pushing for stricter regulations could save lives in the future.

Dr. Apovian is a faculty member, department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension; and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Boston. She disclosed ties with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.



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

One of psychiatry’s long-standing dogmas is that personality disorders are enduring, unchangeable, and not amenable to treatment with potent psychotropics or intensive psychotherapy. I propose that this dogma may soon be shattered.

Several other dogmas in psychiatry have been demolished over the past several decades:

• that “insanity” is completely irreversible and requires lifetime institutionalization. The serendipitous discovery of chlorpromazine¹ annihilated this centuries-old dogma
• that chronic, severe, refractory depression (with ongoing suicidal urges) that fails to improve with pharmacotherapy or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is hopeless and untreatable, until ketamine not only pulverized this dogma, but did it with lightning speed, dazzling us all²
• that dissociative agents such as ketamine are dangerous and condemnable drugs of abuse, until the therapeutic effect of ketamine slayed that dragon³
• that ECT “fries” the brain (as malevolently propagated by antipsychiatry cults), which was completely disproven by neuroimaging studies that show the hippocampus (which shrinks during depression) actually grows by >10% after a few ECT sessions⁴
• that psychotherapy is not a “real” treatment because talking cannot reverse a psychiatric brain disorder, until studies showed significant neuroplasticity with psychotherapy and decrease in inflammatory biomarkers with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)⁵
• that persons with refractory hallucinations and delusions are doomed to a life of disability, until clozapine torpedoed that pessimistic dogma⁶
• that hallucinogens/psychedelics are dangerous and should be banned, until a jarring paradigm shift occurred with the discovery of psilocybin’s transformative effects, and the remarkable therapeutic effects of its mystical trips.⁷

Psilocybin’s therapeutic effects

Psilocybin has already proved to have a strong and lasting effect on depression and promises to have therapeutic benefits for patients with substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety.⁸ In addition, when the multiple psychological and neuro­biological effects of psilocybin (and of other psychedelics) are examined, I see a very promising path to amelioration of severe personality disorders such as psychopathy, antisocial behavior, and narcissism. The mechanism(s) of action of psilocybin on the human brain are drastically different from any man-made psychotropic agent. As a psychiatric neuroscientist, I envision the neurologic impact of psilocybin to be conducive to a complete transformation of a patient’s view of themself, other people, and the meaning of life. It is reminiscent of religious conversion.

The psychological effects of psilocybin in humans have been described as follows:

• emotional breakthrough⁹
• increased psychological flexibility,^10,11 a very cortical effect
• mystical experience,¹² which results in sudden and significant changes in behavior and perception and includes the following dimensions: sacredness, noetic quality, deeply felt positive mood, ineffability, paradoxicality, and transcendence of time and space¹³
• oceanic boundlessness, feeling “one with the universe”¹⁴
• universal interconnectedness, insightfulness, blissful state, spiritual experience¹⁴
• ego dissolution,¹⁵ with loss of one’s personal identity
• increased neuroplasticity¹⁶
• changes in cognition and increase in insight.¹⁷

The neurobiological effects of psilocybin are mediated by serotonin 5HT2A agonism and include the following¹⁸:

• reduction in the activity of the medial prefrontal cortex, which regulates memory, attention, inhibitory control, and habit
• a decrease in the connectivity between the medial prefrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex, which regulates memory and emotions
• reducing the default mode network, which is active during rest, stimulating internal thoughts and reminiscing about previous feelings and events, sometimes including ruminations. Psilocybin reverses those processes to thinking about others, not just the self, and becoming more open-minded about the world and other people. This can be therapeutic for depression, which is often associated with negative ruminations but also with entrenched habits (addictive behaviors), anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorders
• increased global functional connectivity among various brain networks, leading to stronger functional integration of behavior
• collapse of major cortical oscillatory rhythms such as alpha and others that perpetuate “prior” beliefs
• extensive neuroplasticity and recalibration of thought processes and decomposition of pathological beliefs, referred to as REBUS (relaxed beliefs under psychedelics).

The bottom line is psilocybin and other psychedelics can dramatically alter, reshape, and relax rigid beliefs and personality traits by decreasing “neuroticism” and increasing “extraversion,” insightfulness, openness, and possibly conscientiousness.¹⁹ Although no studies of psychedelics in psychopathic, antisocial, or narcissistic personality disorders have been conducted, it is very reasonable to speculate that psilocybin may reverse traits of these disorders such as callousness, lack of empathy, and pathological self-centeredness.

Going further, a preliminary report suggests psilocybin can modify political views by decreasing authoritarianism and increasing libertarianism.^20,21 In the current political zeitgeist, could psychedelics such as psilocybin reduce or even eliminate political extremism and visceral hatred on all sides? It would be remarkable research to carry out to heal a politically divided populace.The dogma of untreatable personality disorders or hopelessly entrenched political extremism is on the chopping block, and psychedelics offer hope to splinter those beliefs by concurrently remodeling brain tissue (neuroplasticity) and rectifying the mindset (psychoplasticity).

One of psychiatry’s long-standing dogmas is that personality disorders are enduring, unchangeable, and not amenable to treatment with potent psychotropics or intensive psychotherapy. I propose that this dogma may soon be shattered.

Several other dogmas in psychiatry have been demolished over the past several decades:

• that “insanity” is completely irreversible and requires lifetime institutionalization. The serendipitous discovery of chlorpromazine¹ annihilated this centuries-old dogma
• that chronic, severe, refractory depression (with ongoing suicidal urges) that fails to improve with pharmacotherapy or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is hopeless and untreatable, until ketamine not only pulverized this dogma, but did it with lightning speed, dazzling us all²
• that dissociative agents such as ketamine are dangerous and condemnable drugs of abuse, until the therapeutic effect of ketamine slayed that dragon³
• that ECT “fries” the brain (as malevolently propagated by antipsychiatry cults), which was completely disproven by neuroimaging studies that show the hippocampus (which shrinks during depression) actually grows by >10% after a few ECT sessions⁴
• that psychotherapy is not a “real” treatment because talking cannot reverse a psychiatric brain disorder, until studies showed significant neuroplasticity with psychotherapy and decrease in inflammatory biomarkers with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)⁵
• that persons with refractory hallucinations and delusions are doomed to a life of disability, until clozapine torpedoed that pessimistic dogma⁶
• that hallucinogens/psychedelics are dangerous and should be banned, until a jarring paradigm shift occurred with the discovery of psilocybin’s transformative effects, and the remarkable therapeutic effects of its mystical trips.⁷

Psilocybin’s therapeutic effects

Psilocybin has already proved to have a strong and lasting effect on depression and promises to have therapeutic benefits for patients with substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety.⁸ In addition, when the multiple psychological and neuro­biological effects of psilocybin (and of other psychedelics) are examined, I see a very promising path to amelioration of severe personality disorders such as psychopathy, antisocial behavior, and narcissism. The mechanism(s) of action of psilocybin on the human brain are drastically different from any man-made psychotropic agent. As a psychiatric neuroscientist, I envision the neurologic impact of psilocybin to be conducive to a complete transformation of a patient’s view of themself, other people, and the meaning of life. It is reminiscent of religious conversion.

The psychological effects of psilocybin in humans have been described as follows:

• emotional breakthrough⁹
• increased psychological flexibility,^10,11 a very cortical effect
• mystical experience,¹² which results in sudden and significant changes in behavior and perception and includes the following dimensions: sacredness, noetic quality, deeply felt positive mood, ineffability, paradoxicality, and transcendence of time and space¹³
• oceanic boundlessness, feeling “one with the universe”¹⁴
• universal interconnectedness, insightfulness, blissful state, spiritual experience¹⁴
• ego dissolution,¹⁵ with loss of one’s personal identity
• increased neuroplasticity¹⁶
• changes in cognition and increase in insight.¹⁷

The neurobiological effects of psilocybin are mediated by serotonin 5HT2A agonism and include the following¹⁸:

• reduction in the activity of the medial prefrontal cortex, which regulates memory, attention, inhibitory control, and habit
• a decrease in the connectivity between the medial prefrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex, which regulates memory and emotions
• reducing the default mode network, which is active during rest, stimulating internal thoughts and reminiscing about previous feelings and events, sometimes including ruminations. Psilocybin reverses those processes to thinking about others, not just the self, and becoming more open-minded about the world and other people. This can be therapeutic for depression, which is often associated with negative ruminations but also with entrenched habits (addictive behaviors), anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorders
• increased global functional connectivity among various brain networks, leading to stronger functional integration of behavior
• collapse of major cortical oscillatory rhythms such as alpha and others that perpetuate “prior” beliefs
• extensive neuroplasticity and recalibration of thought processes and decomposition of pathological beliefs, referred to as REBUS (relaxed beliefs under psychedelics).

The bottom line is psilocybin and other psychedelics can dramatically alter, reshape, and relax rigid beliefs and personality traits by decreasing “neuroticism” and increasing “extraversion,” insightfulness, openness, and possibly conscientiousness.¹⁹ Although no studies of psychedelics in psychopathic, antisocial, or narcissistic personality disorders have been conducted, it is very reasonable to speculate that psilocybin may reverse traits of these disorders such as callousness, lack of empathy, and pathological self-centeredness.

Going further, a preliminary report suggests psilocybin can modify political views by decreasing authoritarianism and increasing libertarianism.^20,21 In the current political zeitgeist, could psychedelics such as psilocybin reduce or even eliminate political extremism and visceral hatred on all sides? It would be remarkable research to carry out to heal a politically divided populace.The dogma of untreatable personality disorders or hopelessly entrenched political extremism is on the chopping block, and psychedelics offer hope to splinter those beliefs by concurrently remodeling brain tissue (neuroplasticity) and rectifying the mindset (psychoplasticity).

One of psychiatry’s long-standing dogmas is that personality disorders are enduring, unchangeable, and not amenable to treatment with potent psychotropics or intensive psychotherapy. I propose that this dogma may soon be shattered.

Several other dogmas in psychiatry have been demolished over the past several decades:

• that “insanity” is completely irreversible and requires lifetime institutionalization. The serendipitous discovery of chlorpromazine¹ annihilated this centuries-old dogma
• that chronic, severe, refractory depression (with ongoing suicidal urges) that fails to improve with pharmacotherapy or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is hopeless and untreatable, until ketamine not only pulverized this dogma, but did it with lightning speed, dazzling us all²
• that dissociative agents such as ketamine are dangerous and condemnable drugs of abuse, until the therapeutic effect of ketamine slayed that dragon³
• that ECT “fries” the brain (as malevolently propagated by antipsychiatry cults), which was completely disproven by neuroimaging studies that show the hippocampus (which shrinks during depression) actually grows by >10% after a few ECT sessions⁴
• that psychotherapy is not a “real” treatment because talking cannot reverse a psychiatric brain disorder, until studies showed significant neuroplasticity with psychotherapy and decrease in inflammatory biomarkers with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)⁵
• that persons with refractory hallucinations and delusions are doomed to a life of disability, until clozapine torpedoed that pessimistic dogma⁶
• that hallucinogens/psychedelics are dangerous and should be banned, until a jarring paradigm shift occurred with the discovery of psilocybin’s transformative effects, and the remarkable therapeutic effects of its mystical trips.⁷

Psilocybin’s therapeutic effects

Psilocybin has already proved to have a strong and lasting effect on depression and promises to have therapeutic benefits for patients with substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety.⁸ In addition, when the multiple psychological and neuro­biological effects of psilocybin (and of other psychedelics) are examined, I see a very promising path to amelioration of severe personality disorders such as psychopathy, antisocial behavior, and narcissism. The mechanism(s) of action of psilocybin on the human brain are drastically different from any man-made psychotropic agent. As a psychiatric neuroscientist, I envision the neurologic impact of psilocybin to be conducive to a complete transformation of a patient’s view of themself, other people, and the meaning of life. It is reminiscent of religious conversion.

The psychological effects of psilocybin in humans have been described as follows:

• emotional breakthrough⁹
• increased psychological flexibility,^10,11 a very cortical effect
• mystical experience,¹² which results in sudden and significant changes in behavior and perception and includes the following dimensions: sacredness, noetic quality, deeply felt positive mood, ineffability, paradoxicality, and transcendence of time and space¹³
• oceanic boundlessness, feeling “one with the universe”¹⁴
• universal interconnectedness, insightfulness, blissful state, spiritual experience¹⁴
• ego dissolution,¹⁵ with loss of one’s personal identity
• increased neuroplasticity¹⁶
• changes in cognition and increase in insight.¹⁷

The neurobiological effects of psilocybin are mediated by serotonin 5HT2A agonism and include the following¹⁸:

• reduction in the activity of the medial prefrontal cortex, which regulates memory, attention, inhibitory control, and habit
• a decrease in the connectivity between the medial prefrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex, which regulates memory and emotions
• reducing the default mode network, which is active during rest, stimulating internal thoughts and reminiscing about previous feelings and events, sometimes including ruminations. Psilocybin reverses those processes to thinking about others, not just the self, and becoming more open-minded about the world and other people. This can be therapeutic for depression, which is often associated with negative ruminations but also with entrenched habits (addictive behaviors), anxiety, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorders
• increased global functional connectivity among various brain networks, leading to stronger functional integration of behavior
• collapse of major cortical oscillatory rhythms such as alpha and others that perpetuate “prior” beliefs
• extensive neuroplasticity and recalibration of thought processes and decomposition of pathological beliefs, referred to as REBUS (relaxed beliefs under psychedelics).

The bottom line is psilocybin and other psychedelics can dramatically alter, reshape, and relax rigid beliefs and personality traits by decreasing “neuroticism” and increasing “extraversion,” insightfulness, openness, and possibly conscientiousness.¹⁹ Although no studies of psychedelics in psychopathic, antisocial, or narcissistic personality disorders have been conducted, it is very reasonable to speculate that psilocybin may reverse traits of these disorders such as callousness, lack of empathy, and pathological self-centeredness.

Going further, a preliminary report suggests psilocybin can modify political views by decreasing authoritarianism and increasing libertarianism.^20,21 In the current political zeitgeist, could psychedelics such as psilocybin reduce or even eliminate political extremism and visceral hatred on all sides? It would be remarkable research to carry out to heal a politically divided populace.The dogma of untreatable personality disorders or hopelessly entrenched political extremism is on the chopping block, and psychedelics offer hope to splinter those beliefs by concurrently remodeling brain tissue (neuroplasticity) and rectifying the mindset (psychoplasticity).