Commentary

The coronavirus pandemic weighs heavily on psychiatric patients with conditions such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. Meanwhile, a national poll released March 25 by the American Psychiatric Association shows that almost half of all Americans are anxious about contracting COVID-19 and 40% are anxious about becoming seriously ill or dying from the virus. In light of stressors on patients and nonpatients alike, mental health professionals have a key role in helping to alleviate suffering tied to the public health crisis, according to psychiatrists from across the country.

Courtesy Dr. Shaili Jain

“There’s so much we can do to help people put order on this chaos,” said Shaili Jain, MD, section chief of outpatient mental health with the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System, in an interview. “We are essential workers in this time.”

Dr. Jain, who specializes in treating PTSD, said those patients are especially vulnerable to the stress and disruptions spawned by the pandemic. “When you go to the grocery store and there’s no food, that can be triggering for people who survived situations with a feeling of calamity or panic,” she said. “People are reporting worsening of nightmares and spontaneous panic attacks after having been stable with symptoms for many months. These are the kinds of stories that are starting to filter through.”

To make things even more difficult, she said, shelter-in-place orders are preventing patients from taking advantage of healthy coping strategies, such as working out at the gym or going to support groups. “We have an invaluable role to play in trying to prevent long-term consequences by going into problem-solving modes with patients.” Dr. Jain offered several tips that might help patients who are suffering:

• Use technology to stay in touch with support communities and boost self-care. “How can you be flexible with FaceTime, Skype, or phone even if you might not be able to have that face-to-face time? What are you doing to double down on your efforts at self-care – listening to music, reading, daily meditation, or walks? Double down on what you can do to prevent anxiety and stress levels from building up.”
• Take breaks from the news, which can contribute to hypervigilance and disrupted sleep. “I’m seeing that people are going down these rabbit holes of having the news or social media on 24/7,” Dr. Jain said. “You have to stay informed. But you need to pick trusted news sources and have chunks of time that are free of coronavirus coverage.” Understand that life is going to be difficult for a while. “We’re doing a lot of reassurance and education,” she said, “helping people to know and accept that the next few days, weeks, and months are going to be stressful.”

Dr. Jain cautioned colleagues, however, that “there will be a tsunami” of mental illness when the coronavirus crisis lifts. She is especially concerned about patient populations that are socioeconomically disadvantaged already and how their lives with be affected by lost wages, unemployment, and business failures. “Medical professionals will see the consequences of this in the days and weeks and months after the pandemic has settled,” she predicted.

The APA poll shows that, early in the crisis, more than 60% of people are anxious about family and loved ones contracting COVID-19.

Maintaining ‘reflective space’ essential

At the Austen Riggs Center, a psychiatric residential treatment facility in Stockbridge, Mass., staff and patients are adjusting to new rules that aim to prevent transmission of the novel coronavirus. “Social distancing requirements are having a huge impact,” said Eric M. Plakun, MD, medical director and CEO of Austen Riggs, in an interview. “You can’t have groups in the same way; you can’t have families come in for a family meeting; you can’t have quite the same the freedom to come and go. A lot of management issues are being addressed, but it is crucial also to maintain the ‘reflective space’ essential to do the kind of clinical work we do.” One approach, he said, is virtual meetings with colleagues that address on-the-job management issues, but also leave a space for how staff members are feeling.

“It’s easy to get into crisis-response mode,” he said, “where you’re always managing but never leave a space to talk about vulnerability, helplessness, and fear.”

As the facility’s staff adjusts by embracing teleconference technology and adapting group meetings to the 6-feet-apart rule,

Dr. Plakun said it is wise to bring patients into discussions about how to adapt to the era of coronavirus precautions. “They really want to be part of the response,” he said, noting that patients have approached staff members to say they want to collaborate about changes. “That’s a credible offer we intend to accept.” 

Still, communicating with patients as a whole about the coronavirus can be difficult. As Dr. Plakun noted, it’s now impossible to bring 75 people together into one room for a meeting. “If you have four to five smaller meetings, how do you maintain some congruence in the information that’s presented?”

Dr. Plakun suggested that colleagues find time to engage in the familiar, such as face-to-face clinical work. “That’s been the most reassuring and rewarding part of my day since it feels almost like normal,” he said.
 

Stocking up on medications

Jessica “Jessi” Gold, MD, MS, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, often treats college students. Asian students started to worry early in the pandemic, she said in an interview.

“At the beginning, there were a lot of concerns about the public’s view: ‘Did this come from China? Is it China’s fault?’ A lot of our students felt that if they coughed, and they were a white person, they’d be OK. But if they were Asian, everyone would wonder why they were in class and not at home. That got worse over time: the fear about – and anxiety from – stoking racism.”

Later, as classes began to be canceled, Dr. Gold started to see the psychological effects of disruption and uncertainty about the future. “This can lead people to feel like what they knew before is just not there anymore. This can obviously cause anxiety but also has the potential to cause depression.” Patients also might slip into overuse of alcohol and drugs, or they might engage in other kinds of harmful behavior. Eating disorders, for example, “are ways to have control when other things aren’t in control,” she said.

Dr. Gold pointed to research into the mental health after effects of quarantines, such as those imposed during the SARS outbreak. A review of 24 studies published this year found that most “reported negative psychological effects, including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects” (Lancet. 2020;395:912-20).

Dr. Gold is urging patients to recall the warning signs that alerted them to psychological downturns in the past: “Try to remember what those warning signs are and pay attention to whether you see them.” And, Dr. Gold said, she asks patients to think about what has helped them get better.

In some cases, she said, patients are already preparing themselves for experiencing mental distress by stocking up on medications. “Some people have a bottle of 10-20 pills that they only use in emergencies and keep as a kind of security blanket,” she said, and she’s seen some of them ask for refills. It seems they’ve either taken the pills recently or want to stash them just in case. This makes sense, since their anxiety is higher, she said.

Dr. Gold cautioned that psychiatrists need to be careful to not overextend themselves when they’re not treating patients. “It is easy to be therapist to friends, family, and colleagues,” she said, “but we need to take care of ourselves, too.”

Dr. Jain is author of “The Unspeakable Mind: Stories of Trauma and Healing From the Frontlines of PTSD Science” (New York: Harper, 2019). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Plakun and Dr. Gold reported no relevant disclosures.

The coronavirus pandemic weighs heavily on psychiatric patients with conditions such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. Meanwhile, a national poll released March 25 by the American Psychiatric Association shows that almost half of all Americans are anxious about contracting COVID-19 and 40% are anxious about becoming seriously ill or dying from the virus. In light of stressors on patients and nonpatients alike, mental health professionals have a key role in helping to alleviate suffering tied to the public health crisis, according to psychiatrists from across the country.

Courtesy Dr. Shaili Jain

“There’s so much we can do to help people put order on this chaos,” said Shaili Jain, MD, section chief of outpatient mental health with the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System, in an interview. “We are essential workers in this time.”

Dr. Jain, who specializes in treating PTSD, said those patients are especially vulnerable to the stress and disruptions spawned by the pandemic. “When you go to the grocery store and there’s no food, that can be triggering for people who survived situations with a feeling of calamity or panic,” she said. “People are reporting worsening of nightmares and spontaneous panic attacks after having been stable with symptoms for many months. These are the kinds of stories that are starting to filter through.”

To make things even more difficult, she said, shelter-in-place orders are preventing patients from taking advantage of healthy coping strategies, such as working out at the gym or going to support groups. “We have an invaluable role to play in trying to prevent long-term consequences by going into problem-solving modes with patients.” Dr. Jain offered several tips that might help patients who are suffering:

• Use technology to stay in touch with support communities and boost self-care. “How can you be flexible with FaceTime, Skype, or phone even if you might not be able to have that face-to-face time? What are you doing to double down on your efforts at self-care – listening to music, reading, daily meditation, or walks? Double down on what you can do to prevent anxiety and stress levels from building up.”
• Take breaks from the news, which can contribute to hypervigilance and disrupted sleep. “I’m seeing that people are going down these rabbit holes of having the news or social media on 24/7,” Dr. Jain said. “You have to stay informed. But you need to pick trusted news sources and have chunks of time that are free of coronavirus coverage.” Understand that life is going to be difficult for a while. “We’re doing a lot of reassurance and education,” she said, “helping people to know and accept that the next few days, weeks, and months are going to be stressful.”

Dr. Jain cautioned colleagues, however, that “there will be a tsunami” of mental illness when the coronavirus crisis lifts. She is especially concerned about patient populations that are socioeconomically disadvantaged already and how their lives with be affected by lost wages, unemployment, and business failures. “Medical professionals will see the consequences of this in the days and weeks and months after the pandemic has settled,” she predicted.

The APA poll shows that, early in the crisis, more than 60% of people are anxious about family and loved ones contracting COVID-19.

Maintaining ‘reflective space’ essential

At the Austen Riggs Center, a psychiatric residential treatment facility in Stockbridge, Mass., staff and patients are adjusting to new rules that aim to prevent transmission of the novel coronavirus. “Social distancing requirements are having a huge impact,” said Eric M. Plakun, MD, medical director and CEO of Austen Riggs, in an interview. “You can’t have groups in the same way; you can’t have families come in for a family meeting; you can’t have quite the same the freedom to come and go. A lot of management issues are being addressed, but it is crucial also to maintain the ‘reflective space’ essential to do the kind of clinical work we do.” One approach, he said, is virtual meetings with colleagues that address on-the-job management issues, but also leave a space for how staff members are feeling.

“It’s easy to get into crisis-response mode,” he said, “where you’re always managing but never leave a space to talk about vulnerability, helplessness, and fear.”

As the facility’s staff adjusts by embracing teleconference technology and adapting group meetings to the 6-feet-apart rule,

Dr. Plakun said it is wise to bring patients into discussions about how to adapt to the era of coronavirus precautions. “They really want to be part of the response,” he said, noting that patients have approached staff members to say they want to collaborate about changes. “That’s a credible offer we intend to accept.” 

Still, communicating with patients as a whole about the coronavirus can be difficult. As Dr. Plakun noted, it’s now impossible to bring 75 people together into one room for a meeting. “If you have four to five smaller meetings, how do you maintain some congruence in the information that’s presented?”

Dr. Plakun suggested that colleagues find time to engage in the familiar, such as face-to-face clinical work. “That’s been the most reassuring and rewarding part of my day since it feels almost like normal,” he said.
 

Stocking up on medications

Jessica “Jessi” Gold, MD, MS, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, often treats college students. Asian students started to worry early in the pandemic, she said in an interview.

“At the beginning, there were a lot of concerns about the public’s view: ‘Did this come from China? Is it China’s fault?’ A lot of our students felt that if they coughed, and they were a white person, they’d be OK. But if they were Asian, everyone would wonder why they were in class and not at home. That got worse over time: the fear about – and anxiety from – stoking racism.”

Later, as classes began to be canceled, Dr. Gold started to see the psychological effects of disruption and uncertainty about the future. “This can lead people to feel like what they knew before is just not there anymore. This can obviously cause anxiety but also has the potential to cause depression.” Patients also might slip into overuse of alcohol and drugs, or they might engage in other kinds of harmful behavior. Eating disorders, for example, “are ways to have control when other things aren’t in control,” she said.

Dr. Gold pointed to research into the mental health after effects of quarantines, such as those imposed during the SARS outbreak. A review of 24 studies published this year found that most “reported negative psychological effects, including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects” (Lancet. 2020;395:912-20).

Dr. Gold is urging patients to recall the warning signs that alerted them to psychological downturns in the past: “Try to remember what those warning signs are and pay attention to whether you see them.” And, Dr. Gold said, she asks patients to think about what has helped them get better.

In some cases, she said, patients are already preparing themselves for experiencing mental distress by stocking up on medications. “Some people have a bottle of 10-20 pills that they only use in emergencies and keep as a kind of security blanket,” she said, and she’s seen some of them ask for refills. It seems they’ve either taken the pills recently or want to stash them just in case. This makes sense, since their anxiety is higher, she said.

Dr. Gold cautioned that psychiatrists need to be careful to not overextend themselves when they’re not treating patients. “It is easy to be therapist to friends, family, and colleagues,” she said, “but we need to take care of ourselves, too.”

Dr. Jain is author of “The Unspeakable Mind: Stories of Trauma and Healing From the Frontlines of PTSD Science” (New York: Harper, 2019). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Plakun and Dr. Gold reported no relevant disclosures.

The coronavirus pandemic weighs heavily on psychiatric patients with conditions such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. Meanwhile, a national poll released March 25 by the American Psychiatric Association shows that almost half of all Americans are anxious about contracting COVID-19 and 40% are anxious about becoming seriously ill or dying from the virus. In light of stressors on patients and nonpatients alike, mental health professionals have a key role in helping to alleviate suffering tied to the public health crisis, according to psychiatrists from across the country.

Courtesy Dr. Shaili Jain

“There’s so much we can do to help people put order on this chaos,” said Shaili Jain, MD, section chief of outpatient mental health with the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System, in an interview. “We are essential workers in this time.”

Dr. Jain, who specializes in treating PTSD, said those patients are especially vulnerable to the stress and disruptions spawned by the pandemic. “When you go to the grocery store and there’s no food, that can be triggering for people who survived situations with a feeling of calamity or panic,” she said. “People are reporting worsening of nightmares and spontaneous panic attacks after having been stable with symptoms for many months. These are the kinds of stories that are starting to filter through.”

To make things even more difficult, she said, shelter-in-place orders are preventing patients from taking advantage of healthy coping strategies, such as working out at the gym or going to support groups. “We have an invaluable role to play in trying to prevent long-term consequences by going into problem-solving modes with patients.” Dr. Jain offered several tips that might help patients who are suffering:

• Use technology to stay in touch with support communities and boost self-care. “How can you be flexible with FaceTime, Skype, or phone even if you might not be able to have that face-to-face time? What are you doing to double down on your efforts at self-care – listening to music, reading, daily meditation, or walks? Double down on what you can do to prevent anxiety and stress levels from building up.”
• Take breaks from the news, which can contribute to hypervigilance and disrupted sleep. “I’m seeing that people are going down these rabbit holes of having the news or social media on 24/7,” Dr. Jain said. “You have to stay informed. But you need to pick trusted news sources and have chunks of time that are free of coronavirus coverage.” Understand that life is going to be difficult for a while. “We’re doing a lot of reassurance and education,” she said, “helping people to know and accept that the next few days, weeks, and months are going to be stressful.”

Dr. Jain cautioned colleagues, however, that “there will be a tsunami” of mental illness when the coronavirus crisis lifts. She is especially concerned about patient populations that are socioeconomically disadvantaged already and how their lives with be affected by lost wages, unemployment, and business failures. “Medical professionals will see the consequences of this in the days and weeks and months after the pandemic has settled,” she predicted.

The APA poll shows that, early in the crisis, more than 60% of people are anxious about family and loved ones contracting COVID-19.

Maintaining ‘reflective space’ essential

At the Austen Riggs Center, a psychiatric residential treatment facility in Stockbridge, Mass., staff and patients are adjusting to new rules that aim to prevent transmission of the novel coronavirus. “Social distancing requirements are having a huge impact,” said Eric M. Plakun, MD, medical director and CEO of Austen Riggs, in an interview. “You can’t have groups in the same way; you can’t have families come in for a family meeting; you can’t have quite the same the freedom to come and go. A lot of management issues are being addressed, but it is crucial also to maintain the ‘reflective space’ essential to do the kind of clinical work we do.” One approach, he said, is virtual meetings with colleagues that address on-the-job management issues, but also leave a space for how staff members are feeling.

“It’s easy to get into crisis-response mode,” he said, “where you’re always managing but never leave a space to talk about vulnerability, helplessness, and fear.”

As the facility’s staff adjusts by embracing teleconference technology and adapting group meetings to the 6-feet-apart rule,

Dr. Plakun said it is wise to bring patients into discussions about how to adapt to the era of coronavirus precautions. “They really want to be part of the response,” he said, noting that patients have approached staff members to say they want to collaborate about changes. “That’s a credible offer we intend to accept.” 

Still, communicating with patients as a whole about the coronavirus can be difficult. As Dr. Plakun noted, it’s now impossible to bring 75 people together into one room for a meeting. “If you have four to five smaller meetings, how do you maintain some congruence in the information that’s presented?”

Dr. Plakun suggested that colleagues find time to engage in the familiar, such as face-to-face clinical work. “That’s been the most reassuring and rewarding part of my day since it feels almost like normal,” he said.
 

Stocking up on medications

Jessica “Jessi” Gold, MD, MS, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, often treats college students. Asian students started to worry early in the pandemic, she said in an interview.

“At the beginning, there were a lot of concerns about the public’s view: ‘Did this come from China? Is it China’s fault?’ A lot of our students felt that if they coughed, and they were a white person, they’d be OK. But if they were Asian, everyone would wonder why they were in class and not at home. That got worse over time: the fear about – and anxiety from – stoking racism.”

Later, as classes began to be canceled, Dr. Gold started to see the psychological effects of disruption and uncertainty about the future. “This can lead people to feel like what they knew before is just not there anymore. This can obviously cause anxiety but also has the potential to cause depression.” Patients also might slip into overuse of alcohol and drugs, or they might engage in other kinds of harmful behavior. Eating disorders, for example, “are ways to have control when other things aren’t in control,” she said.

Dr. Gold pointed to research into the mental health after effects of quarantines, such as those imposed during the SARS outbreak. A review of 24 studies published this year found that most “reported negative psychological effects, including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects” (Lancet. 2020;395:912-20).

Dr. Gold is urging patients to recall the warning signs that alerted them to psychological downturns in the past: “Try to remember what those warning signs are and pay attention to whether you see them.” And, Dr. Gold said, she asks patients to think about what has helped them get better.

In some cases, she said, patients are already preparing themselves for experiencing mental distress by stocking up on medications. “Some people have a bottle of 10-20 pills that they only use in emergencies and keep as a kind of security blanket,” she said, and she’s seen some of them ask for refills. It seems they’ve either taken the pills recently or want to stash them just in case. This makes sense, since their anxiety is higher, she said.

Dr. Gold cautioned that psychiatrists need to be careful to not overextend themselves when they’re not treating patients. “It is easy to be therapist to friends, family, and colleagues,” she said, “but we need to take care of ourselves, too.”

Dr. Jain is author of “The Unspeakable Mind: Stories of Trauma and Healing From the Frontlines of PTSD Science” (New York: Harper, 2019). She has no other disclosures. Dr. Plakun and Dr. Gold reported no relevant disclosures.

We are in the midst of an epidemic and possibly pandemic of anxiety and distress. The worry that folks have about themselves, families, finances, and work is overwhelming for millions.

I speak with people who report periods of racing thoughts jumping back in time and thinking of roads not taken. They also talk about their thoughts jumping forward with life plans of what they’ll do to change their lives in the future – if they survive COVID-19.

Consider what this uncertainty is doing to people who have an underlying emotional problem that is well-controlled with care (and even without care). Those people are suffering even more. Meanwhile, people with obsessive-compulsive disorder that had been under control appear to have worsened with the added stress.

Social distancing has disrupted our everyday routines. For many, there is no work, no spending time with people we care about, no going to movies or shows, no doing discretionary shopping, no going to school. Parents with children at home report frustration about balancing working from home with completing home-schooling packets. Physicians on the front lines of this unprecedented time report not having the proper protective equipment and worrying about the possibility of exposing their families to SARS-CoV-2.

We hear stories about the illness and even deaths of some young and middle-aged people with no underlying conditions, not to mention the loss of older adults. People are bursting into tears, and becoming easily frustrated and angry. Add in nightmares, ongoing anxiety states, insomnia, and decreased concentration.

We are seeing news reports of people stocking up on guns and ammunition and a case of one taking – and dying from – nonpharmaceutical grade chloroquine in an effort to prevent COVID-19.

I spoke with Juliana Tseng, PsyD, a clinical psychologist based in New York, and she said that the hype, half-truths, and false information from some outlets in the popular media are making things worse. Dr. Tseng added that the lack of coordination among local, state, and federal governments also is increasing fear and alienation.

As I see this period in time, my first thoughts are that we are witnessing a national epidemic of trauma. Specifically, what we have here is a clinical picture of PTSD.

PTSD is defined clearly as a traumatic disorder with a real or perceived fracture with life. Isolation (which we are creating as a way to “flatten the curve” or slow the spread of COVID-19), although that strategy is in our best personal and public health interests, is both painful and stressful. Frustration, flashbacks of past life experiences plus flashbacks of being ill are reported in people I’ve spoken with. Avoidance, even though it is planned in this instance, is part of the PTSD complex.

What can we as mental health professionals do to help alleviate this suffering?

First, of course, we must listen to the scientific experts and the data – and tell people to do the same. Most experts will say that COVID-19 is a mild or moderate illness for the vast majority of people. We also must encourage people to observe precautions outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as distancing from people, hand washing, and avoiding those who are ill. Explain to people that, currently, there is no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Treatment is mainly supportive, and some medication trials are being explored. However, we can empower people by helping them to develop skills aimed at increasing the ability to relax and focus on more positive aspects of life to break the chain of the stress and tension of anxiety as well as control the PTSD.

For more than 40 years, I have helped people master relaxation techniques and guided imagery. When taught properly, people are able to use these techniques on their own.

To begin, I teach people how to relax, using a simple three-point method:

• Get comfortable in a nice chair, and slowly count from one to three. At the count of one, do one thing: “roll your eyes up to the top of your head.”
• At the count of two, do two things, “close your lids on your eyes and take a deep breath.”
• At three, exhale slowly, relax your eyes, and concentrate on a restful feeling of floating.
• Do this for about 30 seconds to a minute.
• Count backward, from three to two to one and open your eyes.

The person will notice how nice and restful they will feel.

After that exercise, get the person to move to the graduate level and go beyond just relaxation. In the following exercise, people can go into a relaxed state by imagining a movie screen. Tell the person to do two things:

1. Look at the imagined movie screen and project on it any pleasant scene you wish; this is your screen. You will feel yourself becoming more and more relaxed. The person can do this one, two, three or whatever times a day. The exercise can last 1 minute or 5.

2. Incorporate the 1, 2, 3 relaxation described earlier, allowing yourself to float into this restful state and go to your movie screen. Now, on the screen, imagine a thick line down the center, and on the left side, project your worries and anxieties and fears. The idea is to see but not experience them. Then shift to the ride side of the screen, and again, visualize any pleasant scene you wish. Again, do this for 1 minute or 5 minutes, whatever works.

You will notice that the pleasant scene on the right will overcome the anxiety scene on the left, in that pleasantness, in most instances, overcomes anxiety. For many, these techniques have proved very useful – whether the problem is anxiety or fear – or both. In my experience, these techniques are a good beginning for controlling PTSD and successfully treating it.

We are in the midst of what could be the biggest public health crisis that America has faced since the 1918 pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu. The lockdowns, quarantines, and the myriad of other disruptions can lead to alienation. In fact, it would be strange for us not to experience strong emotions under these extreme conditions. Life will get better! In the meantime, let’s encourage people to hope, pray, and use relaxation techniques and guided imagery approaches to help control anxiety, worry, stress, and issues related to PTSD. These approaches can give our minds and bodies periods of relaxation and recovery, and ultimately, they can calm our minds.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

We are in the midst of an epidemic and possibly pandemic of anxiety and distress. The worry that folks have about themselves, families, finances, and work is overwhelming for millions.

I speak with people who report periods of racing thoughts jumping back in time and thinking of roads not taken. They also talk about their thoughts jumping forward with life plans of what they’ll do to change their lives in the future – if they survive COVID-19.

Consider what this uncertainty is doing to people who have an underlying emotional problem that is well-controlled with care (and even without care). Those people are suffering even more. Meanwhile, people with obsessive-compulsive disorder that had been under control appear to have worsened with the added stress.

Social distancing has disrupted our everyday routines. For many, there is no work, no spending time with people we care about, no going to movies or shows, no doing discretionary shopping, no going to school. Parents with children at home report frustration about balancing working from home with completing home-schooling packets. Physicians on the front lines of this unprecedented time report not having the proper protective equipment and worrying about the possibility of exposing their families to SARS-CoV-2.

We hear stories about the illness and even deaths of some young and middle-aged people with no underlying conditions, not to mention the loss of older adults. People are bursting into tears, and becoming easily frustrated and angry. Add in nightmares, ongoing anxiety states, insomnia, and decreased concentration.

We are seeing news reports of people stocking up on guns and ammunition and a case of one taking – and dying from – nonpharmaceutical grade chloroquine in an effort to prevent COVID-19.

I spoke with Juliana Tseng, PsyD, a clinical psychologist based in New York, and she said that the hype, half-truths, and false information from some outlets in the popular media are making things worse. Dr. Tseng added that the lack of coordination among local, state, and federal governments also is increasing fear and alienation.

As I see this period in time, my first thoughts are that we are witnessing a national epidemic of trauma. Specifically, what we have here is a clinical picture of PTSD.

PTSD is defined clearly as a traumatic disorder with a real or perceived fracture with life. Isolation (which we are creating as a way to “flatten the curve” or slow the spread of COVID-19), although that strategy is in our best personal and public health interests, is both painful and stressful. Frustration, flashbacks of past life experiences plus flashbacks of being ill are reported in people I’ve spoken with. Avoidance, even though it is planned in this instance, is part of the PTSD complex.

What can we as mental health professionals do to help alleviate this suffering?

First, of course, we must listen to the scientific experts and the data – and tell people to do the same. Most experts will say that COVID-19 is a mild or moderate illness for the vast majority of people. We also must encourage people to observe precautions outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as distancing from people, hand washing, and avoiding those who are ill. Explain to people that, currently, there is no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Treatment is mainly supportive, and some medication trials are being explored. However, we can empower people by helping them to develop skills aimed at increasing the ability to relax and focus on more positive aspects of life to break the chain of the stress and tension of anxiety as well as control the PTSD.

For more than 40 years, I have helped people master relaxation techniques and guided imagery. When taught properly, people are able to use these techniques on their own.

To begin, I teach people how to relax, using a simple three-point method:

• Get comfortable in a nice chair, and slowly count from one to three. At the count of one, do one thing: “roll your eyes up to the top of your head.”
• At the count of two, do two things, “close your lids on your eyes and take a deep breath.”
• At three, exhale slowly, relax your eyes, and concentrate on a restful feeling of floating.
• Do this for about 30 seconds to a minute.
• Count backward, from three to two to one and open your eyes.

The person will notice how nice and restful they will feel.

After that exercise, get the person to move to the graduate level and go beyond just relaxation. In the following exercise, people can go into a relaxed state by imagining a movie screen. Tell the person to do two things:

1. Look at the imagined movie screen and project on it any pleasant scene you wish; this is your screen. You will feel yourself becoming more and more relaxed. The person can do this one, two, three or whatever times a day. The exercise can last 1 minute or 5.

2. Incorporate the 1, 2, 3 relaxation described earlier, allowing yourself to float into this restful state and go to your movie screen. Now, on the screen, imagine a thick line down the center, and on the left side, project your worries and anxieties and fears. The idea is to see but not experience them. Then shift to the ride side of the screen, and again, visualize any pleasant scene you wish. Again, do this for 1 minute or 5 minutes, whatever works.

You will notice that the pleasant scene on the right will overcome the anxiety scene on the left, in that pleasantness, in most instances, overcomes anxiety. For many, these techniques have proved very useful – whether the problem is anxiety or fear – or both. In my experience, these techniques are a good beginning for controlling PTSD and successfully treating it.

We are in the midst of what could be the biggest public health crisis that America has faced since the 1918 pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu. The lockdowns, quarantines, and the myriad of other disruptions can lead to alienation. In fact, it would be strange for us not to experience strong emotions under these extreme conditions. Life will get better! In the meantime, let’s encourage people to hope, pray, and use relaxation techniques and guided imagery approaches to help control anxiety, worry, stress, and issues related to PTSD. These approaches can give our minds and bodies periods of relaxation and recovery, and ultimately, they can calm our minds.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

We are in the midst of an epidemic and possibly pandemic of anxiety and distress. The worry that folks have about themselves, families, finances, and work is overwhelming for millions.

I speak with people who report periods of racing thoughts jumping back in time and thinking of roads not taken. They also talk about their thoughts jumping forward with life plans of what they’ll do to change their lives in the future – if they survive COVID-19.

Consider what this uncertainty is doing to people who have an underlying emotional problem that is well-controlled with care (and even without care). Those people are suffering even more. Meanwhile, people with obsessive-compulsive disorder that had been under control appear to have worsened with the added stress.

Social distancing has disrupted our everyday routines. For many, there is no work, no spending time with people we care about, no going to movies or shows, no doing discretionary shopping, no going to school. Parents with children at home report frustration about balancing working from home with completing home-schooling packets. Physicians on the front lines of this unprecedented time report not having the proper protective equipment and worrying about the possibility of exposing their families to SARS-CoV-2.

We hear stories about the illness and even deaths of some young and middle-aged people with no underlying conditions, not to mention the loss of older adults. People are bursting into tears, and becoming easily frustrated and angry. Add in nightmares, ongoing anxiety states, insomnia, and decreased concentration.

We are seeing news reports of people stocking up on guns and ammunition and a case of one taking – and dying from – nonpharmaceutical grade chloroquine in an effort to prevent COVID-19.

I spoke with Juliana Tseng, PsyD, a clinical psychologist based in New York, and she said that the hype, half-truths, and false information from some outlets in the popular media are making things worse. Dr. Tseng added that the lack of coordination among local, state, and federal governments also is increasing fear and alienation.

As I see this period in time, my first thoughts are that we are witnessing a national epidemic of trauma. Specifically, what we have here is a clinical picture of PTSD.

PTSD is defined clearly as a traumatic disorder with a real or perceived fracture with life. Isolation (which we are creating as a way to “flatten the curve” or slow the spread of COVID-19), although that strategy is in our best personal and public health interests, is both painful and stressful. Frustration, flashbacks of past life experiences plus flashbacks of being ill are reported in people I’ve spoken with. Avoidance, even though it is planned in this instance, is part of the PTSD complex.

What can we as mental health professionals do to help alleviate this suffering?

First, of course, we must listen to the scientific experts and the data – and tell people to do the same. Most experts will say that COVID-19 is a mild or moderate illness for the vast majority of people. We also must encourage people to observe precautions outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as distancing from people, hand washing, and avoiding those who are ill. Explain to people that, currently, there is no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Treatment is mainly supportive, and some medication trials are being explored. However, we can empower people by helping them to develop skills aimed at increasing the ability to relax and focus on more positive aspects of life to break the chain of the stress and tension of anxiety as well as control the PTSD.

For more than 40 years, I have helped people master relaxation techniques and guided imagery. When taught properly, people are able to use these techniques on their own.

To begin, I teach people how to relax, using a simple three-point method:

• Get comfortable in a nice chair, and slowly count from one to three. At the count of one, do one thing: “roll your eyes up to the top of your head.”
• At the count of two, do two things, “close your lids on your eyes and take a deep breath.”
• At three, exhale slowly, relax your eyes, and concentrate on a restful feeling of floating.
• Do this for about 30 seconds to a minute.
• Count backward, from three to two to one and open your eyes.

The person will notice how nice and restful they will feel.

After that exercise, get the person to move to the graduate level and go beyond just relaxation. In the following exercise, people can go into a relaxed state by imagining a movie screen. Tell the person to do two things:

1. Look at the imagined movie screen and project on it any pleasant scene you wish; this is your screen. You will feel yourself becoming more and more relaxed. The person can do this one, two, three or whatever times a day. The exercise can last 1 minute or 5.

2. Incorporate the 1, 2, 3 relaxation described earlier, allowing yourself to float into this restful state and go to your movie screen. Now, on the screen, imagine a thick line down the center, and on the left side, project your worries and anxieties and fears. The idea is to see but not experience them. Then shift to the ride side of the screen, and again, visualize any pleasant scene you wish. Again, do this for 1 minute or 5 minutes, whatever works.

You will notice that the pleasant scene on the right will overcome the anxiety scene on the left, in that pleasantness, in most instances, overcomes anxiety. For many, these techniques have proved very useful – whether the problem is anxiety or fear – or both. In my experience, these techniques are a good beginning for controlling PTSD and successfully treating it.

We are in the midst of what could be the biggest public health crisis that America has faced since the 1918 pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu. The lockdowns, quarantines, and the myriad of other disruptions can lead to alienation. In fact, it would be strange for us not to experience strong emotions under these extreme conditions. Life will get better! In the meantime, let’s encourage people to hope, pray, and use relaxation techniques and guided imagery approaches to help control anxiety, worry, stress, and issues related to PTSD. These approaches can give our minds and bodies periods of relaxation and recovery, and ultimately, they can calm our minds.
 

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.

As we are all facing uncertainties in caring for our patients amid the COVID-19 pandemic, I wanted to share some thoughts I have had and some of my own experiences treating patients during this unsettling time. I practice at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an area that initially had the highest prevalence of COVID-19 cases in the United States.

I have never felt better about being a part of the medical profession because of the altruism, compassion, and deep caring I have seen displayed by my colleagues, our nurses, our staff, and our students. I am proud to have worked with all of them while trying to figure out how to practice in this environment.

These times are really difficult and challenging as we face new problems every day. Last week, we had to send our students home, and we switched to phone and telehealth visits to keep our patients and staff safer.

I have had some unanticipated electronic messages from patients during this time. Two of my patients with major medical problems and very dependent on their medications were stranded internationally and running out of medications. I had the family of an incarcerated patient contact me for a letter because that patient was moved to a part of a jail where all patients with upper respiratory infection symptoms were being housed. My patient has severe immunosuppression, and they were requesting an exception for him.

Another of my patients, who has sarcoidosis and is immunosuppressed, informed me that her daughter who lives with her was diagnosed with COVID-19. After 3 days, this patient told me she had become febrile and short of breath. I instructed her patient to go to a hospital, where she was also diagnosed with COVID-19 and was admitted. This patient was discharged within 24 hours, because the utilization review department did not feel she should be in the hospital.

The lack of beds is forcing physicians to frequently make tough decisions like the one made for this patient. This unfortunate reality raises the question of: “How do you manage a patient you are worried about from his or her home?”

In this particular case, I sent my patient an oxygen saturation monitor. We touched base frequently, and I felt okay as long as her saturations on room air were above 90%. So far, she has done okay.

More recently, I received a message from a patient recently diagnosed with Mycobacterium avium complex. I learned that this patient and her disabled husband’s caregiver refused to continue to provide care to them, because my patient had a cough, which began 2 months prior. In this case, a COVID-19 test was done for the explicit purpose of getting the caregiver to return to work.

So how do we face this?

Burnout had been high before this difficult time. But now physicians are being called to care for more and sicker patients without the necessary personal protective gear. Our physicians have demonstrated strength and commitment to patients in their response to this challenge, but they need help from others, including regulators.

I think a first step that needs to be taken is to decrease the volume of documentation physicians are required to make in this time where we are forced to triage to what is most important and drop what isn’t. How is spending so much time documenting instead of seeing the high volumes of patients who need to be seen a good thing? Documentation to the level that Medicare has required isn’t going to work. In fact, it has never been a good thing and is a big driver of burnout.

Our health care system was broken and badly injured before this crisis, and I think now might be a time when positive changes for the future occur. In fact, COVID-19 has resulted in some temporary changes in medicine that I would like to see outlast this outbreak. The telehealth option is now available, for example, and this kind of care is covered much more broadly by Medicare under the 1135 waiver – this has been needed for years. Being able to conduct regular clinic visits via telehealth without the marked restrictions that were previously in place is a big advance. It is currently in place for this emergency only, but this is the time to start pushing hard to make sure this option will be permanent.

I invite you to help me fight for long-term change. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper or blog, share your thoughts on social media, and tweet. (I suggest using #documentationordoctors or, although a bit long, #excessivedocumentationcostslives.) This is an unprecedented time in modern medicine. Traumatic times are when the greatest changes occur. Let’s hope for the better.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He frequently contributes Pearl of the Month and Myth of the Month columns to MDedge, and he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

As we are all facing uncertainties in caring for our patients amid the COVID-19 pandemic, I wanted to share some thoughts I have had and some of my own experiences treating patients during this unsettling time. I practice at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an area that initially had the highest prevalence of COVID-19 cases in the United States.

I have never felt better about being a part of the medical profession because of the altruism, compassion, and deep caring I have seen displayed by my colleagues, our nurses, our staff, and our students. I am proud to have worked with all of them while trying to figure out how to practice in this environment.

These times are really difficult and challenging as we face new problems every day. Last week, we had to send our students home, and we switched to phone and telehealth visits to keep our patients and staff safer.

I have had some unanticipated electronic messages from patients during this time. Two of my patients with major medical problems and very dependent on their medications were stranded internationally and running out of medications. I had the family of an incarcerated patient contact me for a letter because that patient was moved to a part of a jail where all patients with upper respiratory infection symptoms were being housed. My patient has severe immunosuppression, and they were requesting an exception for him.

Another of my patients, who has sarcoidosis and is immunosuppressed, informed me that her daughter who lives with her was diagnosed with COVID-19. After 3 days, this patient told me she had become febrile and short of breath. I instructed her patient to go to a hospital, where she was also diagnosed with COVID-19 and was admitted. This patient was discharged within 24 hours, because the utilization review department did not feel she should be in the hospital.

The lack of beds is forcing physicians to frequently make tough decisions like the one made for this patient. This unfortunate reality raises the question of: “How do you manage a patient you are worried about from his or her home?”

In this particular case, I sent my patient an oxygen saturation monitor. We touched base frequently, and I felt okay as long as her saturations on room air were above 90%. So far, she has done okay.

More recently, I received a message from a patient recently diagnosed with Mycobacterium avium complex. I learned that this patient and her disabled husband’s caregiver refused to continue to provide care to them, because my patient had a cough, which began 2 months prior. In this case, a COVID-19 test was done for the explicit purpose of getting the caregiver to return to work.

So how do we face this?

Burnout had been high before this difficult time. But now physicians are being called to care for more and sicker patients without the necessary personal protective gear. Our physicians have demonstrated strength and commitment to patients in their response to this challenge, but they need help from others, including regulators.

I think a first step that needs to be taken is to decrease the volume of documentation physicians are required to make in this time where we are forced to triage to what is most important and drop what isn’t. How is spending so much time documenting instead of seeing the high volumes of patients who need to be seen a good thing? Documentation to the level that Medicare has required isn’t going to work. In fact, it has never been a good thing and is a big driver of burnout.

Our health care system was broken and badly injured before this crisis, and I think now might be a time when positive changes for the future occur. In fact, COVID-19 has resulted in some temporary changes in medicine that I would like to see outlast this outbreak. The telehealth option is now available, for example, and this kind of care is covered much more broadly by Medicare under the 1135 waiver – this has been needed for years. Being able to conduct regular clinic visits via telehealth without the marked restrictions that were previously in place is a big advance. It is currently in place for this emergency only, but this is the time to start pushing hard to make sure this option will be permanent.

I invite you to help me fight for long-term change. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper or blog, share your thoughts on social media, and tweet. (I suggest using #documentationordoctors or, although a bit long, #excessivedocumentationcostslives.) This is an unprecedented time in modern medicine. Traumatic times are when the greatest changes occur. Let’s hope for the better.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He frequently contributes Pearl of the Month and Myth of the Month columns to MDedge, and he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

As we are all facing uncertainties in caring for our patients amid the COVID-19 pandemic, I wanted to share some thoughts I have had and some of my own experiences treating patients during this unsettling time. I practice at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an area that initially had the highest prevalence of COVID-19 cases in the United States.

I have never felt better about being a part of the medical profession because of the altruism, compassion, and deep caring I have seen displayed by my colleagues, our nurses, our staff, and our students. I am proud to have worked with all of them while trying to figure out how to practice in this environment.

These times are really difficult and challenging as we face new problems every day. Last week, we had to send our students home, and we switched to phone and telehealth visits to keep our patients and staff safer.

I have had some unanticipated electronic messages from patients during this time. Two of my patients with major medical problems and very dependent on their medications were stranded internationally and running out of medications. I had the family of an incarcerated patient contact me for a letter because that patient was moved to a part of a jail where all patients with upper respiratory infection symptoms were being housed. My patient has severe immunosuppression, and they were requesting an exception for him.

Another of my patients, who has sarcoidosis and is immunosuppressed, informed me that her daughter who lives with her was diagnosed with COVID-19. After 3 days, this patient told me she had become febrile and short of breath. I instructed her patient to go to a hospital, where she was also diagnosed with COVID-19 and was admitted. This patient was discharged within 24 hours, because the utilization review department did not feel she should be in the hospital.

The lack of beds is forcing physicians to frequently make tough decisions like the one made for this patient. This unfortunate reality raises the question of: “How do you manage a patient you are worried about from his or her home?”

In this particular case, I sent my patient an oxygen saturation monitor. We touched base frequently, and I felt okay as long as her saturations on room air were above 90%. So far, she has done okay.

More recently, I received a message from a patient recently diagnosed with Mycobacterium avium complex. I learned that this patient and her disabled husband’s caregiver refused to continue to provide care to them, because my patient had a cough, which began 2 months prior. In this case, a COVID-19 test was done for the explicit purpose of getting the caregiver to return to work.

So how do we face this?

Burnout had been high before this difficult time. But now physicians are being called to care for more and sicker patients without the necessary personal protective gear. Our physicians have demonstrated strength and commitment to patients in their response to this challenge, but they need help from others, including regulators.

I think a first step that needs to be taken is to decrease the volume of documentation physicians are required to make in this time where we are forced to triage to what is most important and drop what isn’t. How is spending so much time documenting instead of seeing the high volumes of patients who need to be seen a good thing? Documentation to the level that Medicare has required isn’t going to work. In fact, it has never been a good thing and is a big driver of burnout.

Our health care system was broken and badly injured before this crisis, and I think now might be a time when positive changes for the future occur. In fact, COVID-19 has resulted in some temporary changes in medicine that I would like to see outlast this outbreak. The telehealth option is now available, for example, and this kind of care is covered much more broadly by Medicare under the 1135 waiver – this has been needed for years. Being able to conduct regular clinic visits via telehealth without the marked restrictions that were previously in place is a big advance. It is currently in place for this emergency only, but this is the time to start pushing hard to make sure this option will be permanent.

I invite you to help me fight for long-term change. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper or blog, share your thoughts on social media, and tweet. (I suggest using #documentationordoctors or, although a bit long, #excessivedocumentationcostslives.) This is an unprecedented time in modern medicine. Traumatic times are when the greatest changes occur. Let’s hope for the better.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He frequently contributes Pearl of the Month and Myth of the Month columns to MDedge, and he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

Cardiovascular disease is both common and chronic, and it remains the leading cause of death in women. Because it is a life-long condition, cardiovascular disease must be managed over the entire lifespan. In recognition of the important role of obstetricians and gynecologists in monitoring women’s health, the American Heart Association/American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2018 guidelines¹ promoted the use of “Life’s Simple 7”² for assessing cardiovascular health (CVH) in women.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

These seven metrics include diet, physical activity, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, total cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose levels. They have been shown to predict positive health outcomes in nonpregnant adults. However, until now, CVH had not been assessed in pregnant women.

Perak et al. recently performed the first cross-sectional study of the prevalence of CVH metrics in pregnant women using the AHA definition.³ Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), they used the Life’s Simple 7 metrics to assess CVH in 1,117 pregnant and 8,200 nonpregnant women in the United States aged 20-44 years. Each of the Life’s Simple 7 metrics was scored 0, 1, or 2 points, corresponding to a rating of poor, intermediate, or ideal, respectively. Thus, the total CVH score ranged from 0-14 points, with total scores of 0-7 indicating low CVH, 8-11 indicating moderate CVH, and 12-14 indicating high CVH.

The main study findings were that CVH in pregnant women in the United States was far from optimal, with only 5% having an ideal score, which was even worse than in nonpregnant women, of whom only 13% were scored as having ideal CVH. Ideal scores were observed for 0.1% of pregnant women for diet, 27% for physical activity, 39% for cholesterol levels, 51% for BMI, 78% for smoking, 90% for blood pressure, and 92% for fasting blood glucose. Physical activity and cholesterol levels appeared to be the major drivers of the lower CVH scores in pregnant women.

Although further studies are warranted to determine the relevance of CVH during pregnancy to outcomes for both mother and offspring, the study by Perak et al. is an important step toward the development of pregnancy-specific guidelines and definitions for CVH metrics. These are stated goals of the AHA/ACOG that will help promote CVH in women across their lifespans, but which have not been possible due to scant data.

Emerging data suggest that cumulative lifetime exposure is a significant factor in cardiovascular disease outcomes; therefore, earlier intervention would have a more significant impact. Just as gestational diabetes is a predictor of future type 2 diabetes, CVH earlier in a woman’s life predicts cardiovascular disease later in life.^4-7 The best data in this regard come from genetic and other studies of hyperlipidemia, which suggest that lowering lipid levels before symptoms develop may prevent cardiovascular disease. In contrast, treatment of patients with clinically manifest disease neither offers a cure nor prevents the occurrence of most cardiovascular events.

It is a particularly salient point in this regard that there currently are no guidelines on treatment of hypercholesterolemia during pregnancy. Notably, the study by Perak et al. suggested that cholesterol levels may have a significant impact on CVH in pregnant women. There also is emerging data supporting the importance of controlling blood pressure across the lifespan,^7,8 including during pregnancy.⁹

For many women, their ob.gyn. is their primary care physician, and pregnancy is often the first time that a woman will have a substantial interaction with the health care system. The AHA/ACOG advisory panel described pregnancy as a “physiological stress test” for women that offers the opportunity to identify those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.¹

As pregnancy is a time when women particularly are motivated to improve their health,¹⁰ it also presents a valuable opportunity for physicians, including ob.gyns., to make a lifelong impact on the CVH of their patients through early identification, education, and intervention.

Dr. Charles Hong is the Melvin Sharoky, MD, Professor of Medicine and director of cardiovascular research in the department of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. E. Albert Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland School of Medicine as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Neither physician had any relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].
 

References

1. Circulation. 2018;137:e843–e852.

2. Circulation. 2010 Jan 20;121(4):586–613.

3. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 17;9:e015123.

4. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 4;72(10):1141-56.

5. N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 1;375:2144-53.

6. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011 Nov 1;8(12):721-5.

7. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 23;74(3):330-41.

8. Circulation. 2020 Mar 2:141:725-7.

9. Circulation. 2013 Feb 12;127(6):681-90.

10. Nutrients. 2018 Aug 8. doi: 10.3390/nu10081032.


 

Cardiovascular disease is both common and chronic, and it remains the leading cause of death in women. Because it is a life-long condition, cardiovascular disease must be managed over the entire lifespan. In recognition of the important role of obstetricians and gynecologists in monitoring women’s health, the American Heart Association/American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2018 guidelines¹ promoted the use of “Life’s Simple 7”² for assessing cardiovascular health (CVH) in women.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

These seven metrics include diet, physical activity, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, total cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose levels. They have been shown to predict positive health outcomes in nonpregnant adults. However, until now, CVH had not been assessed in pregnant women.

Perak et al. recently performed the first cross-sectional study of the prevalence of CVH metrics in pregnant women using the AHA definition.³ Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), they used the Life’s Simple 7 metrics to assess CVH in 1,117 pregnant and 8,200 nonpregnant women in the United States aged 20-44 years. Each of the Life’s Simple 7 metrics was scored 0, 1, or 2 points, corresponding to a rating of poor, intermediate, or ideal, respectively. Thus, the total CVH score ranged from 0-14 points, with total scores of 0-7 indicating low CVH, 8-11 indicating moderate CVH, and 12-14 indicating high CVH.

The main study findings were that CVH in pregnant women in the United States was far from optimal, with only 5% having an ideal score, which was even worse than in nonpregnant women, of whom only 13% were scored as having ideal CVH. Ideal scores were observed for 0.1% of pregnant women for diet, 27% for physical activity, 39% for cholesterol levels, 51% for BMI, 78% for smoking, 90% for blood pressure, and 92% for fasting blood glucose. Physical activity and cholesterol levels appeared to be the major drivers of the lower CVH scores in pregnant women.

Although further studies are warranted to determine the relevance of CVH during pregnancy to outcomes for both mother and offspring, the study by Perak et al. is an important step toward the development of pregnancy-specific guidelines and definitions for CVH metrics. These are stated goals of the AHA/ACOG that will help promote CVH in women across their lifespans, but which have not been possible due to scant data.

Emerging data suggest that cumulative lifetime exposure is a significant factor in cardiovascular disease outcomes; therefore, earlier intervention would have a more significant impact. Just as gestational diabetes is a predictor of future type 2 diabetes, CVH earlier in a woman’s life predicts cardiovascular disease later in life.^4-7 The best data in this regard come from genetic and other studies of hyperlipidemia, which suggest that lowering lipid levels before symptoms develop may prevent cardiovascular disease. In contrast, treatment of patients with clinically manifest disease neither offers a cure nor prevents the occurrence of most cardiovascular events.

It is a particularly salient point in this regard that there currently are no guidelines on treatment of hypercholesterolemia during pregnancy. Notably, the study by Perak et al. suggested that cholesterol levels may have a significant impact on CVH in pregnant women. There also is emerging data supporting the importance of controlling blood pressure across the lifespan,^7,8 including during pregnancy.⁹

For many women, their ob.gyn. is their primary care physician, and pregnancy is often the first time that a woman will have a substantial interaction with the health care system. The AHA/ACOG advisory panel described pregnancy as a “physiological stress test” for women that offers the opportunity to identify those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.¹

As pregnancy is a time when women particularly are motivated to improve their health,¹⁰ it also presents a valuable opportunity for physicians, including ob.gyns., to make a lifelong impact on the CVH of their patients through early identification, education, and intervention.

Dr. Charles Hong is the Melvin Sharoky, MD, Professor of Medicine and director of cardiovascular research in the department of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. E. Albert Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland School of Medicine as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Neither physician had any relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].
 

References

1. Circulation. 2018;137:e843–e852.

2. Circulation. 2010 Jan 20;121(4):586–613.

3. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 17;9:e015123.

4. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 4;72(10):1141-56.

5. N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 1;375:2144-53.

6. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011 Nov 1;8(12):721-5.

7. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 23;74(3):330-41.

8. Circulation. 2020 Mar 2:141:725-7.

9. Circulation. 2013 Feb 12;127(6):681-90.

10. Nutrients. 2018 Aug 8. doi: 10.3390/nu10081032.


 

Cardiovascular disease is both common and chronic, and it remains the leading cause of death in women. Because it is a life-long condition, cardiovascular disease must be managed over the entire lifespan. In recognition of the important role of obstetricians and gynecologists in monitoring women’s health, the American Heart Association/American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2018 guidelines¹ promoted the use of “Life’s Simple 7”² for assessing cardiovascular health (CVH) in women.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

These seven metrics include diet, physical activity, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, total cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose levels. They have been shown to predict positive health outcomes in nonpregnant adults. However, until now, CVH had not been assessed in pregnant women.

Perak et al. recently performed the first cross-sectional study of the prevalence of CVH metrics in pregnant women using the AHA definition.³ Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), they used the Life’s Simple 7 metrics to assess CVH in 1,117 pregnant and 8,200 nonpregnant women in the United States aged 20-44 years. Each of the Life’s Simple 7 metrics was scored 0, 1, or 2 points, corresponding to a rating of poor, intermediate, or ideal, respectively. Thus, the total CVH score ranged from 0-14 points, with total scores of 0-7 indicating low CVH, 8-11 indicating moderate CVH, and 12-14 indicating high CVH.

The main study findings were that CVH in pregnant women in the United States was far from optimal, with only 5% having an ideal score, which was even worse than in nonpregnant women, of whom only 13% were scored as having ideal CVH. Ideal scores were observed for 0.1% of pregnant women for diet, 27% for physical activity, 39% for cholesterol levels, 51% for BMI, 78% for smoking, 90% for blood pressure, and 92% for fasting blood glucose. Physical activity and cholesterol levels appeared to be the major drivers of the lower CVH scores in pregnant women.

Although further studies are warranted to determine the relevance of CVH during pregnancy to outcomes for both mother and offspring, the study by Perak et al. is an important step toward the development of pregnancy-specific guidelines and definitions for CVH metrics. These are stated goals of the AHA/ACOG that will help promote CVH in women across their lifespans, but which have not been possible due to scant data.

Emerging data suggest that cumulative lifetime exposure is a significant factor in cardiovascular disease outcomes; therefore, earlier intervention would have a more significant impact. Just as gestational diabetes is a predictor of future type 2 diabetes, CVH earlier in a woman’s life predicts cardiovascular disease later in life.^4-7 The best data in this regard come from genetic and other studies of hyperlipidemia, which suggest that lowering lipid levels before symptoms develop may prevent cardiovascular disease. In contrast, treatment of patients with clinically manifest disease neither offers a cure nor prevents the occurrence of most cardiovascular events.

It is a particularly salient point in this regard that there currently are no guidelines on treatment of hypercholesterolemia during pregnancy. Notably, the study by Perak et al. suggested that cholesterol levels may have a significant impact on CVH in pregnant women. There also is emerging data supporting the importance of controlling blood pressure across the lifespan,^7,8 including during pregnancy.⁹

For many women, their ob.gyn. is their primary care physician, and pregnancy is often the first time that a woman will have a substantial interaction with the health care system. The AHA/ACOG advisory panel described pregnancy as a “physiological stress test” for women that offers the opportunity to identify those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.¹

As pregnancy is a time when women particularly are motivated to improve their health,¹⁰ it also presents a valuable opportunity for physicians, including ob.gyns., to make a lifelong impact on the CVH of their patients through early identification, education, and intervention.

Dr. Charles Hong is the Melvin Sharoky, MD, Professor of Medicine and director of cardiovascular research in the department of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. E. Albert Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland School of Medicine as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. Neither physician had any relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].
 

References

1. Circulation. 2018;137:e843–e852.

2. Circulation. 2010 Jan 20;121(4):586–613.

3. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Feb 17;9:e015123.

4. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 4;72(10):1141-56.

5. N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 1;375:2144-53.

6. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011 Nov 1;8(12):721-5.

7. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 23;74(3):330-41.

8. Circulation. 2020 Mar 2:141:725-7.

9. Circulation. 2013 Feb 12;127(6):681-90.

10. Nutrients. 2018 Aug 8. doi: 10.3390/nu10081032.


 

As I write this column, there are more than 25,000 current cases of COVID-19 in the United States with an expected exponential rise in these numbers. Hospitals are issuing directives to cancel or postpone “elective” surgery to preserve the finite essential personal protective equipment (PPE), encourage social distancing, prevent exposure of at-risk patients within the hospital, and ensure bed and ventilator capacity for the impending surge in COVID-19 patients.

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

This directive leaves gynecologic oncologists asking themselves, “How elective is my patient’s cancer surgery?” Many health systems have defined which surgeries they consider permissible, typically by using time parameters such as would not cause patient harm if not performed within 4 weeks, or 7 days, or 24 hours. This leaves surgeons in the unfamiliar position of rationing health care, a role with which, over the coming months, we may have to become increasingly comfortable. This is an enormous responsibility, the shift of resources between one population in need and another, and decisions should be based on data, not bias or hunch. We know that untreated cancer is life threatening, but there is a difference between untreated and delayed. What is a safe time to wait for gynecologic cancer surgery after diagnosis without negatively affecting survival from that cancer?

As I looked through my own upcoming surgical schedule, I sought guidance from the American College of Surgeons’ website, updated on March 17, 2020. In this site they tabulate an “Elective Surgery Acuity Scale” in which “most cancers” fit into tier 3a, which corresponds to high acuity surgery – “do not postpone.” This definition is fairly generalized and blunt; it does not account for the differences in cancers and occasional voluntary needs to postpone a patient’s cancer surgery for health optimization. There are limited data that measure the impact of surgical wait times on survival from gynecologic cancer. Most of this research is observational, and therefore, is influenced by confounders causing delay in surgery (e.g., comorbid conditions or socioeconomic factors that limit access to care). However, the current enforced delays are involuntary; driven by the system, not the patient; and access is universally restricted.
 

Endometrial cancer

Most data regarding outcomes and gynecologic cancer delay come from endometrial cancer. In 2016, Shalowitz et al. evaluated 182,000 endometrial cancer cases documented within the National Cancer Database (NCDB), which captures approximately 70% of cancer surgeries in the United States.¹ They separated these patients into groups of low-grade (grade 1 and 2 endometrioid) and high-grade (grade 3 endometrioid and nonendometrioid) cancers, and evaluated the groups for their overall survival, stratified by the time period between diagnosis and surgery. Interestingly, those whose surgery was performed under 2 weeks from diagnosis had worse perioperative mortality and long-term survival. This seems to be a function of lack of medical optimization; low-volume, nonspecialized centers having less wait time; and the presentation of more advanced and symptomatic disease demanding a more urgent surgery. After those initial 2 weeks of worse outcomes, there was a period of stable outcomes and safety in waiting that extended up to 8 weeks for patients with low-grade cancers and up to 18 weeks for patients with high-grade cancers.

It may be counterintuitive to think that surgical delay affects patients with high-grade endometrial cancers less. These are more aggressive cancers, and there is patient and provider concern for metastatic spread with time elapsed. But an expedited surgery does not appear to be necessary for this group. The Shalowitz study demonstrated no risk for upstaging with surgical delay, meaning that advanced stage was not more likely to be identified in patients whose surgery was delayed, compared with those performed earlier. This observation suggests that the survival from high-grade endometrial cancers is largely determined by factors that cannot be controlled by the surgeon such as the stage at diagnosis, occult spread, and decreased responsiveness of the tumor to adjuvant therapy. In other words, fast-tracking these patients to surgery has limited influence on the outcomes for high-grade endometrial cancers.

For low-grade cancers, adverse outcomes were seen with a surgical delay of more than 8 weeks. But this may not have been caused by progression of disease (low-grade cancers also were not upstaged with delays), but rather may reflect that, in normal times, elective delays of more than 8 weeks are a function of necessary complex medical optimization of comorbidities (such as obesity-related disease). The survival that is measured by NCDB is not disease specific, and patients with comorbidities will be more likely to have impaired overall survival.

A systematic review of all papers that looked at endometrial cancer outcomes associated with surgical delay determined that it is reasonable to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks.²
 

Ovarian cancer

The data for ovarian cancer surgery is more limited. Most literature discusses the impact of delay in the time between surgery and the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, but there are limited data exploring how a delay in primary debulking negatively affects patients. This is perhaps because advanced ovarian cancer surgery rarely is delayed because of symptoms and apparent advanced stage at diagnosis. When a patient’s surgery does need to be voluntarily delayed, for example for medical optimization, there is the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in which surgery is performed after three or more cycles of chemotherapy. NACT has been shown in multiple studies to have noninferior cancer outcomes, compared with primary debulking surgery.^3,4

Perhaps in this current environment in which access to operating rooms and supplies is rationed, we should consider offering more, or all, patients NACT? Hospital stays after primary cytoreductive surgeries are typically 3-7 days in length, and these patients are at a higher risk, compared with other gynecologic cancer surgeries, of ICU admission and blood transfusions, both limited resources in this current environment. The disadvantage of this approach is that, while chemotherapy can keep patients out of the hospital so that they can practice social distancing, this particular therapy adds to the immunocompromised population. However, even patients who undergo primary surgical cytoreductive surgery will need to rapidly transition to immunosuppressive cytotoxic therapy; therefore it is unlikely that this can be avoided entirely during this time.
 

Lower genital tract cancers

Surgery for patients with lower genital tract cancers – such as cervical and vulvar cancer – also can probably be safely delayed for a 4-week period, and possibly longer. A Canadian retrospective study looked collectively at cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers evaluating for disease progression associated with delay to surgery, using 28 days as a benchmark for delayed surgery.⁵ They found no significant increased progression associated with surgical delay greater than 28 days. This study evaluated progression of cancer and did not measure cancer survival, although it is unlikely we would see impaired survival without a significant increase in disease progression.

We also can look to outcomes from delayed radical hysterectomy for stage I cervical cancer in pregnancy to provided us with some data. A retrospective cohort study observed no difference in survival when 28 women with early-stage cervical cancer who were diagnosed in pregnancy (average wait time 20 weeks from diagnosis to treatment) were compared with the outcomes of 52 matched nonpregnant control patients (average wait time 8 weeks). Their survival was 89% versus 94% respectively (P = .08).⁶
 

Summary

Synthesizing this data, it appears that, in an environment of competing needs and resources, it is reasonable and safe to delay surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers for 4-6 weeks and potentially longer. This includes patients with high-grade endometrial cancers. Clearly, these decisions should be individualized to patients and different health systems. For example, a patient who presents with a cancer-associated life-threatening bowel obstruction or hemorrhage may need an immediate intervention, and communities minimally affected by the coronavirus pandemic may have more allowances for surgery. With respect to patient anxiety, most patients with cancer are keen to have surgery promptly, and breaking the news to them that their surgery may be delayed because of institutional and public health needs will be difficult. However, the data support that this is likely safe.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):268 e1-68 e18.

2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;246:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.01.004.

3. N Engl J Med 2010;363(10):943-53.

4. Lancet 2015;386(9990):249-57.

5. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37(4):338-44.

6. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):276 e1-76 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.034.

As I write this column, there are more than 25,000 current cases of COVID-19 in the United States with an expected exponential rise in these numbers. Hospitals are issuing directives to cancel or postpone “elective” surgery to preserve the finite essential personal protective equipment (PPE), encourage social distancing, prevent exposure of at-risk patients within the hospital, and ensure bed and ventilator capacity for the impending surge in COVID-19 patients.

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

This directive leaves gynecologic oncologists asking themselves, “How elective is my patient’s cancer surgery?” Many health systems have defined which surgeries they consider permissible, typically by using time parameters such as would not cause patient harm if not performed within 4 weeks, or 7 days, or 24 hours. This leaves surgeons in the unfamiliar position of rationing health care, a role with which, over the coming months, we may have to become increasingly comfortable. This is an enormous responsibility, the shift of resources between one population in need and another, and decisions should be based on data, not bias or hunch. We know that untreated cancer is life threatening, but there is a difference between untreated and delayed. What is a safe time to wait for gynecologic cancer surgery after diagnosis without negatively affecting survival from that cancer?

As I looked through my own upcoming surgical schedule, I sought guidance from the American College of Surgeons’ website, updated on March 17, 2020. In this site they tabulate an “Elective Surgery Acuity Scale” in which “most cancers” fit into tier 3a, which corresponds to high acuity surgery – “do not postpone.” This definition is fairly generalized and blunt; it does not account for the differences in cancers and occasional voluntary needs to postpone a patient’s cancer surgery for health optimization. There are limited data that measure the impact of surgical wait times on survival from gynecologic cancer. Most of this research is observational, and therefore, is influenced by confounders causing delay in surgery (e.g., comorbid conditions or socioeconomic factors that limit access to care). However, the current enforced delays are involuntary; driven by the system, not the patient; and access is universally restricted.
 

Endometrial cancer

Most data regarding outcomes and gynecologic cancer delay come from endometrial cancer. In 2016, Shalowitz et al. evaluated 182,000 endometrial cancer cases documented within the National Cancer Database (NCDB), which captures approximately 70% of cancer surgeries in the United States.¹ They separated these patients into groups of low-grade (grade 1 and 2 endometrioid) and high-grade (grade 3 endometrioid and nonendometrioid) cancers, and evaluated the groups for their overall survival, stratified by the time period between diagnosis and surgery. Interestingly, those whose surgery was performed under 2 weeks from diagnosis had worse perioperative mortality and long-term survival. This seems to be a function of lack of medical optimization; low-volume, nonspecialized centers having less wait time; and the presentation of more advanced and symptomatic disease demanding a more urgent surgery. After those initial 2 weeks of worse outcomes, there was a period of stable outcomes and safety in waiting that extended up to 8 weeks for patients with low-grade cancers and up to 18 weeks for patients with high-grade cancers.

It may be counterintuitive to think that surgical delay affects patients with high-grade endometrial cancers less. These are more aggressive cancers, and there is patient and provider concern for metastatic spread with time elapsed. But an expedited surgery does not appear to be necessary for this group. The Shalowitz study demonstrated no risk for upstaging with surgical delay, meaning that advanced stage was not more likely to be identified in patients whose surgery was delayed, compared with those performed earlier. This observation suggests that the survival from high-grade endometrial cancers is largely determined by factors that cannot be controlled by the surgeon such as the stage at diagnosis, occult spread, and decreased responsiveness of the tumor to adjuvant therapy. In other words, fast-tracking these patients to surgery has limited influence on the outcomes for high-grade endometrial cancers.

For low-grade cancers, adverse outcomes were seen with a surgical delay of more than 8 weeks. But this may not have been caused by progression of disease (low-grade cancers also were not upstaged with delays), but rather may reflect that, in normal times, elective delays of more than 8 weeks are a function of necessary complex medical optimization of comorbidities (such as obesity-related disease). The survival that is measured by NCDB is not disease specific, and patients with comorbidities will be more likely to have impaired overall survival.

A systematic review of all papers that looked at endometrial cancer outcomes associated with surgical delay determined that it is reasonable to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks.²
 

Ovarian cancer

The data for ovarian cancer surgery is more limited. Most literature discusses the impact of delay in the time between surgery and the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, but there are limited data exploring how a delay in primary debulking negatively affects patients. This is perhaps because advanced ovarian cancer surgery rarely is delayed because of symptoms and apparent advanced stage at diagnosis. When a patient’s surgery does need to be voluntarily delayed, for example for medical optimization, there is the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in which surgery is performed after three or more cycles of chemotherapy. NACT has been shown in multiple studies to have noninferior cancer outcomes, compared with primary debulking surgery.^3,4

Perhaps in this current environment in which access to operating rooms and supplies is rationed, we should consider offering more, or all, patients NACT? Hospital stays after primary cytoreductive surgeries are typically 3-7 days in length, and these patients are at a higher risk, compared with other gynecologic cancer surgeries, of ICU admission and blood transfusions, both limited resources in this current environment. The disadvantage of this approach is that, while chemotherapy can keep patients out of the hospital so that they can practice social distancing, this particular therapy adds to the immunocompromised population. However, even patients who undergo primary surgical cytoreductive surgery will need to rapidly transition to immunosuppressive cytotoxic therapy; therefore it is unlikely that this can be avoided entirely during this time.
 

Lower genital tract cancers

Surgery for patients with lower genital tract cancers – such as cervical and vulvar cancer – also can probably be safely delayed for a 4-week period, and possibly longer. A Canadian retrospective study looked collectively at cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers evaluating for disease progression associated with delay to surgery, using 28 days as a benchmark for delayed surgery.⁵ They found no significant increased progression associated with surgical delay greater than 28 days. This study evaluated progression of cancer and did not measure cancer survival, although it is unlikely we would see impaired survival without a significant increase in disease progression.

We also can look to outcomes from delayed radical hysterectomy for stage I cervical cancer in pregnancy to provided us with some data. A retrospective cohort study observed no difference in survival when 28 women with early-stage cervical cancer who were diagnosed in pregnancy (average wait time 20 weeks from diagnosis to treatment) were compared with the outcomes of 52 matched nonpregnant control patients (average wait time 8 weeks). Their survival was 89% versus 94% respectively (P = .08).⁶
 

Summary

Synthesizing this data, it appears that, in an environment of competing needs and resources, it is reasonable and safe to delay surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers for 4-6 weeks and potentially longer. This includes patients with high-grade endometrial cancers. Clearly, these decisions should be individualized to patients and different health systems. For example, a patient who presents with a cancer-associated life-threatening bowel obstruction or hemorrhage may need an immediate intervention, and communities minimally affected by the coronavirus pandemic may have more allowances for surgery. With respect to patient anxiety, most patients with cancer are keen to have surgery promptly, and breaking the news to them that their surgery may be delayed because of institutional and public health needs will be difficult. However, the data support that this is likely safe.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):268 e1-68 e18.

2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;246:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.01.004.

3. N Engl J Med 2010;363(10):943-53.

4. Lancet 2015;386(9990):249-57.

5. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37(4):338-44.

6. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):276 e1-76 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.034.

As I write this column, there are more than 25,000 current cases of COVID-19 in the United States with an expected exponential rise in these numbers. Hospitals are issuing directives to cancel or postpone “elective” surgery to preserve the finite essential personal protective equipment (PPE), encourage social distancing, prevent exposure of at-risk patients within the hospital, and ensure bed and ventilator capacity for the impending surge in COVID-19 patients.

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

This directive leaves gynecologic oncologists asking themselves, “How elective is my patient’s cancer surgery?” Many health systems have defined which surgeries they consider permissible, typically by using time parameters such as would not cause patient harm if not performed within 4 weeks, or 7 days, or 24 hours. This leaves surgeons in the unfamiliar position of rationing health care, a role with which, over the coming months, we may have to become increasingly comfortable. This is an enormous responsibility, the shift of resources between one population in need and another, and decisions should be based on data, not bias or hunch. We know that untreated cancer is life threatening, but there is a difference between untreated and delayed. What is a safe time to wait for gynecologic cancer surgery after diagnosis without negatively affecting survival from that cancer?

As I looked through my own upcoming surgical schedule, I sought guidance from the American College of Surgeons’ website, updated on March 17, 2020. In this site they tabulate an “Elective Surgery Acuity Scale” in which “most cancers” fit into tier 3a, which corresponds to high acuity surgery – “do not postpone.” This definition is fairly generalized and blunt; it does not account for the differences in cancers and occasional voluntary needs to postpone a patient’s cancer surgery for health optimization. There are limited data that measure the impact of surgical wait times on survival from gynecologic cancer. Most of this research is observational, and therefore, is influenced by confounders causing delay in surgery (e.g., comorbid conditions or socioeconomic factors that limit access to care). However, the current enforced delays are involuntary; driven by the system, not the patient; and access is universally restricted.
 

Endometrial cancer

Most data regarding outcomes and gynecologic cancer delay come from endometrial cancer. In 2016, Shalowitz et al. evaluated 182,000 endometrial cancer cases documented within the National Cancer Database (NCDB), which captures approximately 70% of cancer surgeries in the United States.¹ They separated these patients into groups of low-grade (grade 1 and 2 endometrioid) and high-grade (grade 3 endometrioid and nonendometrioid) cancers, and evaluated the groups for their overall survival, stratified by the time period between diagnosis and surgery. Interestingly, those whose surgery was performed under 2 weeks from diagnosis had worse perioperative mortality and long-term survival. This seems to be a function of lack of medical optimization; low-volume, nonspecialized centers having less wait time; and the presentation of more advanced and symptomatic disease demanding a more urgent surgery. After those initial 2 weeks of worse outcomes, there was a period of stable outcomes and safety in waiting that extended up to 8 weeks for patients with low-grade cancers and up to 18 weeks for patients with high-grade cancers.

It may be counterintuitive to think that surgical delay affects patients with high-grade endometrial cancers less. These are more aggressive cancers, and there is patient and provider concern for metastatic spread with time elapsed. But an expedited surgery does not appear to be necessary for this group. The Shalowitz study demonstrated no risk for upstaging with surgical delay, meaning that advanced stage was not more likely to be identified in patients whose surgery was delayed, compared with those performed earlier. This observation suggests that the survival from high-grade endometrial cancers is largely determined by factors that cannot be controlled by the surgeon such as the stage at diagnosis, occult spread, and decreased responsiveness of the tumor to adjuvant therapy. In other words, fast-tracking these patients to surgery has limited influence on the outcomes for high-grade endometrial cancers.

For low-grade cancers, adverse outcomes were seen with a surgical delay of more than 8 weeks. But this may not have been caused by progression of disease (low-grade cancers also were not upstaged with delays), but rather may reflect that, in normal times, elective delays of more than 8 weeks are a function of necessary complex medical optimization of comorbidities (such as obesity-related disease). The survival that is measured by NCDB is not disease specific, and patients with comorbidities will be more likely to have impaired overall survival.

A systematic review of all papers that looked at endometrial cancer outcomes associated with surgical delay determined that it is reasonable to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks.²
 

Ovarian cancer

The data for ovarian cancer surgery is more limited. Most literature discusses the impact of delay in the time between surgery and the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, but there are limited data exploring how a delay in primary debulking negatively affects patients. This is perhaps because advanced ovarian cancer surgery rarely is delayed because of symptoms and apparent advanced stage at diagnosis. When a patient’s surgery does need to be voluntarily delayed, for example for medical optimization, there is the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in which surgery is performed after three or more cycles of chemotherapy. NACT has been shown in multiple studies to have noninferior cancer outcomes, compared with primary debulking surgery.^3,4

Perhaps in this current environment in which access to operating rooms and supplies is rationed, we should consider offering more, or all, patients NACT? Hospital stays after primary cytoreductive surgeries are typically 3-7 days in length, and these patients are at a higher risk, compared with other gynecologic cancer surgeries, of ICU admission and blood transfusions, both limited resources in this current environment. The disadvantage of this approach is that, while chemotherapy can keep patients out of the hospital so that they can practice social distancing, this particular therapy adds to the immunocompromised population. However, even patients who undergo primary surgical cytoreductive surgery will need to rapidly transition to immunosuppressive cytotoxic therapy; therefore it is unlikely that this can be avoided entirely during this time.
 

Lower genital tract cancers

Surgery for patients with lower genital tract cancers – such as cervical and vulvar cancer – also can probably be safely delayed for a 4-week period, and possibly longer. A Canadian retrospective study looked collectively at cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers evaluating for disease progression associated with delay to surgery, using 28 days as a benchmark for delayed surgery.⁵ They found no significant increased progression associated with surgical delay greater than 28 days. This study evaluated progression of cancer and did not measure cancer survival, although it is unlikely we would see impaired survival without a significant increase in disease progression.

We also can look to outcomes from delayed radical hysterectomy for stage I cervical cancer in pregnancy to provided us with some data. A retrospective cohort study observed no difference in survival when 28 women with early-stage cervical cancer who were diagnosed in pregnancy (average wait time 20 weeks from diagnosis to treatment) were compared with the outcomes of 52 matched nonpregnant control patients (average wait time 8 weeks). Their survival was 89% versus 94% respectively (P = .08).⁶
 

Summary

Synthesizing this data, it appears that, in an environment of competing needs and resources, it is reasonable and safe to delay surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers for 4-6 weeks and potentially longer. This includes patients with high-grade endometrial cancers. Clearly, these decisions should be individualized to patients and different health systems. For example, a patient who presents with a cancer-associated life-threatening bowel obstruction or hemorrhage may need an immediate intervention, and communities minimally affected by the coronavirus pandemic may have more allowances for surgery. With respect to patient anxiety, most patients with cancer are keen to have surgery promptly, and breaking the news to them that their surgery may be delayed because of institutional and public health needs will be difficult. However, the data support that this is likely safe.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):268 e1-68 e18.

2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;246:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.01.004.

3. N Engl J Med 2010;363(10):943-53.

4. Lancet 2015;386(9990):249-57.

5. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37(4):338-44.

6. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):276 e1-76 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.034.

As we deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, hand washing and the use of hand sanitizers have been key for infection prevention. With drier, colder weather in many of the communities initially affected by COVID-19, skin was already prone to dryness and a skin barrier compromised, and hand eczema was more prevalent because of these factors alone. This article explores the effects of hand washing and hand sanitizer on skin and how this prevents infection, and explores methods to promote skin health while maintaining the maximum possible degree of infection prevention.

With many viruses, including coronavirus, the virus is a self-assembled nanoparticle in which the most vulnerable structure is the outer lipid bilayer. Soaps dissolve the lipid membrane and the virus breaks apart, inactivating it; they are also alkaline surfactants that pick up particles – including dirt, bacteria, and viruses – which are removed from the surface of the skin when the soaps are rinsed off. In the process of washing, the alkalinity of the soap (pH approximately 9-10), compared with the normal outer skin pH of approximately 5.5 or lower, also can affect the skin barrier as well as the resident skin microflora. In a study by Lambers et al., it was found that an acid skin pH (4-4.5) keeps the resident bacterial flora attached to the skin, whereas an alkaline pH (8-9) promotes the dispersal from the skin in assessments of the volar forearm.

With regard to the effectiveness of hand washing against viruses, the length of time spent hand washing has been shown to have an impact on influenza-like illness. In a recent study of 2,082 participants by Bin Abdulrahman et al., those who spent only 5-10 seconds hand washing with soap and hand rubbing were at a higher risk of more frequent influenza-like illness (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.75), compared with those who washed their hands for 15 seconds or longer. Moreover, hand washing with soap and rubbing after shaking hands was found to be an independent protective factor against frequent influenza-like illness (adjusted OR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.94). Previous studies on the impact of hand washing on bacterial and parasitic illnesses also found similar results: Hand washing for 15-20 seconds or longer reduces infection.

Alcohol, long known as a disinfectant, has been recommended for disinfecting the hands since the late 1800s. Most alcohol-based hand antiseptics contain isopropanol, ethanol, N-propanol, or a combination of two of these products. The antimicrobial activity of alcohols can be attributed to their ability to denature and coagulate proteins, thereby lysing microorganisms’ cells, and disrupting their cellular metabolism. Alcohol solutions containing 60%-95% alcohol are the most effective. Notably, very high concentrations of alcohol are less potent because less water is found in higher concentrations of alcohol and proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers also often contain humectants, such as glycerin and/or aloe vera, to help prevent skin dryness and replace water content that is stripped by the use of alcohol on the skin surface.

In the case of SARS, treatment of SARS-CoV with povidone-iodine products for 2 minutes reduced virus infectivity to below the detectable level, equivalent to the effect of ethanol, in one study. Formalin fixation of the infected cells and heating the virus to 56° C, as used in routine tissue processing, were found to inactivate several coronaviruses as well. Based on this information, ethanol-based hand sanitizers, typically containing ethanol content of 60% or higher, can be used to inactivate coronaviruses on the skin, including COVID-19.

In patients with influenza-virus infections, whether pathogens were in wet or dried mucus played a role in whether hand washing or rubbing with hand sanitizer was more effective. In a study that examined the effects of hand washing versus antiseptic hand rubbing with an ethanol-based hand disinfectant on inactivation of influenza A virus adhered to the hands, the investigators showed that the effectiveness of the ethanol-based disinfectant against influenza A virus in mucus was reduced, compared with influenza A virus in saline. Influenza A in mucus remained active, despite 120 seconds of hand rubbing with hand sanitizer; however, influenza A in saline was completely inactivated within 30 seconds. Interestingly, rubbing hands with an ethanol-based disinfectant inactivated influenza A virus in mucus within 30 seconds with mucus that had dried completely because the hydrogel characteristics had been eliminated. Hand washing rapidly inactivated influenza A virus whether in mucus form, saline, or dried mucous.

It is important to note that in COVID-19 infections, a productive cough or rhinorrhea are not as common compared with dry cough. Regardless, the findings of the study described above should be considered if mucous symptoms develop during a COVID-19 infection when determining infection control. Luckily, with COVID-19, both hand washing and use of an ethanol-based hand sanitizer are seemingly effective in inactivating the virus or removing it from the skin surface.

After frequent hand washing, we all can experience dryness and potentially cracked skin as well. With hand sanitizer, the alcohol content can also cause burning of skin, especially compromised skin.

Vanilloid receptor-1 (VR1), a heat-gated ion channel, is responsible for the burning sensation caused by capsaicin. Ethanol lowers the amount of heat needed to turn on VR1 nocioceptive pain receptors by almost ten degrees, resulting in a potential burning sensation when applied.

Nails are affected as well with frequent hand washing and/or application of hand sanitizer and can become cracked or brittle. Contact dermatitis, both irritant and allergic, can occur with increased use of disinfectants, particularly household cleaners without proper barrier protection.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].
 

Resources

Lambers H et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Oct;28(5):359-70.

Bin Abdulrahman AK et al. BMC Public Health. 2019 Oct 22;19(1):1324. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-77.

Kariwa H et al. Dermatology. 2006;212 Suppl 1:119-23.

HIrose R et al. mSphere. 2019 Sep 18;4(5). pii: e00474-19. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00474-19.

Trevisani M et al. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):546-51.

Yan Y et al. Dermatol Ther. 2020 Mar 13:e13310. doi: 10.1111/dth.13310.

As we deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, hand washing and the use of hand sanitizers have been key for infection prevention. With drier, colder weather in many of the communities initially affected by COVID-19, skin was already prone to dryness and a skin barrier compromised, and hand eczema was more prevalent because of these factors alone. This article explores the effects of hand washing and hand sanitizer on skin and how this prevents infection, and explores methods to promote skin health while maintaining the maximum possible degree of infection prevention.

With many viruses, including coronavirus, the virus is a self-assembled nanoparticle in which the most vulnerable structure is the outer lipid bilayer. Soaps dissolve the lipid membrane and the virus breaks apart, inactivating it; they are also alkaline surfactants that pick up particles – including dirt, bacteria, and viruses – which are removed from the surface of the skin when the soaps are rinsed off. In the process of washing, the alkalinity of the soap (pH approximately 9-10), compared with the normal outer skin pH of approximately 5.5 or lower, also can affect the skin barrier as well as the resident skin microflora. In a study by Lambers et al., it was found that an acid skin pH (4-4.5) keeps the resident bacterial flora attached to the skin, whereas an alkaline pH (8-9) promotes the dispersal from the skin in assessments of the volar forearm.

With regard to the effectiveness of hand washing against viruses, the length of time spent hand washing has been shown to have an impact on influenza-like illness. In a recent study of 2,082 participants by Bin Abdulrahman et al., those who spent only 5-10 seconds hand washing with soap and hand rubbing were at a higher risk of more frequent influenza-like illness (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.75), compared with those who washed their hands for 15 seconds or longer. Moreover, hand washing with soap and rubbing after shaking hands was found to be an independent protective factor against frequent influenza-like illness (adjusted OR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.94). Previous studies on the impact of hand washing on bacterial and parasitic illnesses also found similar results: Hand washing for 15-20 seconds or longer reduces infection.

Alcohol, long known as a disinfectant, has been recommended for disinfecting the hands since the late 1800s. Most alcohol-based hand antiseptics contain isopropanol, ethanol, N-propanol, or a combination of two of these products. The antimicrobial activity of alcohols can be attributed to their ability to denature and coagulate proteins, thereby lysing microorganisms’ cells, and disrupting their cellular metabolism. Alcohol solutions containing 60%-95% alcohol are the most effective. Notably, very high concentrations of alcohol are less potent because less water is found in higher concentrations of alcohol and proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers also often contain humectants, such as glycerin and/or aloe vera, to help prevent skin dryness and replace water content that is stripped by the use of alcohol on the skin surface.

In the case of SARS, treatment of SARS-CoV with povidone-iodine products for 2 minutes reduced virus infectivity to below the detectable level, equivalent to the effect of ethanol, in one study. Formalin fixation of the infected cells and heating the virus to 56° C, as used in routine tissue processing, were found to inactivate several coronaviruses as well. Based on this information, ethanol-based hand sanitizers, typically containing ethanol content of 60% or higher, can be used to inactivate coronaviruses on the skin, including COVID-19.

In patients with influenza-virus infections, whether pathogens were in wet or dried mucus played a role in whether hand washing or rubbing with hand sanitizer was more effective. In a study that examined the effects of hand washing versus antiseptic hand rubbing with an ethanol-based hand disinfectant on inactivation of influenza A virus adhered to the hands, the investigators showed that the effectiveness of the ethanol-based disinfectant against influenza A virus in mucus was reduced, compared with influenza A virus in saline. Influenza A in mucus remained active, despite 120 seconds of hand rubbing with hand sanitizer; however, influenza A in saline was completely inactivated within 30 seconds. Interestingly, rubbing hands with an ethanol-based disinfectant inactivated influenza A virus in mucus within 30 seconds with mucus that had dried completely because the hydrogel characteristics had been eliminated. Hand washing rapidly inactivated influenza A virus whether in mucus form, saline, or dried mucous.

It is important to note that in COVID-19 infections, a productive cough or rhinorrhea are not as common compared with dry cough. Regardless, the findings of the study described above should be considered if mucous symptoms develop during a COVID-19 infection when determining infection control. Luckily, with COVID-19, both hand washing and use of an ethanol-based hand sanitizer are seemingly effective in inactivating the virus or removing it from the skin surface.

After frequent hand washing, we all can experience dryness and potentially cracked skin as well. With hand sanitizer, the alcohol content can also cause burning of skin, especially compromised skin.

Vanilloid receptor-1 (VR1), a heat-gated ion channel, is responsible for the burning sensation caused by capsaicin. Ethanol lowers the amount of heat needed to turn on VR1 nocioceptive pain receptors by almost ten degrees, resulting in a potential burning sensation when applied.

Nails are affected as well with frequent hand washing and/or application of hand sanitizer and can become cracked or brittle. Contact dermatitis, both irritant and allergic, can occur with increased use of disinfectants, particularly household cleaners without proper barrier protection.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].
 

Resources

Lambers H et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Oct;28(5):359-70.

Bin Abdulrahman AK et al. BMC Public Health. 2019 Oct 22;19(1):1324. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-77.

Kariwa H et al. Dermatology. 2006;212 Suppl 1:119-23.

HIrose R et al. mSphere. 2019 Sep 18;4(5). pii: e00474-19. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00474-19.

Trevisani M et al. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):546-51.

Yan Y et al. Dermatol Ther. 2020 Mar 13:e13310. doi: 10.1111/dth.13310.

As we deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, hand washing and the use of hand sanitizers have been key for infection prevention. With drier, colder weather in many of the communities initially affected by COVID-19, skin was already prone to dryness and a skin barrier compromised, and hand eczema was more prevalent because of these factors alone. This article explores the effects of hand washing and hand sanitizer on skin and how this prevents infection, and explores methods to promote skin health while maintaining the maximum possible degree of infection prevention.

With many viruses, including coronavirus, the virus is a self-assembled nanoparticle in which the most vulnerable structure is the outer lipid bilayer. Soaps dissolve the lipid membrane and the virus breaks apart, inactivating it; they are also alkaline surfactants that pick up particles – including dirt, bacteria, and viruses – which are removed from the surface of the skin when the soaps are rinsed off. In the process of washing, the alkalinity of the soap (pH approximately 9-10), compared with the normal outer skin pH of approximately 5.5 or lower, also can affect the skin barrier as well as the resident skin microflora. In a study by Lambers et al., it was found that an acid skin pH (4-4.5) keeps the resident bacterial flora attached to the skin, whereas an alkaline pH (8-9) promotes the dispersal from the skin in assessments of the volar forearm.

With regard to the effectiveness of hand washing against viruses, the length of time spent hand washing has been shown to have an impact on influenza-like illness. In a recent study of 2,082 participants by Bin Abdulrahman et al., those who spent only 5-10 seconds hand washing with soap and hand rubbing were at a higher risk of more frequent influenza-like illness (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.75), compared with those who washed their hands for 15 seconds or longer. Moreover, hand washing with soap and rubbing after shaking hands was found to be an independent protective factor against frequent influenza-like illness (adjusted OR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.94). Previous studies on the impact of hand washing on bacterial and parasitic illnesses also found similar results: Hand washing for 15-20 seconds or longer reduces infection.

Alcohol, long known as a disinfectant, has been recommended for disinfecting the hands since the late 1800s. Most alcohol-based hand antiseptics contain isopropanol, ethanol, N-propanol, or a combination of two of these products. The antimicrobial activity of alcohols can be attributed to their ability to denature and coagulate proteins, thereby lysing microorganisms’ cells, and disrupting their cellular metabolism. Alcohol solutions containing 60%-95% alcohol are the most effective. Notably, very high concentrations of alcohol are less potent because less water is found in higher concentrations of alcohol and proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers also often contain humectants, such as glycerin and/or aloe vera, to help prevent skin dryness and replace water content that is stripped by the use of alcohol on the skin surface.

In the case of SARS, treatment of SARS-CoV with povidone-iodine products for 2 minutes reduced virus infectivity to below the detectable level, equivalent to the effect of ethanol, in one study. Formalin fixation of the infected cells and heating the virus to 56° C, as used in routine tissue processing, were found to inactivate several coronaviruses as well. Based on this information, ethanol-based hand sanitizers, typically containing ethanol content of 60% or higher, can be used to inactivate coronaviruses on the skin, including COVID-19.

In patients with influenza-virus infections, whether pathogens were in wet or dried mucus played a role in whether hand washing or rubbing with hand sanitizer was more effective. In a study that examined the effects of hand washing versus antiseptic hand rubbing with an ethanol-based hand disinfectant on inactivation of influenza A virus adhered to the hands, the investigators showed that the effectiveness of the ethanol-based disinfectant against influenza A virus in mucus was reduced, compared with influenza A virus in saline. Influenza A in mucus remained active, despite 120 seconds of hand rubbing with hand sanitizer; however, influenza A in saline was completely inactivated within 30 seconds. Interestingly, rubbing hands with an ethanol-based disinfectant inactivated influenza A virus in mucus within 30 seconds with mucus that had dried completely because the hydrogel characteristics had been eliminated. Hand washing rapidly inactivated influenza A virus whether in mucus form, saline, or dried mucous.

It is important to note that in COVID-19 infections, a productive cough or rhinorrhea are not as common compared with dry cough. Regardless, the findings of the study described above should be considered if mucous symptoms develop during a COVID-19 infection when determining infection control. Luckily, with COVID-19, both hand washing and use of an ethanol-based hand sanitizer are seemingly effective in inactivating the virus or removing it from the skin surface.

After frequent hand washing, we all can experience dryness and potentially cracked skin as well. With hand sanitizer, the alcohol content can also cause burning of skin, especially compromised skin.

Vanilloid receptor-1 (VR1), a heat-gated ion channel, is responsible for the burning sensation caused by capsaicin. Ethanol lowers the amount of heat needed to turn on VR1 nocioceptive pain receptors by almost ten degrees, resulting in a potential burning sensation when applied.

Nails are affected as well with frequent hand washing and/or application of hand sanitizer and can become cracked or brittle. Contact dermatitis, both irritant and allergic, can occur with increased use of disinfectants, particularly household cleaners without proper barrier protection.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].
 

Resources

Lambers H et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Oct;28(5):359-70.

Bin Abdulrahman AK et al. BMC Public Health. 2019 Oct 22;19(1):1324. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-77.

Kariwa H et al. Dermatology. 2006;212 Suppl 1:119-23.

HIrose R et al. mSphere. 2019 Sep 18;4(5). pii: e00474-19. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00474-19.

Trevisani M et al. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):546-51.

Yan Y et al. Dermatol Ther. 2020 Mar 13:e13310. doi: 10.1111/dth.13310.

“I’ve been watching YouTube videos on how to set a ventilator,” said one of our dermatologists. The absurdity, levity, and gravity of that statement captures in a single sentence where we are today.

None of us alive have experience with such a crisis. It is as if our planet passed through a wormhole and we’ve been transported to the late medieval period: We doctors fighting the Black Death donned in beaked masks filled with juniper berries, mint, and clove to protect us from the miasma. Now, though, we spray store-bought lavender disinfectant on surgical masks.

“A crisis shows you a person’s soul,” said New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, adding: “It shows you what they’re made of, the weaknesses explode and the strengths ... emboldened.” Most of us have traveled through life with no experience of peril. Such mortal danger explodes and emboldens us, dividing us in two, the fearful or the phlegmatic.

When President Trump proclaimed that plaquenil was a promising treatment for the virus, prescriptions for the drug soared so quickly that four of eight manufacturers reported being in shortage by the end of the day. Many of those prescriptions were written by physicians for themselves and their families. Private Facebook physician groups shared insider tips for how to get around constraints and find the drug – as hoardable as toilet paper. As a department chief and fellow human being, I understand why some of us might behave this way. We doctors have declared war on this coronavirus, but we are not soldiers. We are not warriors. We didn’t sign up to be dermatologists or nephrologists or surgeons or pulmonologists agreeing that, to do so, we might die. We are all afraid.

The track of this epic storm became clear last week and now, terrifyingly, it appears it will be a direct hit. I braced for an onslaught of anxiety from our doctors and staff. But as the forecast became more grim, the courage began to well up and creativity climbed. Doctors went to local stores and bought all the masks and shields on their own. Rolls of toilet paper and diapers began magically appearing in our mom-doctors’ offices, delivered by angels in scrubs. I’ve practically had to install a velvet rope at my door to organize the queue of people wanting to talk to me about their ideas to help – keep 6 feet apart please! Stories like this abound. Even at the EvergreenHealth hospital in Washington they’ve not had shortages of staff. Rather than calling out sick, they called in: “If you need me, I’m available.”

Doctors are afraid and frustrated. Some of the things we will do in the coming weeks will first do no good, perhaps even harm. But I believe it’s because we’ve yet to embolden our strengths. It’s our job as leaders, attendings, administrators to inform and enable them.

When Marianne fell deathly ill in “Sense and Sensibility,” Colonel Branden wrung his hands and paced the floor. “Give me an occupation, Miss Dashwood, or I shall run mad.” Doctors are running, mad. And, just in case, some dermatologists are relearning how to intubate, waiting for that occupation to be given.
 

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. He has no relevant conflicts of interest related to this column. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

“I’ve been watching YouTube videos on how to set a ventilator,” said one of our dermatologists. The absurdity, levity, and gravity of that statement captures in a single sentence where we are today.

None of us alive have experience with such a crisis. It is as if our planet passed through a wormhole and we’ve been transported to the late medieval period: We doctors fighting the Black Death donned in beaked masks filled with juniper berries, mint, and clove to protect us from the miasma. Now, though, we spray store-bought lavender disinfectant on surgical masks.

“A crisis shows you a person’s soul,” said New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, adding: “It shows you what they’re made of, the weaknesses explode and the strengths ... emboldened.” Most of us have traveled through life with no experience of peril. Such mortal danger explodes and emboldens us, dividing us in two, the fearful or the phlegmatic.

When President Trump proclaimed that plaquenil was a promising treatment for the virus, prescriptions for the drug soared so quickly that four of eight manufacturers reported being in shortage by the end of the day. Many of those prescriptions were written by physicians for themselves and their families. Private Facebook physician groups shared insider tips for how to get around constraints and find the drug – as hoardable as toilet paper. As a department chief and fellow human being, I understand why some of us might behave this way. We doctors have declared war on this coronavirus, but we are not soldiers. We are not warriors. We didn’t sign up to be dermatologists or nephrologists or surgeons or pulmonologists agreeing that, to do so, we might die. We are all afraid.

The track of this epic storm became clear last week and now, terrifyingly, it appears it will be a direct hit. I braced for an onslaught of anxiety from our doctors and staff. But as the forecast became more grim, the courage began to well up and creativity climbed. Doctors went to local stores and bought all the masks and shields on their own. Rolls of toilet paper and diapers began magically appearing in our mom-doctors’ offices, delivered by angels in scrubs. I’ve practically had to install a velvet rope at my door to organize the queue of people wanting to talk to me about their ideas to help – keep 6 feet apart please! Stories like this abound. Even at the EvergreenHealth hospital in Washington they’ve not had shortages of staff. Rather than calling out sick, they called in: “If you need me, I’m available.”

Doctors are afraid and frustrated. Some of the things we will do in the coming weeks will first do no good, perhaps even harm. But I believe it’s because we’ve yet to embolden our strengths. It’s our job as leaders, attendings, administrators to inform and enable them.

When Marianne fell deathly ill in “Sense and Sensibility,” Colonel Branden wrung his hands and paced the floor. “Give me an occupation, Miss Dashwood, or I shall run mad.” Doctors are running, mad. And, just in case, some dermatologists are relearning how to intubate, waiting for that occupation to be given.
 

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. He has no relevant conflicts of interest related to this column. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

“I’ve been watching YouTube videos on how to set a ventilator,” said one of our dermatologists. The absurdity, levity, and gravity of that statement captures in a single sentence where we are today.

None of us alive have experience with such a crisis. It is as if our planet passed through a wormhole and we’ve been transported to the late medieval period: We doctors fighting the Black Death donned in beaked masks filled with juniper berries, mint, and clove to protect us from the miasma. Now, though, we spray store-bought lavender disinfectant on surgical masks.

“A crisis shows you a person’s soul,” said New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, adding: “It shows you what they’re made of, the weaknesses explode and the strengths ... emboldened.” Most of us have traveled through life with no experience of peril. Such mortal danger explodes and emboldens us, dividing us in two, the fearful or the phlegmatic.

When President Trump proclaimed that plaquenil was a promising treatment for the virus, prescriptions for the drug soared so quickly that four of eight manufacturers reported being in shortage by the end of the day. Many of those prescriptions were written by physicians for themselves and their families. Private Facebook physician groups shared insider tips for how to get around constraints and find the drug – as hoardable as toilet paper. As a department chief and fellow human being, I understand why some of us might behave this way. We doctors have declared war on this coronavirus, but we are not soldiers. We are not warriors. We didn’t sign up to be dermatologists or nephrologists or surgeons or pulmonologists agreeing that, to do so, we might die. We are all afraid.

The track of this epic storm became clear last week and now, terrifyingly, it appears it will be a direct hit. I braced for an onslaught of anxiety from our doctors and staff. But as the forecast became more grim, the courage began to well up and creativity climbed. Doctors went to local stores and bought all the masks and shields on their own. Rolls of toilet paper and diapers began magically appearing in our mom-doctors’ offices, delivered by angels in scrubs. I’ve practically had to install a velvet rope at my door to organize the queue of people wanting to talk to me about their ideas to help – keep 6 feet apart please! Stories like this abound. Even at the EvergreenHealth hospital in Washington they’ve not had shortages of staff. Rather than calling out sick, they called in: “If you need me, I’m available.”

Doctors are afraid and frustrated. Some of the things we will do in the coming weeks will first do no good, perhaps even harm. But I believe it’s because we’ve yet to embolden our strengths. It’s our job as leaders, attendings, administrators to inform and enable them.

When Marianne fell deathly ill in “Sense and Sensibility,” Colonel Branden wrung his hands and paced the floor. “Give me an occupation, Miss Dashwood, or I shall run mad.” Doctors are running, mad. And, just in case, some dermatologists are relearning how to intubate, waiting for that occupation to be given.
 

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. He has no relevant conflicts of interest related to this column. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

Many medical practices have long wanted to use telehealth to perform office visits and other evaluation and management (E/M) services. The technology readily exists and many electronic health records are set up to do telehealth visits. The problem has been getting paid for those visits. Medicare limited telehealth services to patients in underserved areas, and commercial insurances wouldn’t pay. But amid the COVID-19 crisis, things have changed.

On March 17, Congress passed a law allowing Medicare to waive some telehealth restrictions during a government state of emergency only, which we are in now. Specifically, the patient no longer needs to be in a medically underserved area and no longer needs to go to an originating site, such as a hospital. The patient can be located anywhere in the country and be in their own home.

Further, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid is waiving the requirement that the practitioner use a HIPAA-compliant platform for the telehealth service. The service must still be provided using a real-time audiovisual platform, but that could be via FaceTime or Skype, both of which are readily available via a patient’s smartphone or home computer. Audio alone – that is, phone calls between physician and patient – is still insufficient.
 

Billing for telemedicine

There are two lists of services that you can bill for telehealth. One of the lists is in Medicare’s telehealth fact sheet and includes both CPT and HCPCS codes. The second is in your CPT book, Appendix P, and lists only CPT codes.

Practices may bill all of the Medicare-covered telehealth services using these new rules. This includes new and established patient visits 99201–99215. It includes inpatient and skilled nursing services, for which CMS uses HCPCS codes in place of CPT codes.

Some notable additional services that you may bill via telehealth are: smoking cessation, transitional care management, advanced care planning, psychiatric diagnostic interviews and psychotherapy, and initial and subsequent Medicare wellness visits. The Welcome to Medicare visit is not on the list.

Report these services to Medicare with the correct CPT code and use place of service 02 (telehealth) on the claim. There is a CPT modifier for telehealth (Modifier -95 Synchronous Telemedicine Service Rendered Via a Real-Time Interactive Audio and Video Telecommunications System) but Medicare does not require it.

If you perform an office visit and also do smoking cessation, document those just as you would if you saw the patient in person. Document the history; observational exam, if relevant; and the assessment and plan. Note the additional time spent in smoking cessation counseling. If it was a level three established patient, code 99213-25 and 99406 (smoking and tobacco use cessation counseling visit, intermediate, 3-10 minutes).

The Office of Inspector General is allowing practices to reduce or waive copays and patient due amounts. However, a practice is not required to waive the copay or patient due amount for a telehealth service.

Medicare Advantage plans are required to cover all services that original Medicare covers. State Medicaid plans and Medicaid managed care organizations can set their own rules.
 

What about commercial payers?

While CMS has issued its Medicare guidelines, commercial insurance companies can also set their own rules about covering telehealth services. Many of them have rushed to update their policies to allow office visits to be billed via telehealth.

Unfortunately, each payer can set its own rules about whether to cover telehealth and if the place of service 02 and/or modifier -95 is needed. UnitedHealthcare is covering telehealth visits for all of its Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, and commercial accounts.

Humana also is covering telemedicine for urgent care needs. Some private insurers are continuing to offer virtual visits with their contracted telehealth provider, not with the patient’s own physician. It is likely that this will change in the days ahead, but it means practices must check their payer policies and pay attention to the emails they receive from the payers. If patient foot traffic is slow, this may be a good time to call each payer to not only find out their telehealth rules, but to also learn what else is being suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This would also be a good job for an employee to do from home versus coming into the practice.

None of the payers are limiting the diagnosis code for telemedicine services. The patient does not need to have a cough or fever to have telemedicine covered. Any diagnosis or condition is eligible to be billed via telehealth.

The waived restrictions by Medicare are in place only as long as the government state of emergency. Commercial payers are also describing these as temporary. However, it may be hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Medical practices and patients may find that these visits are just what the doctor ordered.
 

COVID-19 testing

Although testing is still not widely available, the American Medical Association has developed a CPT code for the test:

• 87635: Infectious agent detection by nucleic acid (DNA or RNA); severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Coronavirus disease [COVID-19]), amplified probe technique

CMS has also developed codes for testing for this new coronavirus. One (U0001) is specifically for tests done in the CDC lab. The second (U0002) was for other labs, but it seems likely that the CPT code will replace it.

In February, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy for certain labs to develop their own validated COVID-19 diagnostics. This second HCPCS code could be used for such tests when submitting claims to Medicare or other insurers.

The hope by CMS is that having these specific codes will encourage further testing and improve tracking of the virus.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many medical practices have long wanted to use telehealth to perform office visits and other evaluation and management (E/M) services. The technology readily exists and many electronic health records are set up to do telehealth visits. The problem has been getting paid for those visits. Medicare limited telehealth services to patients in underserved areas, and commercial insurances wouldn’t pay. But amid the COVID-19 crisis, things have changed.

On March 17, Congress passed a law allowing Medicare to waive some telehealth restrictions during a government state of emergency only, which we are in now. Specifically, the patient no longer needs to be in a medically underserved area and no longer needs to go to an originating site, such as a hospital. The patient can be located anywhere in the country and be in their own home.

Further, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid is waiving the requirement that the practitioner use a HIPAA-compliant platform for the telehealth service. The service must still be provided using a real-time audiovisual platform, but that could be via FaceTime or Skype, both of which are readily available via a patient’s smartphone or home computer. Audio alone – that is, phone calls between physician and patient – is still insufficient.
 

Billing for telemedicine

There are two lists of services that you can bill for telehealth. One of the lists is in Medicare’s telehealth fact sheet and includes both CPT and HCPCS codes. The second is in your CPT book, Appendix P, and lists only CPT codes.

Practices may bill all of the Medicare-covered telehealth services using these new rules. This includes new and established patient visits 99201–99215. It includes inpatient and skilled nursing services, for which CMS uses HCPCS codes in place of CPT codes.

Some notable additional services that you may bill via telehealth are: smoking cessation, transitional care management, advanced care planning, psychiatric diagnostic interviews and psychotherapy, and initial and subsequent Medicare wellness visits. The Welcome to Medicare visit is not on the list.

Report these services to Medicare with the correct CPT code and use place of service 02 (telehealth) on the claim. There is a CPT modifier for telehealth (Modifier -95 Synchronous Telemedicine Service Rendered Via a Real-Time Interactive Audio and Video Telecommunications System) but Medicare does not require it.

If you perform an office visit and also do smoking cessation, document those just as you would if you saw the patient in person. Document the history; observational exam, if relevant; and the assessment and plan. Note the additional time spent in smoking cessation counseling. If it was a level three established patient, code 99213-25 and 99406 (smoking and tobacco use cessation counseling visit, intermediate, 3-10 minutes).

The Office of Inspector General is allowing practices to reduce or waive copays and patient due amounts. However, a practice is not required to waive the copay or patient due amount for a telehealth service.

Medicare Advantage plans are required to cover all services that original Medicare covers. State Medicaid plans and Medicaid managed care organizations can set their own rules.
 

What about commercial payers?

While CMS has issued its Medicare guidelines, commercial insurance companies can also set their own rules about covering telehealth services. Many of them have rushed to update their policies to allow office visits to be billed via telehealth.

Unfortunately, each payer can set its own rules about whether to cover telehealth and if the place of service 02 and/or modifier -95 is needed. UnitedHealthcare is covering telehealth visits for all of its Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, and commercial accounts.

Humana also is covering telemedicine for urgent care needs. Some private insurers are continuing to offer virtual visits with their contracted telehealth provider, not with the patient’s own physician. It is likely that this will change in the days ahead, but it means practices must check their payer policies and pay attention to the emails they receive from the payers. If patient foot traffic is slow, this may be a good time to call each payer to not only find out their telehealth rules, but to also learn what else is being suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This would also be a good job for an employee to do from home versus coming into the practice.

None of the payers are limiting the diagnosis code for telemedicine services. The patient does not need to have a cough or fever to have telemedicine covered. Any diagnosis or condition is eligible to be billed via telehealth.

The waived restrictions by Medicare are in place only as long as the government state of emergency. Commercial payers are also describing these as temporary. However, it may be hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Medical practices and patients may find that these visits are just what the doctor ordered.
 

COVID-19 testing

Although testing is still not widely available, the American Medical Association has developed a CPT code for the test:

• 87635: Infectious agent detection by nucleic acid (DNA or RNA); severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Coronavirus disease [COVID-19]), amplified probe technique

CMS has also developed codes for testing for this new coronavirus. One (U0001) is specifically for tests done in the CDC lab. The second (U0002) was for other labs, but it seems likely that the CPT code will replace it.

In February, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy for certain labs to develop their own validated COVID-19 diagnostics. This second HCPCS code could be used for such tests when submitting claims to Medicare or other insurers.

The hope by CMS is that having these specific codes will encourage further testing and improve tracking of the virus.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many medical practices have long wanted to use telehealth to perform office visits and other evaluation and management (E/M) services. The technology readily exists and many electronic health records are set up to do telehealth visits. The problem has been getting paid for those visits. Medicare limited telehealth services to patients in underserved areas, and commercial insurances wouldn’t pay. But amid the COVID-19 crisis, things have changed.

On March 17, Congress passed a law allowing Medicare to waive some telehealth restrictions during a government state of emergency only, which we are in now. Specifically, the patient no longer needs to be in a medically underserved area and no longer needs to go to an originating site, such as a hospital. The patient can be located anywhere in the country and be in their own home.

Further, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid is waiving the requirement that the practitioner use a HIPAA-compliant platform for the telehealth service. The service must still be provided using a real-time audiovisual platform, but that could be via FaceTime or Skype, both of which are readily available via a patient’s smartphone or home computer. Audio alone – that is, phone calls between physician and patient – is still insufficient.
 

Billing for telemedicine

There are two lists of services that you can bill for telehealth. One of the lists is in Medicare’s telehealth fact sheet and includes both CPT and HCPCS codes. The second is in your CPT book, Appendix P, and lists only CPT codes.

Practices may bill all of the Medicare-covered telehealth services using these new rules. This includes new and established patient visits 99201–99215. It includes inpatient and skilled nursing services, for which CMS uses HCPCS codes in place of CPT codes.

Some notable additional services that you may bill via telehealth are: smoking cessation, transitional care management, advanced care planning, psychiatric diagnostic interviews and psychotherapy, and initial and subsequent Medicare wellness visits. The Welcome to Medicare visit is not on the list.

Report these services to Medicare with the correct CPT code and use place of service 02 (telehealth) on the claim. There is a CPT modifier for telehealth (Modifier -95 Synchronous Telemedicine Service Rendered Via a Real-Time Interactive Audio and Video Telecommunications System) but Medicare does not require it.

If you perform an office visit and also do smoking cessation, document those just as you would if you saw the patient in person. Document the history; observational exam, if relevant; and the assessment and plan. Note the additional time spent in smoking cessation counseling. If it was a level three established patient, code 99213-25 and 99406 (smoking and tobacco use cessation counseling visit, intermediate, 3-10 minutes).

The Office of Inspector General is allowing practices to reduce or waive copays and patient due amounts. However, a practice is not required to waive the copay or patient due amount for a telehealth service.

Medicare Advantage plans are required to cover all services that original Medicare covers. State Medicaid plans and Medicaid managed care organizations can set their own rules.
 

What about commercial payers?

While CMS has issued its Medicare guidelines, commercial insurance companies can also set their own rules about covering telehealth services. Many of them have rushed to update their policies to allow office visits to be billed via telehealth.

Unfortunately, each payer can set its own rules about whether to cover telehealth and if the place of service 02 and/or modifier -95 is needed. UnitedHealthcare is covering telehealth visits for all of its Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, and commercial accounts.

Humana also is covering telemedicine for urgent care needs. Some private insurers are continuing to offer virtual visits with their contracted telehealth provider, not with the patient’s own physician. It is likely that this will change in the days ahead, but it means practices must check their payer policies and pay attention to the emails they receive from the payers. If patient foot traffic is slow, this may be a good time to call each payer to not only find out their telehealth rules, but to also learn what else is being suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This would also be a good job for an employee to do from home versus coming into the practice.

None of the payers are limiting the diagnosis code for telemedicine services. The patient does not need to have a cough or fever to have telemedicine covered. Any diagnosis or condition is eligible to be billed via telehealth.

The waived restrictions by Medicare are in place only as long as the government state of emergency. Commercial payers are also describing these as temporary. However, it may be hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Medical practices and patients may find that these visits are just what the doctor ordered.
 

COVID-19 testing

Although testing is still not widely available, the American Medical Association has developed a CPT code for the test:

• 87635: Infectious agent detection by nucleic acid (DNA or RNA); severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Coronavirus disease [COVID-19]), amplified probe technique

CMS has also developed codes for testing for this new coronavirus. One (U0001) is specifically for tests done in the CDC lab. The second (U0002) was for other labs, but it seems likely that the CPT code will replace it.

In February, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy for certain labs to develop their own validated COVID-19 diagnostics. This second HCPCS code could be used for such tests when submitting claims to Medicare or other insurers.

The hope by CMS is that having these specific codes will encourage further testing and improve tracking of the virus.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My apricot tree has bloomed. It is a foolish tree planted by a foolish man since it blossoms, with beautiful pink then white flowers, at least 3 weeks too early in Northern Kentucky. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that it will produce fruit, maybe this year.

The apricot tree takes me back to my early childhood in Oklahoma City. We had a small apricot tree in the backyard of our rental house, and my dad would talk about how there was nothing finer than a sun ripened apricot. Those were happy times. My dad was a milkman and was home every day by late afternoon, though he was still taking classes at night to try to finish his degree. My mother was at home and my older brother in first grade down the street. My little sister was small and tried to keep up.

My time was unstructured, and I reveled in the backyard. In retrospect, the backyard was an open display of broken and hoped for dreams. There was a junked car my best friend Alvin and I would sit in, there was a huge tree stump we sat on and played around, we had an old slow dog named Pooch, gifted to us when my mom’s sister moved to Alaska. We ran around with no shirts or shoes, played and pretended, and carefully watched the apricot tree.

I remember one time when the apricots finally ripened. My father climbed up and got me one, and it was so sweet I did not notice that the juice ran down my face and my bare chest. It was the sweetest and most wonderful thing I have ever tasted. All the better for having to wait for it.

The current pandemic has once again made my life unstructured, with a lot of free time to think. I have had four major meetings canceled and though my livelihood and life are at risk, I feel oddly free and happy. I am no longer under those pressures to research, write, and present, and am spending at lot of time at home with my wife and daughter. I think I will clean out the garage (who knows what I will find?) and work in the backyard – and keep a close watch on the apricot tree.

As many of you have, I have awkwardly embraced telemedicine in the past. It is interesting now, how HIPAA regulations and state licensing requirements have finally been tossed aside, making it possible to practice telemedicine. I suspect things will stay that way if it is demonstrated they are unnecessary.

In my office, we are depopulating the waiting room and autoclaving face masks. I am cleaning out the stockroom and donating extra gloves, gowns, and masks to the local hospital. We may shut down altogether. There is little more I can do unless called to man a ventilator. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I will serve if called.

I suggest you embrace your current unstructured time and use it to let your mind roam. It is a reprieve from today’s hyperconnected, hurly burly world. I also suggest you check COVID-19 news updates only once a day and turn off television news altogether. Other than following the recommendations and guidance of public health authorities, there is nothing you can do to speed up the resolution of this pandemic.

No matter how awful, this will pass. It is a warm spring and it is possible the apricot tree will not be bitten by frost, and we may have fruit this year. We should know in about 2 months. I am going to keep a close watch on it.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

My apricot tree has bloomed. It is a foolish tree planted by a foolish man since it blossoms, with beautiful pink then white flowers, at least 3 weeks too early in Northern Kentucky. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that it will produce fruit, maybe this year.

The apricot tree takes me back to my early childhood in Oklahoma City. We had a small apricot tree in the backyard of our rental house, and my dad would talk about how there was nothing finer than a sun ripened apricot. Those were happy times. My dad was a milkman and was home every day by late afternoon, though he was still taking classes at night to try to finish his degree. My mother was at home and my older brother in first grade down the street. My little sister was small and tried to keep up.

My time was unstructured, and I reveled in the backyard. In retrospect, the backyard was an open display of broken and hoped for dreams. There was a junked car my best friend Alvin and I would sit in, there was a huge tree stump we sat on and played around, we had an old slow dog named Pooch, gifted to us when my mom’s sister moved to Alaska. We ran around with no shirts or shoes, played and pretended, and carefully watched the apricot tree.

I remember one time when the apricots finally ripened. My father climbed up and got me one, and it was so sweet I did not notice that the juice ran down my face and my bare chest. It was the sweetest and most wonderful thing I have ever tasted. All the better for having to wait for it.

The current pandemic has once again made my life unstructured, with a lot of free time to think. I have had four major meetings canceled and though my livelihood and life are at risk, I feel oddly free and happy. I am no longer under those pressures to research, write, and present, and am spending at lot of time at home with my wife and daughter. I think I will clean out the garage (who knows what I will find?) and work in the backyard – and keep a close watch on the apricot tree.

As many of you have, I have awkwardly embraced telemedicine in the past. It is interesting now, how HIPAA regulations and state licensing requirements have finally been tossed aside, making it possible to practice telemedicine. I suspect things will stay that way if it is demonstrated they are unnecessary.

In my office, we are depopulating the waiting room and autoclaving face masks. I am cleaning out the stockroom and donating extra gloves, gowns, and masks to the local hospital. We may shut down altogether. There is little more I can do unless called to man a ventilator. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I will serve if called.

I suggest you embrace your current unstructured time and use it to let your mind roam. It is a reprieve from today’s hyperconnected, hurly burly world. I also suggest you check COVID-19 news updates only once a day and turn off television news altogether. Other than following the recommendations and guidance of public health authorities, there is nothing you can do to speed up the resolution of this pandemic.

No matter how awful, this will pass. It is a warm spring and it is possible the apricot tree will not be bitten by frost, and we may have fruit this year. We should know in about 2 months. I am going to keep a close watch on it.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

My apricot tree has bloomed. It is a foolish tree planted by a foolish man since it blossoms, with beautiful pink then white flowers, at least 3 weeks too early in Northern Kentucky. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that it will produce fruit, maybe this year.

The apricot tree takes me back to my early childhood in Oklahoma City. We had a small apricot tree in the backyard of our rental house, and my dad would talk about how there was nothing finer than a sun ripened apricot. Those were happy times. My dad was a milkman and was home every day by late afternoon, though he was still taking classes at night to try to finish his degree. My mother was at home and my older brother in first grade down the street. My little sister was small and tried to keep up.

My time was unstructured, and I reveled in the backyard. In retrospect, the backyard was an open display of broken and hoped for dreams. There was a junked car my best friend Alvin and I would sit in, there was a huge tree stump we sat on and played around, we had an old slow dog named Pooch, gifted to us when my mom’s sister moved to Alaska. We ran around with no shirts or shoes, played and pretended, and carefully watched the apricot tree.

I remember one time when the apricots finally ripened. My father climbed up and got me one, and it was so sweet I did not notice that the juice ran down my face and my bare chest. It was the sweetest and most wonderful thing I have ever tasted. All the better for having to wait for it.

The current pandemic has once again made my life unstructured, with a lot of free time to think. I have had four major meetings canceled and though my livelihood and life are at risk, I feel oddly free and happy. I am no longer under those pressures to research, write, and present, and am spending at lot of time at home with my wife and daughter. I think I will clean out the garage (who knows what I will find?) and work in the backyard – and keep a close watch on the apricot tree.

As many of you have, I have awkwardly embraced telemedicine in the past. It is interesting now, how HIPAA regulations and state licensing requirements have finally been tossed aside, making it possible to practice telemedicine. I suspect things will stay that way if it is demonstrated they are unnecessary.

In my office, we are depopulating the waiting room and autoclaving face masks. I am cleaning out the stockroom and donating extra gloves, gowns, and masks to the local hospital. We may shut down altogether. There is little more I can do unless called to man a ventilator. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I will serve if called.

I suggest you embrace your current unstructured time and use it to let your mind roam. It is a reprieve from today’s hyperconnected, hurly burly world. I also suggest you check COVID-19 news updates only once a day and turn off television news altogether. Other than following the recommendations and guidance of public health authorities, there is nothing you can do to speed up the resolution of this pandemic.

No matter how awful, this will pass. It is a warm spring and it is possible the apricot tree will not be bitten by frost, and we may have fruit this year. We should know in about 2 months. I am going to keep a close watch on it.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].