Commentary

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.

It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.

Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.

In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.

Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.

It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.

In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.

And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.

Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.

Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.

Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.

It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.

Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.

In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.

Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.

It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.

In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.

And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.

Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.

Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.

Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.

It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.

Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.

In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.

Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.

It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.

In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.

And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.

Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.

Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.

Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.

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

Retirement planning starts the day we start our careers. Whenever we start any project, it is always worthwhile to learn how the project works, what we want to pursue and achieve with the project, how to exit the project, and when is the right time to exit.

As physicians, gastroenterologists go through several years of vigorous training, years spent studying, researching, practicing, and juggling between work and life, trying to lead a well-balanced life. With all the years of medical training, we do not get the same level of education in financial planning in order to attain financial stability, financial empowerment, or resources that we need to put in place for a successful retirement.

Dr. Appalaneni

Many physicians like to work and provide services as long as they can, provided the physical and mental capacity permits. Retirement planning should start as early as possible — at your first job, with the first paycheck. Having a strategic plan and understanding several personal factors can help one make this journey successful.

Retirement involves planning at multiple levels, including but not limited to financial planning, transition planning, healthcare coverage, estate planning, and social, leisure, and emotional planning.
 

Financial Planning

Financial planning starts with investments in 401k, IRA, defined benefit, and defined contribution plans, as early as possible and to the maximum extent possible. It is beneficial to contribute at the first opportunity and contribute enough to the employer retirement plan to earn the full employer match. Also consider capital investment opportunities that match your risk appetite and returns, as these compound and grow over time. This can be done by adjusting personal expenses and lifestyle, giving priority to savings and future wealth management, and auto-escalation of permitted retirement contributions annually.

Assessing your financial situation periodically to determine retirement needs based on how long you intend to work and preferred lifestyle post retirement (travel, leisurely activities, etc.) is important. It is also pertinent to align revenue earned, expenses made, and wealth saved to support post-retirement life. Consider hiring a financial advisor who has the best interests in your personal wealth management. These are usually found with reputable institutions at a fixed percentage cost. Finding a trustworthy knowledgeable advisor is the key. Learning from your colleagues, networking, and learning from friends in and out of healthcare are good resources to find the right financial advisor.

Healthcare expenses should be planned as well as part of financial planning. Short-term and long-term disability and long-term care expenses should be investigated when planning for healthcare needs.
 

Transition Planning

Timing of retirement is based on factors such as age, financial status, personal health and preferences. The transition can be facilitated by better communication with colleagues, partners, employer, staff, and patients. Identifying a successor and planning for continuity of care of the patients, such as transitioning patients to another provider, is important as well. This may involve hiring a new associate, merging with another practice, or selling the practice.

Healthcare Coverage

One of the biggest expenses with retirement is healthcare coverage. Healthcare coverage options need to be analyzed which may include Medicare eligibility, enrollment, potential needs after retirement, including preventative care, treatment of chronic conditions, long term care services, and unexpected health outcomes and consequences.

Lifestyle and Travel Planning

Reflect on the retirement lifestyle, hobbies, and passions to be explored. Some activities like volunteer work, continuing educational opportunities, and advisory work, will help maintain physical and mental health. Consider downsizing living arrangements to align with retirement lifestyle goals which may include relocating to a different area as it fits your needs.

Legal and Estate Planning

Review and update legal documents including power of attorney, healthcare directives, will, trusts, and periodically ensure that these documents reflect your wishes.

Professional Development

Retirement may not mean quitting work completely. Some may look at this as an opportunity for professional development and pivoting to a different career that suits their lifestyle and needs. Gastroenterologists may contribute to the field and stay connected by being mentors, advisors, or, industry partners; being involved in national organizations; leading purposeful projects; or teaching part-time or on a volunteer basis.

Emotional and Social Support

Being a physician and a leader on treatment teams after so many years, some may feel lonely and unproductive with a lack of purpose in retirement; while others are excited about the free time they gained to pursue other activities and projects.

The process can be emotionally challenging even for well-prepared individuals. Finding friends, family, and professionals who can support you through this process will be helpful as you go through the uncertainties, anxiety, and fear during this phase of life. Think of developing hobbies and interests and nurturing networks outside of work environment that will keep you engaged and content during this transition.

Gastroenterologists can plan for a financially secure, emotionally fulfilling, and professionally satisfying transition tailored to their needs and preferences. Seeking help from financial advisors, legal experts, mentors, and other professionals who can provide valuable advice, support, and guidance is crucial during this process.

Do what you love and love what you do.

Dr. Appalaneni is a gastroenterologist at Dayton Gastroenterology in Beavercreek, Ohio, and a clinical assistant professor at Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. This article is not a financial planning document, nor legal advice; these are the author’s learnings, experiences, and opinions and are not considered financial advice.

Retirement planning starts the day we start our careers. Whenever we start any project, it is always worthwhile to learn how the project works, what we want to pursue and achieve with the project, how to exit the project, and when is the right time to exit.

As physicians, gastroenterologists go through several years of vigorous training, years spent studying, researching, practicing, and juggling between work and life, trying to lead a well-balanced life. With all the years of medical training, we do not get the same level of education in financial planning in order to attain financial stability, financial empowerment, or resources that we need to put in place for a successful retirement.

Dr. Appalaneni

Many physicians like to work and provide services as long as they can, provided the physical and mental capacity permits. Retirement planning should start as early as possible — at your first job, with the first paycheck. Having a strategic plan and understanding several personal factors can help one make this journey successful.

Retirement involves planning at multiple levels, including but not limited to financial planning, transition planning, healthcare coverage, estate planning, and social, leisure, and emotional planning.
 

Financial Planning

Financial planning starts with investments in 401k, IRA, defined benefit, and defined contribution plans, as early as possible and to the maximum extent possible. It is beneficial to contribute at the first opportunity and contribute enough to the employer retirement plan to earn the full employer match. Also consider capital investment opportunities that match your risk appetite and returns, as these compound and grow over time. This can be done by adjusting personal expenses and lifestyle, giving priority to savings and future wealth management, and auto-escalation of permitted retirement contributions annually.

Assessing your financial situation periodically to determine retirement needs based on how long you intend to work and preferred lifestyle post retirement (travel, leisurely activities, etc.) is important. It is also pertinent to align revenue earned, expenses made, and wealth saved to support post-retirement life. Consider hiring a financial advisor who has the best interests in your personal wealth management. These are usually found with reputable institutions at a fixed percentage cost. Finding a trustworthy knowledgeable advisor is the key. Learning from your colleagues, networking, and learning from friends in and out of healthcare are good resources to find the right financial advisor.

Healthcare expenses should be planned as well as part of financial planning. Short-term and long-term disability and long-term care expenses should be investigated when planning for healthcare needs.
 

Transition Planning

Timing of retirement is based on factors such as age, financial status, personal health and preferences. The transition can be facilitated by better communication with colleagues, partners, employer, staff, and patients. Identifying a successor and planning for continuity of care of the patients, such as transitioning patients to another provider, is important as well. This may involve hiring a new associate, merging with another practice, or selling the practice.

Healthcare Coverage

One of the biggest expenses with retirement is healthcare coverage. Healthcare coverage options need to be analyzed which may include Medicare eligibility, enrollment, potential needs after retirement, including preventative care, treatment of chronic conditions, long term care services, and unexpected health outcomes and consequences.

Lifestyle and Travel Planning

Reflect on the retirement lifestyle, hobbies, and passions to be explored. Some activities like volunteer work, continuing educational opportunities, and advisory work, will help maintain physical and mental health. Consider downsizing living arrangements to align with retirement lifestyle goals which may include relocating to a different area as it fits your needs.

Legal and Estate Planning

Review and update legal documents including power of attorney, healthcare directives, will, trusts, and periodically ensure that these documents reflect your wishes.

Professional Development

Retirement may not mean quitting work completely. Some may look at this as an opportunity for professional development and pivoting to a different career that suits their lifestyle and needs. Gastroenterologists may contribute to the field and stay connected by being mentors, advisors, or, industry partners; being involved in national organizations; leading purposeful projects; or teaching part-time or on a volunteer basis.

Emotional and Social Support

Being a physician and a leader on treatment teams after so many years, some may feel lonely and unproductive with a lack of purpose in retirement; while others are excited about the free time they gained to pursue other activities and projects.

The process can be emotionally challenging even for well-prepared individuals. Finding friends, family, and professionals who can support you through this process will be helpful as you go through the uncertainties, anxiety, and fear during this phase of life. Think of developing hobbies and interests and nurturing networks outside of work environment that will keep you engaged and content during this transition.

Gastroenterologists can plan for a financially secure, emotionally fulfilling, and professionally satisfying transition tailored to their needs and preferences. Seeking help from financial advisors, legal experts, mentors, and other professionals who can provide valuable advice, support, and guidance is crucial during this process.

Do what you love and love what you do.

Dr. Appalaneni is a gastroenterologist at Dayton Gastroenterology in Beavercreek, Ohio, and a clinical assistant professor at Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. This article is not a financial planning document, nor legal advice; these are the author’s learnings, experiences, and opinions and are not considered financial advice.

Retirement planning starts the day we start our careers. Whenever we start any project, it is always worthwhile to learn how the project works, what we want to pursue and achieve with the project, how to exit the project, and when is the right time to exit.

As physicians, gastroenterologists go through several years of vigorous training, years spent studying, researching, practicing, and juggling between work and life, trying to lead a well-balanced life. With all the years of medical training, we do not get the same level of education in financial planning in order to attain financial stability, financial empowerment, or resources that we need to put in place for a successful retirement.

Dr. Appalaneni

Many physicians like to work and provide services as long as they can, provided the physical and mental capacity permits. Retirement planning should start as early as possible — at your first job, with the first paycheck. Having a strategic plan and understanding several personal factors can help one make this journey successful.

Retirement involves planning at multiple levels, including but not limited to financial planning, transition planning, healthcare coverage, estate planning, and social, leisure, and emotional planning.
 

Financial Planning

Financial planning starts with investments in 401k, IRA, defined benefit, and defined contribution plans, as early as possible and to the maximum extent possible. It is beneficial to contribute at the first opportunity and contribute enough to the employer retirement plan to earn the full employer match. Also consider capital investment opportunities that match your risk appetite and returns, as these compound and grow over time. This can be done by adjusting personal expenses and lifestyle, giving priority to savings and future wealth management, and auto-escalation of permitted retirement contributions annually.

Assessing your financial situation periodically to determine retirement needs based on how long you intend to work and preferred lifestyle post retirement (travel, leisurely activities, etc.) is important. It is also pertinent to align revenue earned, expenses made, and wealth saved to support post-retirement life. Consider hiring a financial advisor who has the best interests in your personal wealth management. These are usually found with reputable institutions at a fixed percentage cost. Finding a trustworthy knowledgeable advisor is the key. Learning from your colleagues, networking, and learning from friends in and out of healthcare are good resources to find the right financial advisor.

Healthcare expenses should be planned as well as part of financial planning. Short-term and long-term disability and long-term care expenses should be investigated when planning for healthcare needs.
 

Transition Planning

Timing of retirement is based on factors such as age, financial status, personal health and preferences. The transition can be facilitated by better communication with colleagues, partners, employer, staff, and patients. Identifying a successor and planning for continuity of care of the patients, such as transitioning patients to another provider, is important as well. This may involve hiring a new associate, merging with another practice, or selling the practice.

Healthcare Coverage

One of the biggest expenses with retirement is healthcare coverage. Healthcare coverage options need to be analyzed which may include Medicare eligibility, enrollment, potential needs after retirement, including preventative care, treatment of chronic conditions, long term care services, and unexpected health outcomes and consequences.

Lifestyle and Travel Planning

Reflect on the retirement lifestyle, hobbies, and passions to be explored. Some activities like volunteer work, continuing educational opportunities, and advisory work, will help maintain physical and mental health. Consider downsizing living arrangements to align with retirement lifestyle goals which may include relocating to a different area as it fits your needs.

Legal and Estate Planning

Review and update legal documents including power of attorney, healthcare directives, will, trusts, and periodically ensure that these documents reflect your wishes.

Professional Development

Retirement may not mean quitting work completely. Some may look at this as an opportunity for professional development and pivoting to a different career that suits their lifestyle and needs. Gastroenterologists may contribute to the field and stay connected by being mentors, advisors, or, industry partners; being involved in national organizations; leading purposeful projects; or teaching part-time or on a volunteer basis.

Emotional and Social Support

Being a physician and a leader on treatment teams after so many years, some may feel lonely and unproductive with a lack of purpose in retirement; while others are excited about the free time they gained to pursue other activities and projects.

The process can be emotionally challenging even for well-prepared individuals. Finding friends, family, and professionals who can support you through this process will be helpful as you go through the uncertainties, anxiety, and fear during this phase of life. Think of developing hobbies and interests and nurturing networks outside of work environment that will keep you engaged and content during this transition.

Gastroenterologists can plan for a financially secure, emotionally fulfilling, and professionally satisfying transition tailored to their needs and preferences. Seeking help from financial advisors, legal experts, mentors, and other professionals who can provide valuable advice, support, and guidance is crucial during this process.

Do what you love and love what you do.

Dr. Appalaneni is a gastroenterologist at Dayton Gastroenterology in Beavercreek, Ohio, and a clinical assistant professor at Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. This article is not a financial planning document, nor legal advice; these are the author’s learnings, experiences, and opinions and are not considered financial advice.

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Marybeth Spanarkel, MD, a Duke University School of Medicine alumna (1979), completed her internal medicine and gastroenterology training at the University of Pennsylvania, National Institutes of Health, and Johns Hopkins. Initially groomed for an academic role, she chose a clinical position in private practice at Duke Regional Hospital in Durham, North Carolina, where she worked for 25 years.

At age 59, Dr. Spanarkel suffered a neck injury leading to permanent C5-6 radiculopathy, which abruptly ended her career as a clinical gastroenterologist. Since then, she has been a passionate advocate for ergonomic reform in endoscopy. Currently, she is the senior medical adviser and cofounder of ColoWrap, a device designed to improve colonoscopy procedures and reduce ergonomic risk.

Dr. Spanarkel

Would you share with the readers your experience with maternity leave in private practice?

As a mother of four, I had two children during my GI fellowship, and received my full salary each time for a 3-month maternity leave. My third child arrived in the time period between leaving my academic position and starting in private practice. My fourth child was born after 2 years in private practice, and I took 3 weeks off. Fortunately, I was not asked to pay upfront overhead fees in my 15-person practice. However, my reduced productivity during that time was factored into my salary calculations, leading to a decreased income for the following 6 months.

How does pregnancy affect your performance and productivity as a GI physician?

“We” may be having a baby, but “You” are pregnant. While some may experience few symptoms, most pregnant doctors deal with problems such as nausea and extreme fatigue, especially in the first trimester. The third trimester may result in reduced physical agility, particularly when performing procedures. Even in uncomplicated pregnancies, balancing the physiologic changes with the demands of a full-time GI role can be strenuous. And this doesn’t even take into account potential infertility issues, pregnancy complications, or newborn concerns that physicians may encounter.

And after childbirth?

Post childbirth, despite a supportive partner, the primary responsibilities such as feeding, nursing support, and bonding often fall on the biological mother. These duties are superimposed on the doctor’s own recovery and postpartum changes. While the United States commonly recognizes 3 months as a standard maternity leave, some European countries advocate for up to 12 months, demonstrating again that this is not an “overnight” transition.

In the past, GI doctors were mostly male, but now there’s a growing number of females in the field. Despite this shift, studies still highlight continued gender disparities in salaries and leadership opportunities, and support for pregnancy-related issues has been largely under-addressed.^1,2,3

How do academic centers manage maternity leave?

In academic centers or large healthcare settings, maternity leave policies are more standardized compared with private practice. Doctors are salaried depending on their level of training and experience and then they are assigned a mix of clinical, research, teaching, and/or administrative duties.

Typically, maternity leave in these centers is a standard 3-month period, often combining paid time off (PTO) with unpaid or paid leave. In some cases, short- or long-term disability payments are available, especially for complications. But, the financial impact of a doctor’s maternity leave on the overall unit is usually minimal due to the number of participants in the system. The extra workload is diffused over a larger number of doctors, so the new schedule is generally manageable.⁴ And since the salary of the employee/physician includes a portion of nonclinical time (administrative, teaching, research), the actual decrease in revenue isn’t that dramatic.
 

How about maternity leave in private practice?

Maternity leave in private practice, especially if there is only a small number of partners, is handled entirely differently. Think of a household budget (rent, utilities, salaries, benefits, insurance) that is shared by “roommates,” the other partners in the group. To understand how maternity leave affects a private practice, you have to understand how your private practice operates.

Typically, newly hired private practice physicians receive a set salary, with the expectation that their patient revenue will eventually cover both their share of overhead and their salary. The practice might set a monthly quota, offering a bonus for exceeding it, or they may retain the extra revenue until the physician becomes a full partner.

Income in private practice is almost entirely generated by seeing patients and performing procedures, as opposed to non-reimbursable activities such as committee meetings or lectures. Physicians learn to be highly efficient with their time, a standard also expected of their employees. They have more control over their schedules, vacation time, and patient/procedure load. Since income is affected only after overhead costs are covered, each doctor’s approach to workload and pace doesn’t typically concern the other partners. Some physicians may be highly aggressive and efficient (and thus increase their salaries), while others may prefer a slower pace due to external responsibilities.

This arrangement is often seen as fair because the established practice helps you get started by providing the environment for you to generate revenue. This includes patient referrals, office space, and staff. In return, the practice not only hopes you will achieve its goals/quotas but may expect a return on its investment in you.

Additionally, access to shared passive revenue streams, such as a pathology lab, clinical research trials, or facility fees from an endoscopy center, may only be available once a certain level of productivity or full partnership is reached.

The initial years in private practice can be seen as a trial period. Your professional reputation, liability, and patient population are more directly in your own hands. Decision-making, patient management, and potential complications are more wholly your responsibility, which can feel isolating. However, providing excellent care can build your reputation, as satisfied patients will seek you out and generate more referrals. During this time, you need to demonstrate to your prospective partners your commitment to delivering high-quality patient care and to meeting certain minimum standards of volume. If clinical medicine is your passion, the right private practice role can be a fulfilling platform where you do what you love to do and simultaneously are well compensated for it.
 

How does taking maternity affect shared overhead?

Any physician requiring “leave” will affect the overall revenue of a practice. Issues regarding maternity leave in private practice can also be applied to adoption, paternity, surrogacy, foster care, or medical leave. For instance, if the cumulative overhead is $100k per month in a practice with five doctors, each doctor contributes $20k monthly, totaling $240k each annually.

For example, Dr. “Jones” generates $480k in charges/collections, so after paying his share of overhead, his salary is $240k for the year. In contrast, Dr. “Smith” works more intensely, doubling the patients and procedures of Dr. “Jones,” and generates $960k. After deducting the overhead, his salary is $720k, more than twice his partner’s salary.

Let’s say the practice is considering hiring a new doctor who is 2 months pregnant. If he/she generates $380k in charges in the first year but owes $240k in shared overhead, his/her salary would be $140k, which is not very attractive as a “starting salary” for a highly competent, well-trained GI physician. In extreme cases, with high overhead and low productivity, there might be no revenue for salary once the overhead is paid.
 

In private practice, is there hesitancy hiring a pregnant person?

While it’s illegal to inquire about pregnancy during employment interviews, partners in private practice might still hesitate to hire a pregnant person. Concerns include sharing overhead costs, handling extra calls or emergencies, and wanting new physicians to contribute equally.

However, this viewpoint can be shortsighted. Three months of maternity leave is a minor “blip” in a 30-year career. Supporting a partner during maternity leave can lead to reciprocal benefits later, as older partners might also face personal or medical needs. Adopting a flexible, empathetic approach toward partners can foster goodwill, potentially enhancing revenue, teamwork, and patient care over a long-term career. The value of empathy should not be underestimated.
 

What should you consider when you are applying for a new private practice job?

When applying for a private practice position, here are some key points to consider:

• If possible, have your children while employed by a large healthcare system with an established leave policy.
• In a private practice job, ensure the employment contract clearly outlines the terms of medical leave (maternity, paternity, adoption, illness), including details on overhead, benefits, salary, call schedule, and the path to full partnership. Consider having a lawyer review the contract.
• Inquire about how other types of leave, like sabbatical, personal, family, military, or medical, are managed. Understand the implications for salary and overhead, for example, in cases of a partner needing extended leave for surgery or rehabilitation.
• Review the requirements for becoming a full partner, particularly if this includes potential future passive income sources. Does maternity leave (or other types of leave) alter this path?
• Examine the entire benefit package, with a focus on long-term disability policies, considering the statistics on both temporary and permanent disability among GI doctors.⁵
• Negotiate terms for overhead during leave. Options might include a long term or interest-free loan to cover the 3-month sum, a 50% reduction in overhead charges, or “overhead protection insurance” where a designated policy covers overhead for partners on medical leave.

Remember, a brief leave in a 30-year career is relatively minor. Prioritize taking enough time for yourself and your child. Concentrate on long term fairness when engaged in salary negotiations. Don’t rush back; there will be time later to compensate for a temporary decrease in salary, but limited opportunities to spend age-specific time with your young child.

References

1. Butkus R, et al. Achieving Gender Equity in Physician Compensation and Career Advancement: A Position Paper of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15. doi: 10.7326/M17-3438.

2. American Medical Association. Advancing Gender Equity in Medicine: Resources for physicians. 2024 Feb 28.

3. Devi J, et al. Fixing the leaky pipeline: gender imbalance in gastroenterology in Asia-Pacific region. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Sept. doi: 10.1111/jgh.16353.

4. Mahadevan U, et al. Closing the gender gap: building a successful career and leadership in research as a female gastroenterologist. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00135-2.

5. Murphy R. Know your maternity leave options. 2024 Apr 4.

Marybeth Spanarkel, MD, a Duke University School of Medicine alumna (1979), completed her internal medicine and gastroenterology training at the University of Pennsylvania, National Institutes of Health, and Johns Hopkins. Initially groomed for an academic role, she chose a clinical position in private practice at Duke Regional Hospital in Durham, North Carolina, where she worked for 25 years.

At age 59, Dr. Spanarkel suffered a neck injury leading to permanent C5-6 radiculopathy, which abruptly ended her career as a clinical gastroenterologist. Since then, she has been a passionate advocate for ergonomic reform in endoscopy. Currently, she is the senior medical adviser and cofounder of ColoWrap, a device designed to improve colonoscopy procedures and reduce ergonomic risk.

Dr. Spanarkel

Would you share with the readers your experience with maternity leave in private practice?

As a mother of four, I had two children during my GI fellowship, and received my full salary each time for a 3-month maternity leave. My third child arrived in the time period between leaving my academic position and starting in private practice. My fourth child was born after 2 years in private practice, and I took 3 weeks off. Fortunately, I was not asked to pay upfront overhead fees in my 15-person practice. However, my reduced productivity during that time was factored into my salary calculations, leading to a decreased income for the following 6 months.

How does pregnancy affect your performance and productivity as a GI physician?

“We” may be having a baby, but “You” are pregnant. While some may experience few symptoms, most pregnant doctors deal with problems such as nausea and extreme fatigue, especially in the first trimester. The third trimester may result in reduced physical agility, particularly when performing procedures. Even in uncomplicated pregnancies, balancing the physiologic changes with the demands of a full-time GI role can be strenuous. And this doesn’t even take into account potential infertility issues, pregnancy complications, or newborn concerns that physicians may encounter.

And after childbirth?

Post childbirth, despite a supportive partner, the primary responsibilities such as feeding, nursing support, and bonding often fall on the biological mother. These duties are superimposed on the doctor’s own recovery and postpartum changes. While the United States commonly recognizes 3 months as a standard maternity leave, some European countries advocate for up to 12 months, demonstrating again that this is not an “overnight” transition.

In the past, GI doctors were mostly male, but now there’s a growing number of females in the field. Despite this shift, studies still highlight continued gender disparities in salaries and leadership opportunities, and support for pregnancy-related issues has been largely under-addressed.^1,2,3

How do academic centers manage maternity leave?

In academic centers or large healthcare settings, maternity leave policies are more standardized compared with private practice. Doctors are salaried depending on their level of training and experience and then they are assigned a mix of clinical, research, teaching, and/or administrative duties.

Typically, maternity leave in these centers is a standard 3-month period, often combining paid time off (PTO) with unpaid or paid leave. In some cases, short- or long-term disability payments are available, especially for complications. But, the financial impact of a doctor’s maternity leave on the overall unit is usually minimal due to the number of participants in the system. The extra workload is diffused over a larger number of doctors, so the new schedule is generally manageable.⁴ And since the salary of the employee/physician includes a portion of nonclinical time (administrative, teaching, research), the actual decrease in revenue isn’t that dramatic.
 

How about maternity leave in private practice?

Maternity leave in private practice, especially if there is only a small number of partners, is handled entirely differently. Think of a household budget (rent, utilities, salaries, benefits, insurance) that is shared by “roommates,” the other partners in the group. To understand how maternity leave affects a private practice, you have to understand how your private practice operates.

Typically, newly hired private practice physicians receive a set salary, with the expectation that their patient revenue will eventually cover both their share of overhead and their salary. The practice might set a monthly quota, offering a bonus for exceeding it, or they may retain the extra revenue until the physician becomes a full partner.

Income in private practice is almost entirely generated by seeing patients and performing procedures, as opposed to non-reimbursable activities such as committee meetings or lectures. Physicians learn to be highly efficient with their time, a standard also expected of their employees. They have more control over their schedules, vacation time, and patient/procedure load. Since income is affected only after overhead costs are covered, each doctor’s approach to workload and pace doesn’t typically concern the other partners. Some physicians may be highly aggressive and efficient (and thus increase their salaries), while others may prefer a slower pace due to external responsibilities.

This arrangement is often seen as fair because the established practice helps you get started by providing the environment for you to generate revenue. This includes patient referrals, office space, and staff. In return, the practice not only hopes you will achieve its goals/quotas but may expect a return on its investment in you.

Additionally, access to shared passive revenue streams, such as a pathology lab, clinical research trials, or facility fees from an endoscopy center, may only be available once a certain level of productivity or full partnership is reached.

The initial years in private practice can be seen as a trial period. Your professional reputation, liability, and patient population are more directly in your own hands. Decision-making, patient management, and potential complications are more wholly your responsibility, which can feel isolating. However, providing excellent care can build your reputation, as satisfied patients will seek you out and generate more referrals. During this time, you need to demonstrate to your prospective partners your commitment to delivering high-quality patient care and to meeting certain minimum standards of volume. If clinical medicine is your passion, the right private practice role can be a fulfilling platform where you do what you love to do and simultaneously are well compensated for it.
 

How does taking maternity affect shared overhead?

Any physician requiring “leave” will affect the overall revenue of a practice. Issues regarding maternity leave in private practice can also be applied to adoption, paternity, surrogacy, foster care, or medical leave. For instance, if the cumulative overhead is $100k per month in a practice with five doctors, each doctor contributes $20k monthly, totaling $240k each annually.

For example, Dr. “Jones” generates $480k in charges/collections, so after paying his share of overhead, his salary is $240k for the year. In contrast, Dr. “Smith” works more intensely, doubling the patients and procedures of Dr. “Jones,” and generates $960k. After deducting the overhead, his salary is $720k, more than twice his partner’s salary.

Let’s say the practice is considering hiring a new doctor who is 2 months pregnant. If he/she generates $380k in charges in the first year but owes $240k in shared overhead, his/her salary would be $140k, which is not very attractive as a “starting salary” for a highly competent, well-trained GI physician. In extreme cases, with high overhead and low productivity, there might be no revenue for salary once the overhead is paid.
 

In private practice, is there hesitancy hiring a pregnant person?

While it’s illegal to inquire about pregnancy during employment interviews, partners in private practice might still hesitate to hire a pregnant person. Concerns include sharing overhead costs, handling extra calls or emergencies, and wanting new physicians to contribute equally.

However, this viewpoint can be shortsighted. Three months of maternity leave is a minor “blip” in a 30-year career. Supporting a partner during maternity leave can lead to reciprocal benefits later, as older partners might also face personal or medical needs. Adopting a flexible, empathetic approach toward partners can foster goodwill, potentially enhancing revenue, teamwork, and patient care over a long-term career. The value of empathy should not be underestimated.
 

What should you consider when you are applying for a new private practice job?

When applying for a private practice position, here are some key points to consider:

• If possible, have your children while employed by a large healthcare system with an established leave policy.
• In a private practice job, ensure the employment contract clearly outlines the terms of medical leave (maternity, paternity, adoption, illness), including details on overhead, benefits, salary, call schedule, and the path to full partnership. Consider having a lawyer review the contract.
• Inquire about how other types of leave, like sabbatical, personal, family, military, or medical, are managed. Understand the implications for salary and overhead, for example, in cases of a partner needing extended leave for surgery or rehabilitation.
• Review the requirements for becoming a full partner, particularly if this includes potential future passive income sources. Does maternity leave (or other types of leave) alter this path?
• Examine the entire benefit package, with a focus on long-term disability policies, considering the statistics on both temporary and permanent disability among GI doctors.⁵
• Negotiate terms for overhead during leave. Options might include a long term or interest-free loan to cover the 3-month sum, a 50% reduction in overhead charges, or “overhead protection insurance” where a designated policy covers overhead for partners on medical leave.

Remember, a brief leave in a 30-year career is relatively minor. Prioritize taking enough time for yourself and your child. Concentrate on long term fairness when engaged in salary negotiations. Don’t rush back; there will be time later to compensate for a temporary decrease in salary, but limited opportunities to spend age-specific time with your young child.

References

1. Butkus R, et al. Achieving Gender Equity in Physician Compensation and Career Advancement: A Position Paper of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15. doi: 10.7326/M17-3438.

2. American Medical Association. Advancing Gender Equity in Medicine: Resources for physicians. 2024 Feb 28.

3. Devi J, et al. Fixing the leaky pipeline: gender imbalance in gastroenterology in Asia-Pacific region. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Sept. doi: 10.1111/jgh.16353.

4. Mahadevan U, et al. Closing the gender gap: building a successful career and leadership in research as a female gastroenterologist. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00135-2.

5. Murphy R. Know your maternity leave options. 2024 Apr 4.

Marybeth Spanarkel, MD, a Duke University School of Medicine alumna (1979), completed her internal medicine and gastroenterology training at the University of Pennsylvania, National Institutes of Health, and Johns Hopkins. Initially groomed for an academic role, she chose a clinical position in private practice at Duke Regional Hospital in Durham, North Carolina, where she worked for 25 years.

At age 59, Dr. Spanarkel suffered a neck injury leading to permanent C5-6 radiculopathy, which abruptly ended her career as a clinical gastroenterologist. Since then, she has been a passionate advocate for ergonomic reform in endoscopy. Currently, she is the senior medical adviser and cofounder of ColoWrap, a device designed to improve colonoscopy procedures and reduce ergonomic risk.

Dr. Spanarkel

Would you share with the readers your experience with maternity leave in private practice?

As a mother of four, I had two children during my GI fellowship, and received my full salary each time for a 3-month maternity leave. My third child arrived in the time period between leaving my academic position and starting in private practice. My fourth child was born after 2 years in private practice, and I took 3 weeks off. Fortunately, I was not asked to pay upfront overhead fees in my 15-person practice. However, my reduced productivity during that time was factored into my salary calculations, leading to a decreased income for the following 6 months.

How does pregnancy affect your performance and productivity as a GI physician?

“We” may be having a baby, but “You” are pregnant. While some may experience few symptoms, most pregnant doctors deal with problems such as nausea and extreme fatigue, especially in the first trimester. The third trimester may result in reduced physical agility, particularly when performing procedures. Even in uncomplicated pregnancies, balancing the physiologic changes with the demands of a full-time GI role can be strenuous. And this doesn’t even take into account potential infertility issues, pregnancy complications, or newborn concerns that physicians may encounter.

And after childbirth?

Post childbirth, despite a supportive partner, the primary responsibilities such as feeding, nursing support, and bonding often fall on the biological mother. These duties are superimposed on the doctor’s own recovery and postpartum changes. While the United States commonly recognizes 3 months as a standard maternity leave, some European countries advocate for up to 12 months, demonstrating again that this is not an “overnight” transition.

In the past, GI doctors were mostly male, but now there’s a growing number of females in the field. Despite this shift, studies still highlight continued gender disparities in salaries and leadership opportunities, and support for pregnancy-related issues has been largely under-addressed.^1,2,3

How do academic centers manage maternity leave?

In academic centers or large healthcare settings, maternity leave policies are more standardized compared with private practice. Doctors are salaried depending on their level of training and experience and then they are assigned a mix of clinical, research, teaching, and/or administrative duties.

Typically, maternity leave in these centers is a standard 3-month period, often combining paid time off (PTO) with unpaid or paid leave. In some cases, short- or long-term disability payments are available, especially for complications. But, the financial impact of a doctor’s maternity leave on the overall unit is usually minimal due to the number of participants in the system. The extra workload is diffused over a larger number of doctors, so the new schedule is generally manageable.⁴ And since the salary of the employee/physician includes a portion of nonclinical time (administrative, teaching, research), the actual decrease in revenue isn’t that dramatic.
 

How about maternity leave in private practice?

Maternity leave in private practice, especially if there is only a small number of partners, is handled entirely differently. Think of a household budget (rent, utilities, salaries, benefits, insurance) that is shared by “roommates,” the other partners in the group. To understand how maternity leave affects a private practice, you have to understand how your private practice operates.

Typically, newly hired private practice physicians receive a set salary, with the expectation that their patient revenue will eventually cover both their share of overhead and their salary. The practice might set a monthly quota, offering a bonus for exceeding it, or they may retain the extra revenue until the physician becomes a full partner.

Income in private practice is almost entirely generated by seeing patients and performing procedures, as opposed to non-reimbursable activities such as committee meetings or lectures. Physicians learn to be highly efficient with their time, a standard also expected of their employees. They have more control over their schedules, vacation time, and patient/procedure load. Since income is affected only after overhead costs are covered, each doctor’s approach to workload and pace doesn’t typically concern the other partners. Some physicians may be highly aggressive and efficient (and thus increase their salaries), while others may prefer a slower pace due to external responsibilities.

This arrangement is often seen as fair because the established practice helps you get started by providing the environment for you to generate revenue. This includes patient referrals, office space, and staff. In return, the practice not only hopes you will achieve its goals/quotas but may expect a return on its investment in you.

Additionally, access to shared passive revenue streams, such as a pathology lab, clinical research trials, or facility fees from an endoscopy center, may only be available once a certain level of productivity or full partnership is reached.

The initial years in private practice can be seen as a trial period. Your professional reputation, liability, and patient population are more directly in your own hands. Decision-making, patient management, and potential complications are more wholly your responsibility, which can feel isolating. However, providing excellent care can build your reputation, as satisfied patients will seek you out and generate more referrals. During this time, you need to demonstrate to your prospective partners your commitment to delivering high-quality patient care and to meeting certain minimum standards of volume. If clinical medicine is your passion, the right private practice role can be a fulfilling platform where you do what you love to do and simultaneously are well compensated for it.
 

How does taking maternity affect shared overhead?

Any physician requiring “leave” will affect the overall revenue of a practice. Issues regarding maternity leave in private practice can also be applied to adoption, paternity, surrogacy, foster care, or medical leave. For instance, if the cumulative overhead is $100k per month in a practice with five doctors, each doctor contributes $20k monthly, totaling $240k each annually.

For example, Dr. “Jones” generates $480k in charges/collections, so after paying his share of overhead, his salary is $240k for the year. In contrast, Dr. “Smith” works more intensely, doubling the patients and procedures of Dr. “Jones,” and generates $960k. After deducting the overhead, his salary is $720k, more than twice his partner’s salary.

Let’s say the practice is considering hiring a new doctor who is 2 months pregnant. If he/she generates $380k in charges in the first year but owes $240k in shared overhead, his/her salary would be $140k, which is not very attractive as a “starting salary” for a highly competent, well-trained GI physician. In extreme cases, with high overhead and low productivity, there might be no revenue for salary once the overhead is paid.
 

In private practice, is there hesitancy hiring a pregnant person?

While it’s illegal to inquire about pregnancy during employment interviews, partners in private practice might still hesitate to hire a pregnant person. Concerns include sharing overhead costs, handling extra calls or emergencies, and wanting new physicians to contribute equally.

However, this viewpoint can be shortsighted. Three months of maternity leave is a minor “blip” in a 30-year career. Supporting a partner during maternity leave can lead to reciprocal benefits later, as older partners might also face personal or medical needs. Adopting a flexible, empathetic approach toward partners can foster goodwill, potentially enhancing revenue, teamwork, and patient care over a long-term career. The value of empathy should not be underestimated.
 

What should you consider when you are applying for a new private practice job?

When applying for a private practice position, here are some key points to consider:

• If possible, have your children while employed by a large healthcare system with an established leave policy.
• In a private practice job, ensure the employment contract clearly outlines the terms of medical leave (maternity, paternity, adoption, illness), including details on overhead, benefits, salary, call schedule, and the path to full partnership. Consider having a lawyer review the contract.
• Inquire about how other types of leave, like sabbatical, personal, family, military, or medical, are managed. Understand the implications for salary and overhead, for example, in cases of a partner needing extended leave for surgery or rehabilitation.
• Review the requirements for becoming a full partner, particularly if this includes potential future passive income sources. Does maternity leave (or other types of leave) alter this path?
• Examine the entire benefit package, with a focus on long-term disability policies, considering the statistics on both temporary and permanent disability among GI doctors.⁵
• Negotiate terms for overhead during leave. Options might include a long term or interest-free loan to cover the 3-month sum, a 50% reduction in overhead charges, or “overhead protection insurance” where a designated policy covers overhead for partners on medical leave.

Remember, a brief leave in a 30-year career is relatively minor. Prioritize taking enough time for yourself and your child. Concentrate on long term fairness when engaged in salary negotiations. Don’t rush back; there will be time later to compensate for a temporary decrease in salary, but limited opportunities to spend age-specific time with your young child.

References

1. Butkus R, et al. Achieving Gender Equity in Physician Compensation and Career Advancement: A Position Paper of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15. doi: 10.7326/M17-3438.

2. American Medical Association. Advancing Gender Equity in Medicine: Resources for physicians. 2024 Feb 28.

3. Devi J, et al. Fixing the leaky pipeline: gender imbalance in gastroenterology in Asia-Pacific region. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Sept. doi: 10.1111/jgh.16353.

4. Mahadevan U, et al. Closing the gender gap: building a successful career and leadership in research as a female gastroenterologist. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00135-2.

5. Murphy R. Know your maternity leave options. 2024 Apr 4.

Gluconolactone, 3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl) oxan-2-one (C₆H₁₀O₆), is known to display antioxidant, moisturizing, and soothing activity as well as enhance skin barrier function and protect elastin fibers from UV-engendered damage.¹ This derivative of oxidized glucose lactone is present naturally in bread, cheese, fruit juices, honey, tofu, and wine, and is used as a food additive in Europe.^1,2 In dermatology, it is most often used in chemical peels.

Polyhydroxy acids (PHAs) were discovered about 3 decades ago to exert similar functions as alpha hydroxy acids without provoking sensory irritation reactions. Gluconolactone along with lactobionic acid were the identified PHAs and further characterized as delivering more humectant and moisturizing activity than alpha hydroxy acids and effective in combination with retinoic acid to treat adult acne and with retinyl acetate to confer antiaging benefits.³ It is typically added to products for its skin-conditioning qualities, resulting in smoother, brighter, more toned skin.⁴ This column focuses on recent studies using this bioactive agent for dermatologic purposes.
 

Split-Face Studies Show Various Benefits

peepo/E+/Getty Images

In 2023, Jarząbek-Perz and colleagues conducted a split-face evaluation to assess the effects on various skin parameters (ie, hydration, pH, sebum, and transepidermal water loss [TEWL]) of gluconolactone and oxybrasion, compared with gluconolactone and microneedling. Twenty-one White women underwent a series of three split-face treatments at 1-week intervals. Chemical peels with 10% gluconolactone were performed on the whole face. The right side of the face was also treated with oxybrasion and the left with microneedle mesotherapy. Skin parameters were measured before the first and third treatments and 2 weeks following the final treatment. Photos were taken before and after the study. Both treatments resulted in improved hydration and reductions in sebum, pH, and TEWL. No statistically significant differences were noted between the treatment protocols. The researchers concluded that gluconolactone peels can be effectively combined with oxybrasion or microneedle mesotherapy to enhance skin hydration and to secure the hydrolipid barrier.⁵

Later that year, the same team evaluated pH, sebum levels, and TEWL before, during, and after several applications of 10% and 30% gluconolactone chemical peels in a split-face model in 16 female participants. The investigators conducted three procedures on both sides of the face, taking measurements on the forehead, periorbital area, on the cheek, and on the nose wing before, during, and 7 days after the final treatment. They found statistically significant improvements in sebum levels in the cheeks after the treatment series. Also, pH values were lower at each measurement site after each procedure. TEWL levels were significantly diminished around the eyes, as well as the left forehead and right cheek, with no significant discrepancy between gluconolactone concentrations. The researchers concluded that gluconolactone plays a major role in reducing cutaneous pH and TEWL and imparts a regulatory effect on sebum.¹

Two years earlier, Jarząbek-Perz and colleagues assessed skin moisture in a split-face model in 16 healthy women after the application of 10% and 30% gluconolactone. Investigators measured skin moisture before and after each of three treatments and a week after the final treatment from the forehead, periorbital area, and on the cheek. They observed no significant discrepancies between the 10% and 30% formulations, but a significant elevation in facial skin hydration was found to be promoted by gluconolactone. The investigators concluded that gluconolactone is an effective moisturizer for care of dry skin.⁶

Topical Formulation

In 2023, Zerbinati and colleagues determined that a gluconolactone-based lotion that they had begun testing 2 years earlier was safe and effective for dermatologic applications, with the noncomedogenic formulation found suitable as an antiaging agent, particularly as it treats aging-related pore dilatation.^7,8

Acne Treatment

In 2019, Kantikosum and colleagues conducted a double-blind, within-person comparative study to assess the efficacy of various cosmeceutical ingredients, including gluconolactone, glycolic acid, licochalcone A, and salicylic acid, combined with the acne treatment adapalene vs adapalene monotherapy for mild to moderate acne. Each of 25 subjects over 28 days applied a product mixed with 0.1% adapalene on one side of the face, and 0.1% adapalene alone on the other side of the face once nightly. The VISIA camera system spot score pointed to a statistically significant improvement on the combination sides. Differences in lesion reduction and severity were within acceptable margins, the authors reported. They concluded that the cosmeceutical combinations yielded similar benefits as adapalene alone, with the combination formulations decreasing acne complications.⁹

Potential Use as an Antifibrotic Agent

Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute

In 2018, Jayamani and colleagues investigated the antifibrotic characteristics of glucono-delta-lactone, a known acidifier, to ascertain if it could directly suppress collagen fibrils or even cause them to disintegrate. The researchers noted that collagen fibrillation is pH dependent, and that glucono-delta-lactone was found to exert a concentration-dependent suppression of fibrils and disintegration of preformed collagen fibrils with the antifibrotic function of the compound ascribed to its capacity to decrease pH. Further, glucono-delta-lactone appeared to emerge as an ideal antifibrotic agent as it left intact the triple helical structure of collagen after treatment. The investigators concluded that glucono-delta-lactone provides the foundation for developing antifibrotic agents intended to treat disorders characterized by collagen deposition.¹⁰

Conclusion

Gluconolactone emerged in the 1990s as a PHA useful in skin peels as an alternative to alpha hydroxy acids because of its nonirritating qualities. Since then, its soothing, hydrating, and, in particular, antiacne and antiaging qualities have become established. Wider applications of this versatile agent for dermatologic purposes are likely to be further investigated.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Jarząbek-Perz S et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023 Dec;22(12):3305-3312..

2. Qin X et al. Front Physiol. 2022 Mar 14;13:856699.

3. Grimes PE et al. Cutis. 2004 Feb;73(2 Suppl):3-13.

4. Glaser DA. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2003 May;11(2):219-227.

5. Jarząbek-Perz S et al. Skin Res Technol. 2023 Jun;29(6):e13353.

6. Jarząbek-Perz S et al. Skin Res Technol. 2021 Sep;27(5):925-930.

7. Zerbinati N et al. Molecules. 2021 Dec 15;26(24):7592.

8. Zerbinati Net al. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023 Apr 27;16(5):655.

9. Kantikosum K et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019 Feb 19;12:151-161.

10. Jayamani J et al. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018 Feb;107(Pt A):175-185.

Gluconolactone, 3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl) oxan-2-one (C₆H₁₀O₆), is known to display antioxidant, moisturizing, and soothing activity as well as enhance skin barrier function and protect elastin fibers from UV-engendered damage.¹ This derivative of oxidized glucose lactone is present naturally in bread, cheese, fruit juices, honey, tofu, and wine, and is used as a food additive in Europe.^1,2 In dermatology, it is most often used in chemical peels.

Polyhydroxy acids (PHAs) were discovered about 3 decades ago to exert similar functions as alpha hydroxy acids without provoking sensory irritation reactions. Gluconolactone along with lactobionic acid were the identified PHAs and further characterized as delivering more humectant and moisturizing activity than alpha hydroxy acids and effective in combination with retinoic acid to treat adult acne and with retinyl acetate to confer antiaging benefits.³ It is typically added to products for its skin-conditioning qualities, resulting in smoother, brighter, more toned skin.⁴ This column focuses on recent studies using this bioactive agent for dermatologic purposes.
 

Split-Face Studies Show Various Benefits

peepo/E+/Getty Images

In 2023, Jarząbek-Perz and colleagues conducted a split-face evaluation to assess the effects on various skin parameters (ie, hydration, pH, sebum, and transepidermal water loss [TEWL]) of gluconolactone and oxybrasion, compared with gluconolactone and microneedling. Twenty-one White women underwent a series of three split-face treatments at 1-week intervals. Chemical peels with 10% gluconolactone were performed on the whole face. The right side of the face was also treated with oxybrasion and the left with microneedle mesotherapy. Skin parameters were measured before the first and third treatments and 2 weeks following the final treatment. Photos were taken before and after the study. Both treatments resulted in improved hydration and reductions in sebum, pH, and TEWL. No statistically significant differences were noted between the treatment protocols. The researchers concluded that gluconolactone peels can be effectively combined with oxybrasion or microneedle mesotherapy to enhance skin hydration and to secure the hydrolipid barrier.⁵

Later that year, the same team evaluated pH, sebum levels, and TEWL before, during, and after several applications of 10% and 30% gluconolactone chemical peels in a split-face model in 16 female participants. The investigators conducted three procedures on both sides of the face, taking measurements on the forehead, periorbital area, on the cheek, and on the nose wing before, during, and 7 days after the final treatment. They found statistically significant improvements in sebum levels in the cheeks after the treatment series. Also, pH values were lower at each measurement site after each procedure. TEWL levels were significantly diminished around the eyes, as well as the left forehead and right cheek, with no significant discrepancy between gluconolactone concentrations. The researchers concluded that gluconolactone plays a major role in reducing cutaneous pH and TEWL and imparts a regulatory effect on sebum.¹

Two years earlier, Jarząbek-Perz and colleagues assessed skin moisture in a split-face model in 16 healthy women after the application of 10% and 30% gluconolactone. Investigators measured skin moisture before and after each of three treatments and a week after the final treatment from the forehead, periorbital area, and on the cheek. They observed no significant discrepancies between the 10% and 30% formulations, but a significant elevation in facial skin hydration was found to be promoted by gluconolactone. The investigators concluded that gluconolactone is an effective moisturizer for care of dry skin.⁶

Topical Formulation

In 2023, Zerbinati and colleagues determined that a gluconolactone-based lotion that they had begun testing 2 years earlier was safe and effective for dermatologic applications, with the noncomedogenic formulation found suitable as an antiaging agent, particularly as it treats aging-related pore dilatation.^7,8

Acne Treatment

In 2019, Kantikosum and colleagues conducted a double-blind, within-person comparative study to assess the efficacy of various cosmeceutical ingredients, including gluconolactone, glycolic acid, licochalcone A, and salicylic acid, combined with the acne treatment adapalene vs adapalene monotherapy for mild to moderate acne. Each of 25 subjects over 28 days applied a product mixed with 0.1% adapalene on one side of the face, and 0.1% adapalene alone on the other side of the face once nightly. The VISIA camera system spot score pointed to a statistically significant improvement on the combination sides. Differences in lesion reduction and severity were within acceptable margins, the authors reported. They concluded that the cosmeceutical combinations yielded similar benefits as adapalene alone, with the combination formulations decreasing acne complications.⁹

Potential Use as an Antifibrotic Agent

Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute

In 2018, Jayamani and colleagues investigated the antifibrotic characteristics of glucono-delta-lactone, a known acidifier, to ascertain if it could directly suppress collagen fibrils or even cause them to disintegrate. The researchers noted that collagen fibrillation is pH dependent, and that glucono-delta-lactone was found to exert a concentration-dependent suppression of fibrils and disintegration of preformed collagen fibrils with the antifibrotic function of the compound ascribed to its capacity to decrease pH. Further, glucono-delta-lactone appeared to emerge as an ideal antifibrotic agent as it left intact the triple helical structure of collagen after treatment. The investigators concluded that glucono-delta-lactone provides the foundation for developing antifibrotic agents intended to treat disorders characterized by collagen deposition.¹⁰

Conclusion

Gluconolactone emerged in the 1990s as a PHA useful in skin peels as an alternative to alpha hydroxy acids because of its nonirritating qualities. Since then, its soothing, hydrating, and, in particular, antiacne and antiaging qualities have become established. Wider applications of this versatile agent for dermatologic purposes are likely to be further investigated.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Jarząbek-Perz S et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023 Dec;22(12):3305-3312..

2. Qin X et al. Front Physiol. 2022 Mar 14;13:856699.

3. Grimes PE et al. Cutis. 2004 Feb;73(2 Suppl):3-13.

4. Glaser DA. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2003 May;11(2):219-227.

5. Jarząbek-Perz S et al. Skin Res Technol. 2023 Jun;29(6):e13353.

6. Jarząbek-Perz S et al. Skin Res Technol. 2021 Sep;27(5):925-930.

7. Zerbinati N et al. Molecules. 2021 Dec 15;26(24):7592.

8. Zerbinati Net al. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023 Apr 27;16(5):655.

9. Kantikosum K et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019 Feb 19;12:151-161.

10. Jayamani J et al. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018 Feb;107(Pt A):175-185.

Gluconolactone, 3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl) oxan-2-one (C₆H₁₀O₆), is known to display antioxidant, moisturizing, and soothing activity as well as enhance skin barrier function and protect elastin fibers from UV-engendered damage.¹ This derivative of oxidized glucose lactone is present naturally in bread, cheese, fruit juices, honey, tofu, and wine, and is used as a food additive in Europe.^1,2 In dermatology, it is most often used in chemical peels.

Polyhydroxy acids (PHAs) were discovered about 3 decades ago to exert similar functions as alpha hydroxy acids without provoking sensory irritation reactions. Gluconolactone along with lactobionic acid were the identified PHAs and further characterized as delivering more humectant and moisturizing activity than alpha hydroxy acids and effective in combination with retinoic acid to treat adult acne and with retinyl acetate to confer antiaging benefits.³ It is typically added to products for its skin-conditioning qualities, resulting in smoother, brighter, more toned skin.⁴ This column focuses on recent studies using this bioactive agent for dermatologic purposes.
 

Split-Face Studies Show Various Benefits

peepo/E+/Getty Images

In 2023, Jarząbek-Perz and colleagues conducted a split-face evaluation to assess the effects on various skin parameters (ie, hydration, pH, sebum, and transepidermal water loss [TEWL]) of gluconolactone and oxybrasion, compared with gluconolactone and microneedling. Twenty-one White women underwent a series of three split-face treatments at 1-week intervals. Chemical peels with 10% gluconolactone were performed on the whole face. The right side of the face was also treated with oxybrasion and the left with microneedle mesotherapy. Skin parameters were measured before the first and third treatments and 2 weeks following the final treatment. Photos were taken before and after the study. Both treatments resulted in improved hydration and reductions in sebum, pH, and TEWL. No statistically significant differences were noted between the treatment protocols. The researchers concluded that gluconolactone peels can be effectively combined with oxybrasion or microneedle mesotherapy to enhance skin hydration and to secure the hydrolipid barrier.⁵

Later that year, the same team evaluated pH, sebum levels, and TEWL before, during, and after several applications of 10% and 30% gluconolactone chemical peels in a split-face model in 16 female participants. The investigators conducted three procedures on both sides of the face, taking measurements on the forehead, periorbital area, on the cheek, and on the nose wing before, during, and 7 days after the final treatment. They found statistically significant improvements in sebum levels in the cheeks after the treatment series. Also, pH values were lower at each measurement site after each procedure. TEWL levels were significantly diminished around the eyes, as well as the left forehead and right cheek, with no significant discrepancy between gluconolactone concentrations. The researchers concluded that gluconolactone plays a major role in reducing cutaneous pH and TEWL and imparts a regulatory effect on sebum.¹

Two years earlier, Jarząbek-Perz and colleagues assessed skin moisture in a split-face model in 16 healthy women after the application of 10% and 30% gluconolactone. Investigators measured skin moisture before and after each of three treatments and a week after the final treatment from the forehead, periorbital area, and on the cheek. They observed no significant discrepancies between the 10% and 30% formulations, but a significant elevation in facial skin hydration was found to be promoted by gluconolactone. The investigators concluded that gluconolactone is an effective moisturizer for care of dry skin.⁶

Topical Formulation

In 2023, Zerbinati and colleagues determined that a gluconolactone-based lotion that they had begun testing 2 years earlier was safe and effective for dermatologic applications, with the noncomedogenic formulation found suitable as an antiaging agent, particularly as it treats aging-related pore dilatation.^7,8

Acne Treatment

In 2019, Kantikosum and colleagues conducted a double-blind, within-person comparative study to assess the efficacy of various cosmeceutical ingredients, including gluconolactone, glycolic acid, licochalcone A, and salicylic acid, combined with the acne treatment adapalene vs adapalene monotherapy for mild to moderate acne. Each of 25 subjects over 28 days applied a product mixed with 0.1% adapalene on one side of the face, and 0.1% adapalene alone on the other side of the face once nightly. The VISIA camera system spot score pointed to a statistically significant improvement on the combination sides. Differences in lesion reduction and severity were within acceptable margins, the authors reported. They concluded that the cosmeceutical combinations yielded similar benefits as adapalene alone, with the combination formulations decreasing acne complications.⁹

Potential Use as an Antifibrotic Agent

Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute

In 2018, Jayamani and colleagues investigated the antifibrotic characteristics of glucono-delta-lactone, a known acidifier, to ascertain if it could directly suppress collagen fibrils or even cause them to disintegrate. The researchers noted that collagen fibrillation is pH dependent, and that glucono-delta-lactone was found to exert a concentration-dependent suppression of fibrils and disintegration of preformed collagen fibrils with the antifibrotic function of the compound ascribed to its capacity to decrease pH. Further, glucono-delta-lactone appeared to emerge as an ideal antifibrotic agent as it left intact the triple helical structure of collagen after treatment. The investigators concluded that glucono-delta-lactone provides the foundation for developing antifibrotic agents intended to treat disorders characterized by collagen deposition.¹⁰

Conclusion

Gluconolactone emerged in the 1990s as a PHA useful in skin peels as an alternative to alpha hydroxy acids because of its nonirritating qualities. Since then, its soothing, hydrating, and, in particular, antiacne and antiaging qualities have become established. Wider applications of this versatile agent for dermatologic purposes are likely to be further investigated.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Jarząbek-Perz S et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023 Dec;22(12):3305-3312..

2. Qin X et al. Front Physiol. 2022 Mar 14;13:856699.

3. Grimes PE et al. Cutis. 2004 Feb;73(2 Suppl):3-13.

4. Glaser DA. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2003 May;11(2):219-227.

5. Jarząbek-Perz S et al. Skin Res Technol. 2023 Jun;29(6):e13353.

6. Jarząbek-Perz S et al. Skin Res Technol. 2021 Sep;27(5):925-930.

7. Zerbinati N et al. Molecules. 2021 Dec 15;26(24):7592.

8. Zerbinati Net al. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023 Apr 27;16(5):655.

9. Kantikosum K et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019 Feb 19;12:151-161.

10. Jayamani J et al. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018 Feb;107(Pt A):175-185.

“We really aren’t taking care of records — we’re taking care of people.” — Dr. Lawrence Weed

What is the purpose of a progress note? Anyone? Yes, you there. “Insurance billing?” Yes, that’s a good one. Anyone else? “To remember what you did?” Excellent. Another? Yes, that’s right, for others to follow along in your care. These are all good reasons for a progress note to exist. But they aren’t the whole story. Let’s start at the beginning.

Charts were once a collection of paper sheets with handwritten notes. Sometimes illegible, sometimes beautiful, always efficient. A progress note back then could be just 10 characters, AK, LN2, X,X,X,X,X (with X’s marking nitrogen sprays). Then came the healthcare K-Pg event: the conversion to EMRs. Those doctors who survived evolved into computer programmers, creating blocks of text from a few keystrokes. But like toddler-sized Legos, the blocks made it impossible to build a note that is nuanced or precise. Worse yet, many notes consisting of blocks from one note added awkwardly to a new note, creating grotesque structures unrecognizable as anything that should exist in nature. Words and numbers, but no information.

Newtown grafitti / flickr / CC BY-2.0

Thanks to the eternity of EMR, these creations live on, hideous and useless. They waste not only the server’s energy but also our time. Few things are more maddening than scrolling to reach the bottom of another physician’s note only to find there is nothing there.

Whose fault is this? Anyone? Yes, that’s right, insurers. As there are probably no payers in this audience, let’s blame them. I agree, the crushing burden of documentation-to-get-reimbursed has forced us to create “notes” that add no value to us but add up points for us to get paid for them. CMS, payers, prior authorizations, and now even patients, it seems we are documenting for lots of people except for us. There isn’t time to satisfy all and this significant burden for every encounter is a proximate cause for doctors despair. Until now.

In 2024, came our story’s deus ex machina: the AI scribe. A tool that can listen to a doctor visit, then from the ether, generate a note. A fully formed, comprehensive, sometimes pretty note that satisfies all audiences. Dr. Larry Weed must be dancing in heaven. It was Dr. Weed who led us from the nicotine-stained logs of the 1950s to the powerful problem-based notes we use today, an innovation that rivals the stethoscope in its impact.

Professor Weed also predicted that computers would be important to capture and make sense of patient data, helping us make accurate diagnoses and efficient plans. Again, he was right. He would surely be advocating to take advantage of AI scribes’ marvelous ability to capture salient data and present it in the form of a problem-oriented medical record.

AI scribes will be ubiquitous soon; I’m fast and even for me they save time. They also allow, for the first time in a decade, to turn from the glow of a screen to actually face the patient – we no longer have to scribe and care simultaneously. Hallelujah. And yet, lest I disappoint you without a twist, it seems with AI scribes, like EMRs we lose a little something too.

Like self-driving cars or ChatGPT-generated letters, they remove cognitive loads. They are lovely when you have to multitask or are trying to recall a visit from hours (days) ago. Using them, you’ll feel faster, lighter, freer, happier. But what’s missing is the thinking. At the end, you have an exquisite note, but you didn’t write it. It has the salient points, but none of the mental work to create it. AI scribes subvert the valuable work of synthesis. That was the critical part of Dr. Weed’s discovery: writing problem-oriented notes helped us think better.

Kaiser Permanente

Writing allows for the friction that helps us process what is going on with a patient. It allows for the discovery of diagnoses and prompts plans. When I was an intern, one of my attendings would hand write notes, succinctly showing what he had observed and was thinking. He’d sketch diagrams in the chart, for example, to help illustrate how we’d work though the toxic, metabolic, and infectious etiologies of acute liver failure. Sublime.

The act of writing also helps remind us there is a person attached to these words. Like a handwritten sympathy card, it is intimate, human. Even using our EMR, I’d still often type sentences that help tell the patient’s story. “Her sister just died. Utterly devastated. I’ll forward chart to Bob (her PCP) to check in on her.” Or: “Scratch golfer wants to know why he is getting so many SCCs now. ‘Like bankruptcy, gradually then suddenly,’ I explained. I think I broke through.”

Since we’ve concluded the purpose of a note is mostly to capture data, AI scribes are a godsend. They do so with remarkable quality and efficiency. We’ll just have to remember if the diagnosis is unclear, then it might help to write the note out yourself. And even when done by the AI machine, we might add human touches now and again lest there be no art left in what we do.

“For sale. Sun hat. Never worn.”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“We really aren’t taking care of records — we’re taking care of people.” — Dr. Lawrence Weed

What is the purpose of a progress note? Anyone? Yes, you there. “Insurance billing?” Yes, that’s a good one. Anyone else? “To remember what you did?” Excellent. Another? Yes, that’s right, for others to follow along in your care. These are all good reasons for a progress note to exist. But they aren’t the whole story. Let’s start at the beginning.

Charts were once a collection of paper sheets with handwritten notes. Sometimes illegible, sometimes beautiful, always efficient. A progress note back then could be just 10 characters, AK, LN2, X,X,X,X,X (with X’s marking nitrogen sprays). Then came the healthcare K-Pg event: the conversion to EMRs. Those doctors who survived evolved into computer programmers, creating blocks of text from a few keystrokes. But like toddler-sized Legos, the blocks made it impossible to build a note that is nuanced or precise. Worse yet, many notes consisting of blocks from one note added awkwardly to a new note, creating grotesque structures unrecognizable as anything that should exist in nature. Words and numbers, but no information.

Newtown grafitti / flickr / CC BY-2.0

Thanks to the eternity of EMR, these creations live on, hideous and useless. They waste not only the server’s energy but also our time. Few things are more maddening than scrolling to reach the bottom of another physician’s note only to find there is nothing there.

Whose fault is this? Anyone? Yes, that’s right, insurers. As there are probably no payers in this audience, let’s blame them. I agree, the crushing burden of documentation-to-get-reimbursed has forced us to create “notes” that add no value to us but add up points for us to get paid for them. CMS, payers, prior authorizations, and now even patients, it seems we are documenting for lots of people except for us. There isn’t time to satisfy all and this significant burden for every encounter is a proximate cause for doctors despair. Until now.

In 2024, came our story’s deus ex machina: the AI scribe. A tool that can listen to a doctor visit, then from the ether, generate a note. A fully formed, comprehensive, sometimes pretty note that satisfies all audiences. Dr. Larry Weed must be dancing in heaven. It was Dr. Weed who led us from the nicotine-stained logs of the 1950s to the powerful problem-based notes we use today, an innovation that rivals the stethoscope in its impact.

Professor Weed also predicted that computers would be important to capture and make sense of patient data, helping us make accurate diagnoses and efficient plans. Again, he was right. He would surely be advocating to take advantage of AI scribes’ marvelous ability to capture salient data and present it in the form of a problem-oriented medical record.

AI scribes will be ubiquitous soon; I’m fast and even for me they save time. They also allow, for the first time in a decade, to turn from the glow of a screen to actually face the patient – we no longer have to scribe and care simultaneously. Hallelujah. And yet, lest I disappoint you without a twist, it seems with AI scribes, like EMRs we lose a little something too.

Like self-driving cars or ChatGPT-generated letters, they remove cognitive loads. They are lovely when you have to multitask or are trying to recall a visit from hours (days) ago. Using them, you’ll feel faster, lighter, freer, happier. But what’s missing is the thinking. At the end, you have an exquisite note, but you didn’t write it. It has the salient points, but none of the mental work to create it. AI scribes subvert the valuable work of synthesis. That was the critical part of Dr. Weed’s discovery: writing problem-oriented notes helped us think better.

Kaiser Permanente

Writing allows for the friction that helps us process what is going on with a patient. It allows for the discovery of diagnoses and prompts plans. When I was an intern, one of my attendings would hand write notes, succinctly showing what he had observed and was thinking. He’d sketch diagrams in the chart, for example, to help illustrate how we’d work though the toxic, metabolic, and infectious etiologies of acute liver failure. Sublime.

The act of writing also helps remind us there is a person attached to these words. Like a handwritten sympathy card, it is intimate, human. Even using our EMR, I’d still often type sentences that help tell the patient’s story. “Her sister just died. Utterly devastated. I’ll forward chart to Bob (her PCP) to check in on her.” Or: “Scratch golfer wants to know why he is getting so many SCCs now. ‘Like bankruptcy, gradually then suddenly,’ I explained. I think I broke through.”

Since we’ve concluded the purpose of a note is mostly to capture data, AI scribes are a godsend. They do so with remarkable quality and efficiency. We’ll just have to remember if the diagnosis is unclear, then it might help to write the note out yourself. And even when done by the AI machine, we might add human touches now and again lest there be no art left in what we do.

“For sale. Sun hat. Never worn.”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“We really aren’t taking care of records — we’re taking care of people.” — Dr. Lawrence Weed

What is the purpose of a progress note? Anyone? Yes, you there. “Insurance billing?” Yes, that’s a good one. Anyone else? “To remember what you did?” Excellent. Another? Yes, that’s right, for others to follow along in your care. These are all good reasons for a progress note to exist. But they aren’t the whole story. Let’s start at the beginning.

Charts were once a collection of paper sheets with handwritten notes. Sometimes illegible, sometimes beautiful, always efficient. A progress note back then could be just 10 characters, AK, LN2, X,X,X,X,X (with X’s marking nitrogen sprays). Then came the healthcare K-Pg event: the conversion to EMRs. Those doctors who survived evolved into computer programmers, creating blocks of text from a few keystrokes. But like toddler-sized Legos, the blocks made it impossible to build a note that is nuanced or precise. Worse yet, many notes consisting of blocks from one note added awkwardly to a new note, creating grotesque structures unrecognizable as anything that should exist in nature. Words and numbers, but no information.

Newtown grafitti / flickr / CC BY-2.0

Thanks to the eternity of EMR, these creations live on, hideous and useless. They waste not only the server’s energy but also our time. Few things are more maddening than scrolling to reach the bottom of another physician’s note only to find there is nothing there.

Whose fault is this? Anyone? Yes, that’s right, insurers. As there are probably no payers in this audience, let’s blame them. I agree, the crushing burden of documentation-to-get-reimbursed has forced us to create “notes” that add no value to us but add up points for us to get paid for them. CMS, payers, prior authorizations, and now even patients, it seems we are documenting for lots of people except for us. There isn’t time to satisfy all and this significant burden for every encounter is a proximate cause for doctors despair. Until now.

In 2024, came our story’s deus ex machina: the AI scribe. A tool that can listen to a doctor visit, then from the ether, generate a note. A fully formed, comprehensive, sometimes pretty note that satisfies all audiences. Dr. Larry Weed must be dancing in heaven. It was Dr. Weed who led us from the nicotine-stained logs of the 1950s to the powerful problem-based notes we use today, an innovation that rivals the stethoscope in its impact.

Professor Weed also predicted that computers would be important to capture and make sense of patient data, helping us make accurate diagnoses and efficient plans. Again, he was right. He would surely be advocating to take advantage of AI scribes’ marvelous ability to capture salient data and present it in the form of a problem-oriented medical record.

AI scribes will be ubiquitous soon; I’m fast and even for me they save time. They also allow, for the first time in a decade, to turn from the glow of a screen to actually face the patient – we no longer have to scribe and care simultaneously. Hallelujah. And yet, lest I disappoint you without a twist, it seems with AI scribes, like EMRs we lose a little something too.

Like self-driving cars or ChatGPT-generated letters, they remove cognitive loads. They are lovely when you have to multitask or are trying to recall a visit from hours (days) ago. Using them, you’ll feel faster, lighter, freer, happier. But what’s missing is the thinking. At the end, you have an exquisite note, but you didn’t write it. It has the salient points, but none of the mental work to create it. AI scribes subvert the valuable work of synthesis. That was the critical part of Dr. Weed’s discovery: writing problem-oriented notes helped us think better.

Kaiser Permanente

Writing allows for the friction that helps us process what is going on with a patient. It allows for the discovery of diagnoses and prompts plans. When I was an intern, one of my attendings would hand write notes, succinctly showing what he had observed and was thinking. He’d sketch diagrams in the chart, for example, to help illustrate how we’d work though the toxic, metabolic, and infectious etiologies of acute liver failure. Sublime.

The act of writing also helps remind us there is a person attached to these words. Like a handwritten sympathy card, it is intimate, human. Even using our EMR, I’d still often type sentences that help tell the patient’s story. “Her sister just died. Utterly devastated. I’ll forward chart to Bob (her PCP) to check in on her.” Or: “Scratch golfer wants to know why he is getting so many SCCs now. ‘Like bankruptcy, gradually then suddenly,’ I explained. I think I broke through.”

Since we’ve concluded the purpose of a note is mostly to capture data, AI scribes are a godsend. They do so with remarkable quality and efficiency. We’ll just have to remember if the diagnosis is unclear, then it might help to write the note out yourself. And even when done by the AI machine, we might add human touches now and again lest there be no art left in what we do.

“For sale. Sun hat. Never worn.”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A few months ago, my health system added a clinical decision support function to our electronic health record to reduce inappropriate ordering of vitamin D levels. Clinicians are now required to select from a list of approved indications or diagnoses (including a history of vitamin D deficiency) before ordering the test.

Although I don’t know yet whether this process has had the desired effect, I felt that it was long overdue. Several years ago, I wrote an editorial that questioned the dramatic increase in vitamin D testing given the uncertainty about what level is adequate for good health and clinical trials showing that supplementing people with lower levels has no benefits for a variety of medical conditions. A more recent review of prospective studies of vitamin D supplements concluded that most correlations between vitamin D levels and outcomes in common and high-mortality conditions are unlikely to be causal.

A new Endocrine Society guideline recommends against routine measurement of vitamin D levels in healthy individuals. The guideline reinforces my current practice of not screening for vitamin D deficiency except in special situations, such as an individual with dark skin who works the night shift and rarely goes outdoors during daytime hours. But I haven’t been offering empirical vitamin D supplements to the four at-risk groups identified by the Endocrine Society: children, adults older than 75 years, pregnant patients, and adults with prediabetes. The evidence behind these recommendations merits a closer look.

In exclusively or primarily breastfed infants, I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to prescribe a daily supplement containing 400 IU of vitamin D. However, the Endocrine Society found evidence from several studies conducted in other countries that continuing supplementation throughout childhood reduces the risk for rickets and possibly reduces the incidence of respiratory infections, with few adverse effects.

Many older women, and some older men, choose to take a calcium and vitamin D supplement for bone health, even though there is scant evidence that doing so prevents fractures in community-dwelling adults without osteoporosis. The Endocrine Society’s meta-analysis, however, found that 1000 adults aged 75 years or older who took an average of 900 IU of vitamin D daily for 2 years could expect to experience six fewer deaths than an identical group not taking supplements.

A typical prenatal vitamin contains 400 IU of vitamin D. Placebo-controlled trials reviewed by the Endocrine Society that gave an average of 2500 IU daily found statistically insignificant reductions in preeclampsia, intrauterine death, preterm birth, small for gestation age birth, and neonatal deaths.

Finally, the Endocrine Society’s recommendation for adults with prediabetes was based on 11 trials (three conducted in the United States) that tested a daily average of 3500 IU and found a slightly lower risk for progression to diabetes (24 fewer diagnoses of type 2 diabetes per 1000 persons) in the group who took supplements.

Of the four groups highlighted by the guideline, the strongest case for vitamin D supplements is in older adults — it’s hard to argue with lower mortality, even if the difference is small. Therefore, I will start suggesting that my patients over age 75 take a daily vitamin D supplement containing at least 800 IU if they aren’t already doing so.

On the other hand, I don’t plan to change my approach to pregnant patients (whose benefits in studies could have been due to chance), children after age 1 year (studies of children in other countries with different nutritional status may not apply to the United States), or adults with prediabetes (where we already have proven lifestyle interventions with much greater effects). In these cases, either I am unconvinced that the data support benefits for my patients, or I feel that the benefits of vitamin D supplements are small enough to be outweighed by potential harms, such as increased kidney stones.

Kenneth W. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A few months ago, my health system added a clinical decision support function to our electronic health record to reduce inappropriate ordering of vitamin D levels. Clinicians are now required to select from a list of approved indications or diagnoses (including a history of vitamin D deficiency) before ordering the test.

Although I don’t know yet whether this process has had the desired effect, I felt that it was long overdue. Several years ago, I wrote an editorial that questioned the dramatic increase in vitamin D testing given the uncertainty about what level is adequate for good health and clinical trials showing that supplementing people with lower levels has no benefits for a variety of medical conditions. A more recent review of prospective studies of vitamin D supplements concluded that most correlations between vitamin D levels and outcomes in common and high-mortality conditions are unlikely to be causal.

A new Endocrine Society guideline recommends against routine measurement of vitamin D levels in healthy individuals. The guideline reinforces my current practice of not screening for vitamin D deficiency except in special situations, such as an individual with dark skin who works the night shift and rarely goes outdoors during daytime hours. But I haven’t been offering empirical vitamin D supplements to the four at-risk groups identified by the Endocrine Society: children, adults older than 75 years, pregnant patients, and adults with prediabetes. The evidence behind these recommendations merits a closer look.

In exclusively or primarily breastfed infants, I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to prescribe a daily supplement containing 400 IU of vitamin D. However, the Endocrine Society found evidence from several studies conducted in other countries that continuing supplementation throughout childhood reduces the risk for rickets and possibly reduces the incidence of respiratory infections, with few adverse effects.

Many older women, and some older men, choose to take a calcium and vitamin D supplement for bone health, even though there is scant evidence that doing so prevents fractures in community-dwelling adults without osteoporosis. The Endocrine Society’s meta-analysis, however, found that 1000 adults aged 75 years or older who took an average of 900 IU of vitamin D daily for 2 years could expect to experience six fewer deaths than an identical group not taking supplements.

A typical prenatal vitamin contains 400 IU of vitamin D. Placebo-controlled trials reviewed by the Endocrine Society that gave an average of 2500 IU daily found statistically insignificant reductions in preeclampsia, intrauterine death, preterm birth, small for gestation age birth, and neonatal deaths.

Finally, the Endocrine Society’s recommendation for adults with prediabetes was based on 11 trials (three conducted in the United States) that tested a daily average of 3500 IU and found a slightly lower risk for progression to diabetes (24 fewer diagnoses of type 2 diabetes per 1000 persons) in the group who took supplements.

Of the four groups highlighted by the guideline, the strongest case for vitamin D supplements is in older adults — it’s hard to argue with lower mortality, even if the difference is small. Therefore, I will start suggesting that my patients over age 75 take a daily vitamin D supplement containing at least 800 IU if they aren’t already doing so.

On the other hand, I don’t plan to change my approach to pregnant patients (whose benefits in studies could have been due to chance), children after age 1 year (studies of children in other countries with different nutritional status may not apply to the United States), or adults with prediabetes (where we already have proven lifestyle interventions with much greater effects). In these cases, either I am unconvinced that the data support benefits for my patients, or I feel that the benefits of vitamin D supplements are small enough to be outweighed by potential harms, such as increased kidney stones.

Kenneth W. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A few months ago, my health system added a clinical decision support function to our electronic health record to reduce inappropriate ordering of vitamin D levels. Clinicians are now required to select from a list of approved indications or diagnoses (including a history of vitamin D deficiency) before ordering the test.

Although I don’t know yet whether this process has had the desired effect, I felt that it was long overdue. Several years ago, I wrote an editorial that questioned the dramatic increase in vitamin D testing given the uncertainty about what level is adequate for good health and clinical trials showing that supplementing people with lower levels has no benefits for a variety of medical conditions. A more recent review of prospective studies of vitamin D supplements concluded that most correlations between vitamin D levels and outcomes in common and high-mortality conditions are unlikely to be causal.

A new Endocrine Society guideline recommends against routine measurement of vitamin D levels in healthy individuals. The guideline reinforces my current practice of not screening for vitamin D deficiency except in special situations, such as an individual with dark skin who works the night shift and rarely goes outdoors during daytime hours. But I haven’t been offering empirical vitamin D supplements to the four at-risk groups identified by the Endocrine Society: children, adults older than 75 years, pregnant patients, and adults with prediabetes. The evidence behind these recommendations merits a closer look.

In exclusively or primarily breastfed infants, I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to prescribe a daily supplement containing 400 IU of vitamin D. However, the Endocrine Society found evidence from several studies conducted in other countries that continuing supplementation throughout childhood reduces the risk for rickets and possibly reduces the incidence of respiratory infections, with few adverse effects.

Many older women, and some older men, choose to take a calcium and vitamin D supplement for bone health, even though there is scant evidence that doing so prevents fractures in community-dwelling adults without osteoporosis. The Endocrine Society’s meta-analysis, however, found that 1000 adults aged 75 years or older who took an average of 900 IU of vitamin D daily for 2 years could expect to experience six fewer deaths than an identical group not taking supplements.

A typical prenatal vitamin contains 400 IU of vitamin D. Placebo-controlled trials reviewed by the Endocrine Society that gave an average of 2500 IU daily found statistically insignificant reductions in preeclampsia, intrauterine death, preterm birth, small for gestation age birth, and neonatal deaths.

Finally, the Endocrine Society’s recommendation for adults with prediabetes was based on 11 trials (three conducted in the United States) that tested a daily average of 3500 IU and found a slightly lower risk for progression to diabetes (24 fewer diagnoses of type 2 diabetes per 1000 persons) in the group who took supplements.

Of the four groups highlighted by the guideline, the strongest case for vitamin D supplements is in older adults — it’s hard to argue with lower mortality, even if the difference is small. Therefore, I will start suggesting that my patients over age 75 take a daily vitamin D supplement containing at least 800 IU if they aren’t already doing so.

On the other hand, I don’t plan to change my approach to pregnant patients (whose benefits in studies could have been due to chance), children after age 1 year (studies of children in other countries with different nutritional status may not apply to the United States), or adults with prediabetes (where we already have proven lifestyle interventions with much greater effects). In these cases, either I am unconvinced that the data support benefits for my patients, or I feel that the benefits of vitamin D supplements are small enough to be outweighed by potential harms, such as increased kidney stones.

Kenneth W. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pyoderma faciale, also known as rosacea fulminans, is a rare and severe form of rosacea that primarily affects women between the ages of 15 and 46. It typically presents with a sudden onset of papules, pustules, cysts, painful inflammatory nodules, and erythema on the centrofacial areas. The etiology is unknown but has been speculated to be hormone-related as it is more common in women and can be triggered by acute changes such as stress or medications.

Because of overlapping symptoms with other conditions, an accurate clinical assessment is crucial. Typically, there are no comedones and about half of the patients have a history of acne. Some cases have shown a possible link between pyoderma faciale with inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disease and liver disease, highlighting the importance of considering these associations in treatment decisions.

Treatment options for pyoderma faciale include isotretinoin, corticosteroids, dapsone, and antibiotics such as doxycycline. Isotretinoin is usually the first-line treatment, with dapsone reserved for cases where other methods have failed. Despite concerns about isotretinoin exacerbating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there has been at least one reported case where a patient with ulcerative colitis who had pyoderma faciale that was successfully treated with isotretinoin with no adverse effects.

Mallory Towe, MS, and Donna Bilu Martin, MD

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Angileri L et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2021 Feb;32(1):110-3. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2019.1628175.

Coutinho JC et al. An Bras Dermatol. 2016 Sep-Oct;91(5 suppl 1):151-3. doi: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20164943.

Rosen T and Unkefer RP. Cutis. 1999 Aug;64(2):107-9.

Pyoderma faciale, also known as rosacea fulminans, is a rare and severe form of rosacea that primarily affects women between the ages of 15 and 46. It typically presents with a sudden onset of papules, pustules, cysts, painful inflammatory nodules, and erythema on the centrofacial areas. The etiology is unknown but has been speculated to be hormone-related as it is more common in women and can be triggered by acute changes such as stress or medications.

Because of overlapping symptoms with other conditions, an accurate clinical assessment is crucial. Typically, there are no comedones and about half of the patients have a history of acne. Some cases have shown a possible link between pyoderma faciale with inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disease and liver disease, highlighting the importance of considering these associations in treatment decisions.

Treatment options for pyoderma faciale include isotretinoin, corticosteroids, dapsone, and antibiotics such as doxycycline. Isotretinoin is usually the first-line treatment, with dapsone reserved for cases where other methods have failed. Despite concerns about isotretinoin exacerbating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there has been at least one reported case where a patient with ulcerative colitis who had pyoderma faciale that was successfully treated with isotretinoin with no adverse effects.

Mallory Towe, MS, and Donna Bilu Martin, MD

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Angileri L et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2021 Feb;32(1):110-3. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2019.1628175.

Coutinho JC et al. An Bras Dermatol. 2016 Sep-Oct;91(5 suppl 1):151-3. doi: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20164943.

Rosen T and Unkefer RP. Cutis. 1999 Aug;64(2):107-9.

Pyoderma faciale, also known as rosacea fulminans, is a rare and severe form of rosacea that primarily affects women between the ages of 15 and 46. It typically presents with a sudden onset of papules, pustules, cysts, painful inflammatory nodules, and erythema on the centrofacial areas. The etiology is unknown but has been speculated to be hormone-related as it is more common in women and can be triggered by acute changes such as stress or medications.

Because of overlapping symptoms with other conditions, an accurate clinical assessment is crucial. Typically, there are no comedones and about half of the patients have a history of acne. Some cases have shown a possible link between pyoderma faciale with inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disease and liver disease, highlighting the importance of considering these associations in treatment decisions.

Treatment options for pyoderma faciale include isotretinoin, corticosteroids, dapsone, and antibiotics such as doxycycline. Isotretinoin is usually the first-line treatment, with dapsone reserved for cases where other methods have failed. Despite concerns about isotretinoin exacerbating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there has been at least one reported case where a patient with ulcerative colitis who had pyoderma faciale that was successfully treated with isotretinoin with no adverse effects.

Mallory Towe, MS, and Donna Bilu Martin, MD

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Angileri L et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2021 Feb;32(1):110-3. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2019.1628175.

Coutinho JC et al. An Bras Dermatol. 2016 Sep-Oct;91(5 suppl 1):151-3. doi: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20164943.

Rosen T and Unkefer RP. Cutis. 1999 Aug;64(2):107-9.

In this article, I will review several recently published articles and guidelines relevant to the care of older adults in primary care. The articles of interest address statins for primary prevention, vitamin D supplementation and testing, and physical activity for healthy aging.
 

Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

A common conundrum in primary care is whether an older adult should be on a statin for primary prevention. This question has been difficult to answer because of the underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials that examine the effect of statins for primary prevention. A recent study by Xu et al. published in Annals of Internal Medicine sought to address this gap in knowledge, investigating the risks and benefits of statins for primary prevention for older adults.¹

This study stratified participants by “old” (aged 75-84 years) and “very old” (85 years or older). In this study, older adults who had an indication for statins were initiated on statins and studied over a 5-year period and compared with age-matched cohorts not initiated on statin therapy. Participants with known cardiovascular disease at baseline were excluded. The outcomes of interest were major cardiovascular disease (CVD) (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure), all-cause mortality, and adverse effect of drug therapy (myopathy or liver dysfunction).

The study found that among older adults aged 75-84, initiation of statin therapy led to a 1.2% risk reduction in major CVD over a 5-year period. For older adults aged 85 and greater, initiation of statins had an even larger impact, leading to a 4.4% risk reduction in major CVD over a 5-year period. The study found that there was no significant difference in adverse effects including myopathy or liver dysfunction in both age groups.

Statins, the study suggests, are appropriate and safe to initiate for primary prevention in older adults and can lead to substantial benefits in reduction of CVD. While time to benefit was not explicitly examined in this study, a prior study by Yourman et al. suggested that the time to benefit for statins for primary prevention in adults aged 50-75 would be least 2.5 years.²

My takeaway from these findings is to discuss statin initiation for primary prevention for older patients who are focused on longevity, have good functional status (often used in geriatrics as a proxy for prognosis), and are willing to accept more medications.
 

Empiric Vitamin D Supplementation in Adults over 75 Years

Vitamin D is one of the most common supplements taken by older adults but evidence supporting vitamin D supplementation is variable in published literature, as most data comes from observational trials. New guidelines from the Endocrine Society focused on developing recommendations for healthy individuals with data obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large longitudinal observational trials with comparison groups if RCTs were not available. These guidelines recommend against empiric supplementation of vitamin D for healthy adults aged 18-74, excluding pregnant women and patients with high-risk diabetes.³

For older adults aged 75 or greater, empiric vitamin D supplementation is recommended because of the possible reduction of risk in all-cause mortality in this population. Of note, this was a grade 2 recommendation by the panel, indicating that the benefits of the treatment probably outweigh the risks. The panel stated that vitamin D supplementation could be delivered through fortified foods, multivitamins with vitamin D, or as a separate vitamin D supplement.

The dosage should remain within the recommended daily allowance outlined by the Institute of Medicine of 800 IU daily for adults over 70, and the panel recommends low-dose daily vitamin D supplementation over high-dose interval supplementation. The panel noted that routine screening of vitamin D levels should not be used to guide decision-making on whether to start supplementation, but vitamin D levels should be obtained for patients who have an indication for evaluation.

The reviewers highlight that these guidelines were developed for healthy individuals and are not applicable to those with conditions that warrant vitamin D evaluation. In my clinical practice, many of my patients have bone-mineral conditions and cognitive impairment that warrant evaluation. Based on these guidelines, I will consider empiric vitamin D supplementation more often for healthy patients aged 75 and older.
 

Sedentary Behaviors and Healthy Aging

Engaging inactive older adults in regular physical activity can be challenging, particularly as the pandemic has led to more pervasive social isolation and affected the availability of in-person exercise activities in the community. Physical activity is a key component of healthy aging and cognition, and its benefits should be a part of routine counseling for older adults.

An interesting recent study published in JAMA Network Open by Shi et al. evaluated the association of health behaviors and aging in female US nurses over a 20-year period.⁴ Surveys were administered to capture time spent in each behavior, such as being sedentary (TV watching, sitting at home or at work), light activity (walking around the house or at work), and moderate to vigorous activity (walking for exercise, lawn mowing). “Healthy aging” was defined by the absence of chronic conditions such as heart failure, and lack of physical, mental, and cognitive impairment.

The study found that participants who were more sedentary were less likely to age healthfully, with each additional 2 hours of TV watching per day associated with a 12% reduction in likelihood of healthy aging. Light physical activity was associated with a significant increase in healthy aging, with a 6% increase in the likelihood of healthy aging for each additional 2 hours of light activity. Each additional 1 hour of moderate to vigorous activity was associated with a 14% increase in the likelihood of healthy aging. These findings support discussions with patients that behavior change, even in small increments, can be beneficial in healthy aging.
 

References

1. Xu W et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Jun;177(6):701-10.

2. Yourman LC et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:179-85.

3. Demay MB et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. August 2024;109(8):1907-47.

4. Shi H et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(6):e2416300.

In this article, I will review several recently published articles and guidelines relevant to the care of older adults in primary care. The articles of interest address statins for primary prevention, vitamin D supplementation and testing, and physical activity for healthy aging.
 

Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

A common conundrum in primary care is whether an older adult should be on a statin for primary prevention. This question has been difficult to answer because of the underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials that examine the effect of statins for primary prevention. A recent study by Xu et al. published in Annals of Internal Medicine sought to address this gap in knowledge, investigating the risks and benefits of statins for primary prevention for older adults.¹

This study stratified participants by “old” (aged 75-84 years) and “very old” (85 years or older). In this study, older adults who had an indication for statins were initiated on statins and studied over a 5-year period and compared with age-matched cohorts not initiated on statin therapy. Participants with known cardiovascular disease at baseline were excluded. The outcomes of interest were major cardiovascular disease (CVD) (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure), all-cause mortality, and adverse effect of drug therapy (myopathy or liver dysfunction).

The study found that among older adults aged 75-84, initiation of statin therapy led to a 1.2% risk reduction in major CVD over a 5-year period. For older adults aged 85 and greater, initiation of statins had an even larger impact, leading to a 4.4% risk reduction in major CVD over a 5-year period. The study found that there was no significant difference in adverse effects including myopathy or liver dysfunction in both age groups.

Statins, the study suggests, are appropriate and safe to initiate for primary prevention in older adults and can lead to substantial benefits in reduction of CVD. While time to benefit was not explicitly examined in this study, a prior study by Yourman et al. suggested that the time to benefit for statins for primary prevention in adults aged 50-75 would be least 2.5 years.²

My takeaway from these findings is to discuss statin initiation for primary prevention for older patients who are focused on longevity, have good functional status (often used in geriatrics as a proxy for prognosis), and are willing to accept more medications.
 

Empiric Vitamin D Supplementation in Adults over 75 Years

Vitamin D is one of the most common supplements taken by older adults but evidence supporting vitamin D supplementation is variable in published literature, as most data comes from observational trials. New guidelines from the Endocrine Society focused on developing recommendations for healthy individuals with data obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large longitudinal observational trials with comparison groups if RCTs were not available. These guidelines recommend against empiric supplementation of vitamin D for healthy adults aged 18-74, excluding pregnant women and patients with high-risk diabetes.³

For older adults aged 75 or greater, empiric vitamin D supplementation is recommended because of the possible reduction of risk in all-cause mortality in this population. Of note, this was a grade 2 recommendation by the panel, indicating that the benefits of the treatment probably outweigh the risks. The panel stated that vitamin D supplementation could be delivered through fortified foods, multivitamins with vitamin D, or as a separate vitamin D supplement.

The dosage should remain within the recommended daily allowance outlined by the Institute of Medicine of 800 IU daily for adults over 70, and the panel recommends low-dose daily vitamin D supplementation over high-dose interval supplementation. The panel noted that routine screening of vitamin D levels should not be used to guide decision-making on whether to start supplementation, but vitamin D levels should be obtained for patients who have an indication for evaluation.

The reviewers highlight that these guidelines were developed for healthy individuals and are not applicable to those with conditions that warrant vitamin D evaluation. In my clinical practice, many of my patients have bone-mineral conditions and cognitive impairment that warrant evaluation. Based on these guidelines, I will consider empiric vitamin D supplementation more often for healthy patients aged 75 and older.
 

Sedentary Behaviors and Healthy Aging

Engaging inactive older adults in regular physical activity can be challenging, particularly as the pandemic has led to more pervasive social isolation and affected the availability of in-person exercise activities in the community. Physical activity is a key component of healthy aging and cognition, and its benefits should be a part of routine counseling for older adults.

An interesting recent study published in JAMA Network Open by Shi et al. evaluated the association of health behaviors and aging in female US nurses over a 20-year period.⁴ Surveys were administered to capture time spent in each behavior, such as being sedentary (TV watching, sitting at home or at work), light activity (walking around the house or at work), and moderate to vigorous activity (walking for exercise, lawn mowing). “Healthy aging” was defined by the absence of chronic conditions such as heart failure, and lack of physical, mental, and cognitive impairment.

The study found that participants who were more sedentary were less likely to age healthfully, with each additional 2 hours of TV watching per day associated with a 12% reduction in likelihood of healthy aging. Light physical activity was associated with a significant increase in healthy aging, with a 6% increase in the likelihood of healthy aging for each additional 2 hours of light activity. Each additional 1 hour of moderate to vigorous activity was associated with a 14% increase in the likelihood of healthy aging. These findings support discussions with patients that behavior change, even in small increments, can be beneficial in healthy aging.
 

References

1. Xu W et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Jun;177(6):701-10.

2. Yourman LC et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:179-85.

3. Demay MB et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. August 2024;109(8):1907-47.

4. Shi H et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(6):e2416300.

In this article, I will review several recently published articles and guidelines relevant to the care of older adults in primary care. The articles of interest address statins for primary prevention, vitamin D supplementation and testing, and physical activity for healthy aging.
 

Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

A common conundrum in primary care is whether an older adult should be on a statin for primary prevention. This question has been difficult to answer because of the underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials that examine the effect of statins for primary prevention. A recent study by Xu et al. published in Annals of Internal Medicine sought to address this gap in knowledge, investigating the risks and benefits of statins for primary prevention for older adults.¹

This study stratified participants by “old” (aged 75-84 years) and “very old” (85 years or older). In this study, older adults who had an indication for statins were initiated on statins and studied over a 5-year period and compared with age-matched cohorts not initiated on statin therapy. Participants with known cardiovascular disease at baseline were excluded. The outcomes of interest were major cardiovascular disease (CVD) (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure), all-cause mortality, and adverse effect of drug therapy (myopathy or liver dysfunction).

The study found that among older adults aged 75-84, initiation of statin therapy led to a 1.2% risk reduction in major CVD over a 5-year period. For older adults aged 85 and greater, initiation of statins had an even larger impact, leading to a 4.4% risk reduction in major CVD over a 5-year period. The study found that there was no significant difference in adverse effects including myopathy or liver dysfunction in both age groups.

Statins, the study suggests, are appropriate and safe to initiate for primary prevention in older adults and can lead to substantial benefits in reduction of CVD. While time to benefit was not explicitly examined in this study, a prior study by Yourman et al. suggested that the time to benefit for statins for primary prevention in adults aged 50-75 would be least 2.5 years.²

My takeaway from these findings is to discuss statin initiation for primary prevention for older patients who are focused on longevity, have good functional status (often used in geriatrics as a proxy for prognosis), and are willing to accept more medications.
 

Empiric Vitamin D Supplementation in Adults over 75 Years

Vitamin D is one of the most common supplements taken by older adults but evidence supporting vitamin D supplementation is variable in published literature, as most data comes from observational trials. New guidelines from the Endocrine Society focused on developing recommendations for healthy individuals with data obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large longitudinal observational trials with comparison groups if RCTs were not available. These guidelines recommend against empiric supplementation of vitamin D for healthy adults aged 18-74, excluding pregnant women and patients with high-risk diabetes.³

For older adults aged 75 or greater, empiric vitamin D supplementation is recommended because of the possible reduction of risk in all-cause mortality in this population. Of note, this was a grade 2 recommendation by the panel, indicating that the benefits of the treatment probably outweigh the risks. The panel stated that vitamin D supplementation could be delivered through fortified foods, multivitamins with vitamin D, or as a separate vitamin D supplement.

The dosage should remain within the recommended daily allowance outlined by the Institute of Medicine of 800 IU daily for adults over 70, and the panel recommends low-dose daily vitamin D supplementation over high-dose interval supplementation. The panel noted that routine screening of vitamin D levels should not be used to guide decision-making on whether to start supplementation, but vitamin D levels should be obtained for patients who have an indication for evaluation.

The reviewers highlight that these guidelines were developed for healthy individuals and are not applicable to those with conditions that warrant vitamin D evaluation. In my clinical practice, many of my patients have bone-mineral conditions and cognitive impairment that warrant evaluation. Based on these guidelines, I will consider empiric vitamin D supplementation more often for healthy patients aged 75 and older.
 

Sedentary Behaviors and Healthy Aging

Engaging inactive older adults in regular physical activity can be challenging, particularly as the pandemic has led to more pervasive social isolation and affected the availability of in-person exercise activities in the community. Physical activity is a key component of healthy aging and cognition, and its benefits should be a part of routine counseling for older adults.

An interesting recent study published in JAMA Network Open by Shi et al. evaluated the association of health behaviors and aging in female US nurses over a 20-year period.⁴ Surveys were administered to capture time spent in each behavior, such as being sedentary (TV watching, sitting at home or at work), light activity (walking around the house or at work), and moderate to vigorous activity (walking for exercise, lawn mowing). “Healthy aging” was defined by the absence of chronic conditions such as heart failure, and lack of physical, mental, and cognitive impairment.

The study found that participants who were more sedentary were less likely to age healthfully, with each additional 2 hours of TV watching per day associated with a 12% reduction in likelihood of healthy aging. Light physical activity was associated with a significant increase in healthy aging, with a 6% increase in the likelihood of healthy aging for each additional 2 hours of light activity. Each additional 1 hour of moderate to vigorous activity was associated with a 14% increase in the likelihood of healthy aging. These findings support discussions with patients that behavior change, even in small increments, can be beneficial in healthy aging.
 

References

1. Xu W et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Jun;177(6):701-10.

2. Yourman LC et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:179-85.

3. Demay MB et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. August 2024;109(8):1907-47.

4. Shi H et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(6):e2416300.

Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.

Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.

Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.

This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.

The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.

That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers. I suppose I could consider stopping them in my patient with severe COPD, the one I can’t keep out of the hospital, but I’m not convinced that would make much difference.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.

Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.

Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.

This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.

The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.

That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers. I suppose I could consider stopping them in my patient with severe COPD, the one I can’t keep out of the hospital, but I’m not convinced that would make much difference.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.

Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.

Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.

This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.

The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.

That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers. I suppose I could consider stopping them in my patient with severe COPD, the one I can’t keep out of the hospital, but I’m not convinced that would make much difference.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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