Commentary

The emergency department locum tenens staff recruiter was persuasive. “It’s a quiet little ER where you can study and sleep.” I was board certified in internal medicine and had trained in a busy urban emergency department. This was just the spot to make a little folding money and study for my mock dermatology boards, I thought.

And so, on a Saturday night in rural Texas, after grinding rust out of a pipe fitter’s eye and stitching up two brawlers from the local biker bar, I was faced with treating a comatose kid brought in after a car crash. He had not been wearing a seat belt, and his car had rolled over on his head.

I was way over my skill level, but I was lucky. I was able to stabilize him and, after several long hours, I got him on an emergency helicopter into Dallas.

But the experience changed me. I realized I did not know enough to deal with this case on my own. After making it through that night in the ED, I never put myself in that position again.

I now knew what I did not know.

Now a knowledgeable friend of mine thinks this study is biased because 17% more patients with prior melanomas were seen by a dermatologist rather than by a PA. While it’s true that patients with prior melanomas are more likely to develop new melanomas, the counterargument is that the bar for a biopsy in a patient with a prior melanoma is much lower. Patients with a history of melanoma should have more skin biopsies, but the dermatologists in this study still took many fewer biopsies to diagnose melanomas in situ.

Why do these findings matter for patients and for the health care system?

PAs billed independently for 12% of skin biopsies (including lip, ear, ear canal, vulva, penis, and eyelid) in Medicare Fee for Service in 2016. Skin biopsies paid for by Medicare have been increasing at a very rapid rate, about twice as fast as the rate reflected in the current skin cancer epidemic.

Every skin biopsy results in a pathology charge, for which Medicare pays about $70. A level 3 new patient visit pays $110. If PAs bill independently, they are paid at 85% of the fee schedule, which often is touted as a great savings. Therefore, if only 24.2% of skin biopsies by PAs were unnecessary, even at a reduced 85% reimbursement, it costs Medicare more than having these visits and biopsies provided by a dermatologist. The cost savings decrease even more with additional skin biopsies, because they pay so little ($33 for a doctor, $28 for a PA), yet the pathology charge is unchanged.

There are other costs beyond monetary ones from unnecessary skin biopsies: scarring, follow-up procedures for uncertain diagnoses such as mild dysplastic nevi, ambiguous results, and emotional angst to patients.

Many dermatologists, as well as teaching programs, use PAs to perform skin cancer screenings, sometimes unsupervised, which makes diagnostic accuracy critical. The issues at hand are the safety of patients and the accuracy of diagnosis as well as the costs to the health care system. A team effort, which includes direct supervision, is needed to ensure those issues are addressed.

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].

The emergency department locum tenens staff recruiter was persuasive. “It’s a quiet little ER where you can study and sleep.” I was board certified in internal medicine and had trained in a busy urban emergency department. This was just the spot to make a little folding money and study for my mock dermatology boards, I thought.

And so, on a Saturday night in rural Texas, after grinding rust out of a pipe fitter’s eye and stitching up two brawlers from the local biker bar, I was faced with treating a comatose kid brought in after a car crash. He had not been wearing a seat belt, and his car had rolled over on his head.

I was way over my skill level, but I was lucky. I was able to stabilize him and, after several long hours, I got him on an emergency helicopter into Dallas.

But the experience changed me. I realized I did not know enough to deal with this case on my own. After making it through that night in the ED, I never put myself in that position again.

I now knew what I did not know.

Now a knowledgeable friend of mine thinks this study is biased because 17% more patients with prior melanomas were seen by a dermatologist rather than by a PA. While it’s true that patients with prior melanomas are more likely to develop new melanomas, the counterargument is that the bar for a biopsy in a patient with a prior melanoma is much lower. Patients with a history of melanoma should have more skin biopsies, but the dermatologists in this study still took many fewer biopsies to diagnose melanomas in situ.

Why do these findings matter for patients and for the health care system?

PAs billed independently for 12% of skin biopsies (including lip, ear, ear canal, vulva, penis, and eyelid) in Medicare Fee for Service in 2016. Skin biopsies paid for by Medicare have been increasing at a very rapid rate, about twice as fast as the rate reflected in the current skin cancer epidemic.

Every skin biopsy results in a pathology charge, for which Medicare pays about $70. A level 3 new patient visit pays $110. If PAs bill independently, they are paid at 85% of the fee schedule, which often is touted as a great savings. Therefore, if only 24.2% of skin biopsies by PAs were unnecessary, even at a reduced 85% reimbursement, it costs Medicare more than having these visits and biopsies provided by a dermatologist. The cost savings decrease even more with additional skin biopsies, because they pay so little ($33 for a doctor, $28 for a PA), yet the pathology charge is unchanged.

There are other costs beyond monetary ones from unnecessary skin biopsies: scarring, follow-up procedures for uncertain diagnoses such as mild dysplastic nevi, ambiguous results, and emotional angst to patients.

Many dermatologists, as well as teaching programs, use PAs to perform skin cancer screenings, sometimes unsupervised, which makes diagnostic accuracy critical. The issues at hand are the safety of patients and the accuracy of diagnosis as well as the costs to the health care system. A team effort, which includes direct supervision, is needed to ensure those issues are addressed.

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].

The emergency department locum tenens staff recruiter was persuasive. “It’s a quiet little ER where you can study and sleep.” I was board certified in internal medicine and had trained in a busy urban emergency department. This was just the spot to make a little folding money and study for my mock dermatology boards, I thought.

And so, on a Saturday night in rural Texas, after grinding rust out of a pipe fitter’s eye and stitching up two brawlers from the local biker bar, I was faced with treating a comatose kid brought in after a car crash. He had not been wearing a seat belt, and his car had rolled over on his head.

I was way over my skill level, but I was lucky. I was able to stabilize him and, after several long hours, I got him on an emergency helicopter into Dallas.

But the experience changed me. I realized I did not know enough to deal with this case on my own. After making it through that night in the ED, I never put myself in that position again.

I now knew what I did not know.

Now a knowledgeable friend of mine thinks this study is biased because 17% more patients with prior melanomas were seen by a dermatologist rather than by a PA. While it’s true that patients with prior melanomas are more likely to develop new melanomas, the counterargument is that the bar for a biopsy in a patient with a prior melanoma is much lower. Patients with a history of melanoma should have more skin biopsies, but the dermatologists in this study still took many fewer biopsies to diagnose melanomas in situ.

Why do these findings matter for patients and for the health care system?

PAs billed independently for 12% of skin biopsies (including lip, ear, ear canal, vulva, penis, and eyelid) in Medicare Fee for Service in 2016. Skin biopsies paid for by Medicare have been increasing at a very rapid rate, about twice as fast as the rate reflected in the current skin cancer epidemic.

Every skin biopsy results in a pathology charge, for which Medicare pays about $70. A level 3 new patient visit pays $110. If PAs bill independently, they are paid at 85% of the fee schedule, which often is touted as a great savings. Therefore, if only 24.2% of skin biopsies by PAs were unnecessary, even at a reduced 85% reimbursement, it costs Medicare more than having these visits and biopsies provided by a dermatologist. The cost savings decrease even more with additional skin biopsies, because they pay so little ($33 for a doctor, $28 for a PA), yet the pathology charge is unchanged.

There are other costs beyond monetary ones from unnecessary skin biopsies: scarring, follow-up procedures for uncertain diagnoses such as mild dysplastic nevi, ambiguous results, and emotional angst to patients.

Many dermatologists, as well as teaching programs, use PAs to perform skin cancer screenings, sometimes unsupervised, which makes diagnostic accuracy critical. The issues at hand are the safety of patients and the accuracy of diagnosis as well as the costs to the health care system. A team effort, which includes direct supervision, is needed to ensure those issues are addressed.

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].

One-quarter of patients with breast cancer are diagnosed at a premenopausal age and these young women may be directed to discuss oophorectomy with their ob.gyn. This may be because of the discovery of a deleterious BRCA gene mutation, which places them at increased risk for ovarian cancer, but oophorectomy may also be a therapeutic option for their breast cancer: 60% of premenopausal breast cancers are hormone receptor–positive. Ovarian ablation has been associated with improved overall survival and disease-free survival among these patients.¹

Estrogen is an important promoter of breast cancer and is predominantly derived from ovarian tissue in premenopausal women. However, in postmenopausal women, the majority of estrogen is produced peripherally through the conversion of androgens to estrogen via the enzyme aromatase. Aromatase inhibitors, such as exemestane, anastrazole, and letrazole, are drugs which block this conversion in peripheral tissues. They are contraindicated in premenopausal women with intact ovarian function, because there is a reflex pituitary stimulation of ovarian estrogen release in response to suppression of peripheral conversion of androgens. For such patients, ovarian function must be ablated either with surgery or with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues such as leuprorelin and goserelin if aromatase inhibitors are desired.

BRCA populations

For women with BRCA germline mutations and a history of breast cancer, oophorectomy is associated with a 70% risk of all-cause mortality, including a 60% reduction in breast cancer mortality. This effect is inclusive of patients with “triple-negative,” hormone receptor–negative tumors. The positive effect on breast cancer mortality is predominantly seen among BRCA-1 mutation carriers, and if the oophorectomy is performed within 2 years of diagnosis.⁵

Technique

When performing oophorectomy either for breast cancer or because of a hereditary cancer syndrome such as BRCA mutation, it is important to ensure that the ovarian vessel pedicle is transected at least 2 cm from its insertion in the ovary. This prevents leaving a residual ovarian remnant. In order to do this, it may be necessary to skeletonize the ovarian vessels free from their physiological attachments to the sigmoid colon on the left, and terminal ileum and cecum on the right. It is also important to ensure that the ureter is not invested in this more proximal segment of ovarian vessels. To prevent this, the retroperitoneal space can be opened lateral to and parallel with the ovarian vessels, and the “medial leaf” of the broad ligament swept medially to expose the ureter as it crosses the bifurcation of the external and internal iliac arteries at the pelvic brim. With the ureter in view, a window can then be made in the “medial leaf” above the ureter and below the ovary and ovarian vessels, in doing so creating a skeletonized ovarian vessel segment which can be sealed and cut 2 cm or more from its insertion in the ovary.

The fallopian tubes should be removed with the ovarian specimens, with attention made to removing the fallopian tube at its junction with the uterine cornua. It should be noted that the majority of fallopian tube cancers arise in the fimbriated end of the tube, and cornual tubal malignancies are fairly uncommon.

The decision about whether or not to perform hysterectomy at the time of salpingo-oophorectomy is complex. In patients without hereditary cancer syndromes, such as BRCA or Lynch syndrome, hysterectomy likely offers no benefit to the patient who is undergoing a procedure for the purpose of ovarian ablation. An argument has been made that hysterectomy can eliminate the increased endometrial cancer risk associated with tamoxifen. However, given the previously discussed data, after oophorectomy, aromatase inhibitors are the preferred treatment option, and tamoxifen can be avoided. If a patient has unrelated underlying uterine pathology a hysterectomy might be indicated. Women with BRCA germline mutations, particularly women with BRCA-1 mutations, may be at increased risk for uterine serous carcinoma, and in these patients, hysterectomy at the time of oophorectomy can be discussed and offered, though as yet, it is not a guideline recommendation for all patients.⁶ Patients who ask to “just take everything out while you are there” without a clear indication for hysterectomy should be counseled that hysterectomy is associated with increased risk, recovery, and cost, compared with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Among patients with elevated surgical risk (such as morbid obesity, known adhesive disease, increased venous thromboembolism risk, diabetes, and so on) it may not always be appropriate to extend the complexity of the procedure given the limited benefit.

Consequences of ovarian ablation

It should be noted that ovarian ablation in the TEXT and SOFT trials was not associated with an increase in overall survival for women with premenopausal breast cancer. Alternatively, large, observational studies such as the Nurses’ Health Study have shown that premenopausal oophorectomy without hormone replacement therapy is associated with increased all-cause mortality. This is primarily driven by the increased cardiopulmonary risk (heart attack and stroke), deaths after osteoporotic hip fractures, and the increased risk for lung and colon cancer.^7,8

It is normal for young patients to have heightened concerns regarding their risk of recurrence from their cancer, and less concerned by threats to their health in decades to come. However, it is important to discuss this data with the patient and allow for her to make an informed decision about her immediate versus future risks. If she determines that she is not interested in permanent ovarian ablation with oophorectomy because of either surgical risks, concerns regarding permanent infertility, or increased all-cause mortality, she still has an option for medical ovarian ablation with GnRH analogues in the treatment of her breast cancer.

Hormone replacement therapy postoperatively

Women who undergo oophorectomy for the treatment of breast cancer should not be offered hormone replacement therapy. This is true even for “triple-negative” or hormone receptor–negative breast cancers as there is still some observed benefit of ovarian ablation, and risk from exogenous hormone administration in these women. Alternatively, postoperative hormone replacement therapy remains safe until the age of natural menopause among premenopausal patients with BRCA germline mutations without a preceding breast cancer diagnosis.

Surgical ovarian ablation with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is a valuable strategy in the adjuvant therapy of premenopausal breast cancer, particularly among BRCA mutation carriers and women with hormone receptor–positive disease, or among women who find adherence to medical ablation difficult. Patients should be carefully counseled that this may introduce increased long-term cardiovascular risks for them.

Dr. Rossi is an assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1996 Nov 2;348:1189-96.

2. Pagani O et al. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 10;371(12):107-18.

3. Francis PA et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 29;372(5):436-46.

4. Ferrandina G et al. Clin Drug Investig. 2017 Nov;37(11):1093-102.

5. Finch AP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 20;32(15):1547-53.

6. Shu CA et al. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Nov 1;2(11):1434-40.

7. Parker WH et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;121(4):709-16.

8. Rivera CM et al. Menopause. 2009 Jan-Feb;16:15-23.

One-quarter of patients with breast cancer are diagnosed at a premenopausal age and these young women may be directed to discuss oophorectomy with their ob.gyn. This may be because of the discovery of a deleterious BRCA gene mutation, which places them at increased risk for ovarian cancer, but oophorectomy may also be a therapeutic option for their breast cancer: 60% of premenopausal breast cancers are hormone receptor–positive. Ovarian ablation has been associated with improved overall survival and disease-free survival among these patients.¹

Estrogen is an important promoter of breast cancer and is predominantly derived from ovarian tissue in premenopausal women. However, in postmenopausal women, the majority of estrogen is produced peripherally through the conversion of androgens to estrogen via the enzyme aromatase. Aromatase inhibitors, such as exemestane, anastrazole, and letrazole, are drugs which block this conversion in peripheral tissues. They are contraindicated in premenopausal women with intact ovarian function, because there is a reflex pituitary stimulation of ovarian estrogen release in response to suppression of peripheral conversion of androgens. For such patients, ovarian function must be ablated either with surgery or with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues such as leuprorelin and goserelin if aromatase inhibitors are desired.

BRCA populations

For women with BRCA germline mutations and a history of breast cancer, oophorectomy is associated with a 70% risk of all-cause mortality, including a 60% reduction in breast cancer mortality. This effect is inclusive of patients with “triple-negative,” hormone receptor–negative tumors. The positive effect on breast cancer mortality is predominantly seen among BRCA-1 mutation carriers, and if the oophorectomy is performed within 2 years of diagnosis.⁵

Technique

When performing oophorectomy either for breast cancer or because of a hereditary cancer syndrome such as BRCA mutation, it is important to ensure that the ovarian vessel pedicle is transected at least 2 cm from its insertion in the ovary. This prevents leaving a residual ovarian remnant. In order to do this, it may be necessary to skeletonize the ovarian vessels free from their physiological attachments to the sigmoid colon on the left, and terminal ileum and cecum on the right. It is also important to ensure that the ureter is not invested in this more proximal segment of ovarian vessels. To prevent this, the retroperitoneal space can be opened lateral to and parallel with the ovarian vessels, and the “medial leaf” of the broad ligament swept medially to expose the ureter as it crosses the bifurcation of the external and internal iliac arteries at the pelvic brim. With the ureter in view, a window can then be made in the “medial leaf” above the ureter and below the ovary and ovarian vessels, in doing so creating a skeletonized ovarian vessel segment which can be sealed and cut 2 cm or more from its insertion in the ovary.

The fallopian tubes should be removed with the ovarian specimens, with attention made to removing the fallopian tube at its junction with the uterine cornua. It should be noted that the majority of fallopian tube cancers arise in the fimbriated end of the tube, and cornual tubal malignancies are fairly uncommon.

The decision about whether or not to perform hysterectomy at the time of salpingo-oophorectomy is complex. In patients without hereditary cancer syndromes, such as BRCA or Lynch syndrome, hysterectomy likely offers no benefit to the patient who is undergoing a procedure for the purpose of ovarian ablation. An argument has been made that hysterectomy can eliminate the increased endometrial cancer risk associated with tamoxifen. However, given the previously discussed data, after oophorectomy, aromatase inhibitors are the preferred treatment option, and tamoxifen can be avoided. If a patient has unrelated underlying uterine pathology a hysterectomy might be indicated. Women with BRCA germline mutations, particularly women with BRCA-1 mutations, may be at increased risk for uterine serous carcinoma, and in these patients, hysterectomy at the time of oophorectomy can be discussed and offered, though as yet, it is not a guideline recommendation for all patients.⁶ Patients who ask to “just take everything out while you are there” without a clear indication for hysterectomy should be counseled that hysterectomy is associated with increased risk, recovery, and cost, compared with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Among patients with elevated surgical risk (such as morbid obesity, known adhesive disease, increased venous thromboembolism risk, diabetes, and so on) it may not always be appropriate to extend the complexity of the procedure given the limited benefit.

Consequences of ovarian ablation

It should be noted that ovarian ablation in the TEXT and SOFT trials was not associated with an increase in overall survival for women with premenopausal breast cancer. Alternatively, large, observational studies such as the Nurses’ Health Study have shown that premenopausal oophorectomy without hormone replacement therapy is associated with increased all-cause mortality. This is primarily driven by the increased cardiopulmonary risk (heart attack and stroke), deaths after osteoporotic hip fractures, and the increased risk for lung and colon cancer.^7,8

It is normal for young patients to have heightened concerns regarding their risk of recurrence from their cancer, and less concerned by threats to their health in decades to come. However, it is important to discuss this data with the patient and allow for her to make an informed decision about her immediate versus future risks. If she determines that she is not interested in permanent ovarian ablation with oophorectomy because of either surgical risks, concerns regarding permanent infertility, or increased all-cause mortality, she still has an option for medical ovarian ablation with GnRH analogues in the treatment of her breast cancer.

Hormone replacement therapy postoperatively

Women who undergo oophorectomy for the treatment of breast cancer should not be offered hormone replacement therapy. This is true even for “triple-negative” or hormone receptor–negative breast cancers as there is still some observed benefit of ovarian ablation, and risk from exogenous hormone administration in these women. Alternatively, postoperative hormone replacement therapy remains safe until the age of natural menopause among premenopausal patients with BRCA germline mutations without a preceding breast cancer diagnosis.

Surgical ovarian ablation with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is a valuable strategy in the adjuvant therapy of premenopausal breast cancer, particularly among BRCA mutation carriers and women with hormone receptor–positive disease, or among women who find adherence to medical ablation difficult. Patients should be carefully counseled that this may introduce increased long-term cardiovascular risks for them.

Dr. Rossi is an assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1996 Nov 2;348:1189-96.

2. Pagani O et al. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 10;371(12):107-18.

3. Francis PA et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 29;372(5):436-46.

4. Ferrandina G et al. Clin Drug Investig. 2017 Nov;37(11):1093-102.

5. Finch AP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 20;32(15):1547-53.

6. Shu CA et al. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Nov 1;2(11):1434-40.

7. Parker WH et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;121(4):709-16.

8. Rivera CM et al. Menopause. 2009 Jan-Feb;16:15-23.

One-quarter of patients with breast cancer are diagnosed at a premenopausal age and these young women may be directed to discuss oophorectomy with their ob.gyn. This may be because of the discovery of a deleterious BRCA gene mutation, which places them at increased risk for ovarian cancer, but oophorectomy may also be a therapeutic option for their breast cancer: 60% of premenopausal breast cancers are hormone receptor–positive. Ovarian ablation has been associated with improved overall survival and disease-free survival among these patients.¹

Estrogen is an important promoter of breast cancer and is predominantly derived from ovarian tissue in premenopausal women. However, in postmenopausal women, the majority of estrogen is produced peripherally through the conversion of androgens to estrogen via the enzyme aromatase. Aromatase inhibitors, such as exemestane, anastrazole, and letrazole, are drugs which block this conversion in peripheral tissues. They are contraindicated in premenopausal women with intact ovarian function, because there is a reflex pituitary stimulation of ovarian estrogen release in response to suppression of peripheral conversion of androgens. For such patients, ovarian function must be ablated either with surgery or with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues such as leuprorelin and goserelin if aromatase inhibitors are desired.

BRCA populations

For women with BRCA germline mutations and a history of breast cancer, oophorectomy is associated with a 70% risk of all-cause mortality, including a 60% reduction in breast cancer mortality. This effect is inclusive of patients with “triple-negative,” hormone receptor–negative tumors. The positive effect on breast cancer mortality is predominantly seen among BRCA-1 mutation carriers, and if the oophorectomy is performed within 2 years of diagnosis.⁵

Technique

When performing oophorectomy either for breast cancer or because of a hereditary cancer syndrome such as BRCA mutation, it is important to ensure that the ovarian vessel pedicle is transected at least 2 cm from its insertion in the ovary. This prevents leaving a residual ovarian remnant. In order to do this, it may be necessary to skeletonize the ovarian vessels free from their physiological attachments to the sigmoid colon on the left, and terminal ileum and cecum on the right. It is also important to ensure that the ureter is not invested in this more proximal segment of ovarian vessels. To prevent this, the retroperitoneal space can be opened lateral to and parallel with the ovarian vessels, and the “medial leaf” of the broad ligament swept medially to expose the ureter as it crosses the bifurcation of the external and internal iliac arteries at the pelvic brim. With the ureter in view, a window can then be made in the “medial leaf” above the ureter and below the ovary and ovarian vessels, in doing so creating a skeletonized ovarian vessel segment which can be sealed and cut 2 cm or more from its insertion in the ovary.

The fallopian tubes should be removed with the ovarian specimens, with attention made to removing the fallopian tube at its junction with the uterine cornua. It should be noted that the majority of fallopian tube cancers arise in the fimbriated end of the tube, and cornual tubal malignancies are fairly uncommon.

The decision about whether or not to perform hysterectomy at the time of salpingo-oophorectomy is complex. In patients without hereditary cancer syndromes, such as BRCA or Lynch syndrome, hysterectomy likely offers no benefit to the patient who is undergoing a procedure for the purpose of ovarian ablation. An argument has been made that hysterectomy can eliminate the increased endometrial cancer risk associated with tamoxifen. However, given the previously discussed data, after oophorectomy, aromatase inhibitors are the preferred treatment option, and tamoxifen can be avoided. If a patient has unrelated underlying uterine pathology a hysterectomy might be indicated. Women with BRCA germline mutations, particularly women with BRCA-1 mutations, may be at increased risk for uterine serous carcinoma, and in these patients, hysterectomy at the time of oophorectomy can be discussed and offered, though as yet, it is not a guideline recommendation for all patients.⁶ Patients who ask to “just take everything out while you are there” without a clear indication for hysterectomy should be counseled that hysterectomy is associated with increased risk, recovery, and cost, compared with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Among patients with elevated surgical risk (such as morbid obesity, known adhesive disease, increased venous thromboembolism risk, diabetes, and so on) it may not always be appropriate to extend the complexity of the procedure given the limited benefit.

Consequences of ovarian ablation

It should be noted that ovarian ablation in the TEXT and SOFT trials was not associated with an increase in overall survival for women with premenopausal breast cancer. Alternatively, large, observational studies such as the Nurses’ Health Study have shown that premenopausal oophorectomy without hormone replacement therapy is associated with increased all-cause mortality. This is primarily driven by the increased cardiopulmonary risk (heart attack and stroke), deaths after osteoporotic hip fractures, and the increased risk for lung and colon cancer.^7,8

It is normal for young patients to have heightened concerns regarding their risk of recurrence from their cancer, and less concerned by threats to their health in decades to come. However, it is important to discuss this data with the patient and allow for her to make an informed decision about her immediate versus future risks. If she determines that she is not interested in permanent ovarian ablation with oophorectomy because of either surgical risks, concerns regarding permanent infertility, or increased all-cause mortality, she still has an option for medical ovarian ablation with GnRH analogues in the treatment of her breast cancer.

Hormone replacement therapy postoperatively

Women who undergo oophorectomy for the treatment of breast cancer should not be offered hormone replacement therapy. This is true even for “triple-negative” or hormone receptor–negative breast cancers as there is still some observed benefit of ovarian ablation, and risk from exogenous hormone administration in these women. Alternatively, postoperative hormone replacement therapy remains safe until the age of natural menopause among premenopausal patients with BRCA germline mutations without a preceding breast cancer diagnosis.

Surgical ovarian ablation with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is a valuable strategy in the adjuvant therapy of premenopausal breast cancer, particularly among BRCA mutation carriers and women with hormone receptor–positive disease, or among women who find adherence to medical ablation difficult. Patients should be carefully counseled that this may introduce increased long-term cardiovascular risks for them.

Dr. Rossi is an assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1996 Nov 2;348:1189-96.

2. Pagani O et al. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 10;371(12):107-18.

3. Francis PA et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 29;372(5):436-46.

4. Ferrandina G et al. Clin Drug Investig. 2017 Nov;37(11):1093-102.

5. Finch AP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 20;32(15):1547-53.

6. Shu CA et al. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Nov 1;2(11):1434-40.

7. Parker WH et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;121(4):709-16.

8. Rivera CM et al. Menopause. 2009 Jan-Feb;16:15-23.

Providing free and open access to its high-quality peer-reviewed articles has always been important to Federal Practitioner, but finding them hasn’t always been easy for our readers and researchers. That has now changed. The full text of all Federal Practitioner peer-reviewed articles, editorials, and columns published after December 2014 are now available through the National Library of Medicine (NLM) PubMed Central (PMC) index (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/).

To be sure, Federal Practitioner has always made it easy for print and digital subscribers to find our articles. Print journal subscriptions have been—and will remain—free to the 35,000 subscribers. Furthermore, anyone can access articles online (http://mdedge.com/fedprac), in the Federal Practitioner app, or in our digital edition (http://www.fedprac-digital.com/).

However, until now access beyond our base of loyal readers has been limited. Inclusion in PMC provides a much broader audience for Federal Practitioner authors, because PMC is an integral part of the NLM MEDLINE/PubMed database of 28 million biomedical citations and abstracts from more than 5,000 journals. All PMC articles appear in PubMed searches. On a typical day, about 2.5 million users in the US access PubMed to perform about 3 million searches and access 9 million page views.¹

Inclusion also means that Federal Practitioner has passed a rigorous scientific and technical review of its content. Being included in PMC is a recognition of the quality of scholarship the journal publishes and a pledge of our continuing commitment to the highest quality of clinical education and research. Young investigators, clinician-educators, midcareer professionals, and others seeking to launch or enhance an academic career may want to consider or reconsider Federal Practitioner as the destination for manuscript submission.

One of the goals of this journal has been to provide a forum for federal health care providers (HCPs) to discuss and share with other federal colleagues. Federal HCPs from the Military Health System (MHS), Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and Indian Health Service (IHS) have addressed questions in Federal Practitioner that might not be explored elsewhere. Yet something important was missing from those conversations—engagement with the larger public health community. PubMed and PMC enable an ongoing conversation among health care researchers and providers. These are the places where researchers go to understand and respond to the questions that shape their research and clinical care. Now, Federal Practitioner authors can contribute more fully in ongoing debates.

As large integrated health care systems, the VHA, MHS, and IHS confront and address key public health care policy issues. Whether it’s the responsible and safe prescribing of opioids, the resource allocation decisions regarding the treatment of hepatitis C, or addressing suicide risk, the experience of federal HCPs must be a part of the public health debate. Moreover, many Federal Practitioner articles focus not just on preliminary research, but on the practical aspects of implementing patient-centered care. All US HCPs may benefit from hearing about federal providers challenges and success in providing patient-centered care.

Making available the complete text of all the articles furthers the Federal Practitioner mission: to educate federal HCPs and provide a forum for sharing health-care related studies, best practices, guidelines, program profiles, and case studies. We are excited to provide even more benefits for publication in Federal Practitioner. This journal welcomes submissions from new authors, well-traveled scholars, and everyone in between. Come on, join the conversation.

Providing free and open access to its high-quality peer-reviewed articles has always been important to Federal Practitioner, but finding them hasn’t always been easy for our readers and researchers. That has now changed. The full text of all Federal Practitioner peer-reviewed articles, editorials, and columns published after December 2014 are now available through the National Library of Medicine (NLM) PubMed Central (PMC) index (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/).

To be sure, Federal Practitioner has always made it easy for print and digital subscribers to find our articles. Print journal subscriptions have been—and will remain—free to the 35,000 subscribers. Furthermore, anyone can access articles online (http://mdedge.com/fedprac), in the Federal Practitioner app, or in our digital edition (http://www.fedprac-digital.com/).

However, until now access beyond our base of loyal readers has been limited. Inclusion in PMC provides a much broader audience for Federal Practitioner authors, because PMC is an integral part of the NLM MEDLINE/PubMed database of 28 million biomedical citations and abstracts from more than 5,000 journals. All PMC articles appear in PubMed searches. On a typical day, about 2.5 million users in the US access PubMed to perform about 3 million searches and access 9 million page views.¹

Inclusion also means that Federal Practitioner has passed a rigorous scientific and technical review of its content. Being included in PMC is a recognition of the quality of scholarship the journal publishes and a pledge of our continuing commitment to the highest quality of clinical education and research. Young investigators, clinician-educators, midcareer professionals, and others seeking to launch or enhance an academic career may want to consider or reconsider Federal Practitioner as the destination for manuscript submission.

One of the goals of this journal has been to provide a forum for federal health care providers (HCPs) to discuss and share with other federal colleagues. Federal HCPs from the Military Health System (MHS), Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and Indian Health Service (IHS) have addressed questions in Federal Practitioner that might not be explored elsewhere. Yet something important was missing from those conversations—engagement with the larger public health community. PubMed and PMC enable an ongoing conversation among health care researchers and providers. These are the places where researchers go to understand and respond to the questions that shape their research and clinical care. Now, Federal Practitioner authors can contribute more fully in ongoing debates.

As large integrated health care systems, the VHA, MHS, and IHS confront and address key public health care policy issues. Whether it’s the responsible and safe prescribing of opioids, the resource allocation decisions regarding the treatment of hepatitis C, or addressing suicide risk, the experience of federal HCPs must be a part of the public health debate. Moreover, many Federal Practitioner articles focus not just on preliminary research, but on the practical aspects of implementing patient-centered care. All US HCPs may benefit from hearing about federal providers challenges and success in providing patient-centered care.

Making available the complete text of all the articles furthers the Federal Practitioner mission: to educate federal HCPs and provide a forum for sharing health-care related studies, best practices, guidelines, program profiles, and case studies. We are excited to provide even more benefits for publication in Federal Practitioner. This journal welcomes submissions from new authors, well-traveled scholars, and everyone in between. Come on, join the conversation.

Providing free and open access to its high-quality peer-reviewed articles has always been important to Federal Practitioner, but finding them hasn’t always been easy for our readers and researchers. That has now changed. The full text of all Federal Practitioner peer-reviewed articles, editorials, and columns published after December 2014 are now available through the National Library of Medicine (NLM) PubMed Central (PMC) index (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/).

To be sure, Federal Practitioner has always made it easy for print and digital subscribers to find our articles. Print journal subscriptions have been—and will remain—free to the 35,000 subscribers. Furthermore, anyone can access articles online (http://mdedge.com/fedprac), in the Federal Practitioner app, or in our digital edition (http://www.fedprac-digital.com/).

However, until now access beyond our base of loyal readers has been limited. Inclusion in PMC provides a much broader audience for Federal Practitioner authors, because PMC is an integral part of the NLM MEDLINE/PubMed database of 28 million biomedical citations and abstracts from more than 5,000 journals. All PMC articles appear in PubMed searches. On a typical day, about 2.5 million users in the US access PubMed to perform about 3 million searches and access 9 million page views.¹

Inclusion also means that Federal Practitioner has passed a rigorous scientific and technical review of its content. Being included in PMC is a recognition of the quality of scholarship the journal publishes and a pledge of our continuing commitment to the highest quality of clinical education and research. Young investigators, clinician-educators, midcareer professionals, and others seeking to launch or enhance an academic career may want to consider or reconsider Federal Practitioner as the destination for manuscript submission.

One of the goals of this journal has been to provide a forum for federal health care providers (HCPs) to discuss and share with other federal colleagues. Federal HCPs from the Military Health System (MHS), Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and Indian Health Service (IHS) have addressed questions in Federal Practitioner that might not be explored elsewhere. Yet something important was missing from those conversations—engagement with the larger public health community. PubMed and PMC enable an ongoing conversation among health care researchers and providers. These are the places where researchers go to understand and respond to the questions that shape their research and clinical care. Now, Federal Practitioner authors can contribute more fully in ongoing debates.

As large integrated health care systems, the VHA, MHS, and IHS confront and address key public health care policy issues. Whether it’s the responsible and safe prescribing of opioids, the resource allocation decisions regarding the treatment of hepatitis C, or addressing suicide risk, the experience of federal HCPs must be a part of the public health debate. Moreover, many Federal Practitioner articles focus not just on preliminary research, but on the practical aspects of implementing patient-centered care. All US HCPs may benefit from hearing about federal providers challenges and success in providing patient-centered care.

Making available the complete text of all the articles furthers the Federal Practitioner mission: to educate federal HCPs and provide a forum for sharing health-care related studies, best practices, guidelines, program profiles, and case studies. We are excited to provide even more benefits for publication in Federal Practitioner. This journal welcomes submissions from new authors, well-traveled scholars, and everyone in between. Come on, join the conversation.

The genesis of the ongoing debate on healthcare is complex, in part because of the perceived flaws within the proposed systems. Denying the guilt that the medical profession has had is a disingenuous exercise in futility. In fact, orthopedics is possibly the most egregious among the culprits. Such a charge, supportable or not, calls for serious objective criticism.¹ No one would dare question the fact that from the orthopedic point of view, the cost of healthcare delivery is an important factor because of the critical level this issue has reached. The use of expensive technology and frequent surgery are of major importance.^2,3 However, I submit that it is not the high cost of the technology and surgical procedures per se but their frequent abuse.

As I look at orthopedics in an objective, critical manner, I have the uncomfortable feeling that the profession is rapidly becoming a business where greater and greater profit is its primary raison d’etre. The discipline has lost much of its traditional scientific/biological foundations, and is converting itself into a technical trade heavily controlled in its educational duties and the subsequent conduct of its members by industry. This metamorphous evolution has shown ill effects as demonstrated by the loss of traditional territory to other disciplines and a borderline ridiculous fragmentation into a multitude of subspecialties that contribute to the erosion of the profession. Orthopedics is no longer a solid eclectic body of knowledge and expertise in the care of musculoskeletal conditions, but a fragmented body of techniques independent of each other. This statement is not a criticism of fragmentation per se, because fragmentation in most human endeavors is a natural evolutionary phenomenon that occurs in virtually all walks of life, and to our profession it has brought much progress. My concerns are over the apparent exaggerated degree it has reached.⁴

The fragmentation and erosion of orthopedics took a relatively short time to occur without any evidence of concern among the orthopedic community, which apparently assumed that the advances made by other disciplines would not compromise the security and independence it had enjoyed for generations. The spectacular advances in joint replacement began to occupy a large segment of orthopedists’ professional time. The attractive reimbursement accompanying these procedures further justified the complacency regarding the shrinking of the discipline, while the previous outsiders expanded their territory. Critical objectivity of this issue is important in the event we decide to address the consequences of further erosion and fragmentation of our profession.

There should be no question that if all, or the overwhelming majority of, orthopedists become subspecialists who take care of only a limited number of pathological conditions, the cost of care will grow exponentially. The poor, regardless of the outcome of any legislation addressing their problems, will suffer most.

In small communities there are not enough patients with conditions requiring subspecialized orthopedic services to satisfy the emotional and economic needs of the fellowship-trained orthopedists. Other physicians and allied health practitioners will fill the void and provide the needed services. However, the facts facing us today suggest that if the current trends continue unabated, orthopedics as a distinct branch of medicine may not survive. Nonetheless, people in need of musculoskeletal care will receive it from a variety of medical and paramedical people, who will gradually develop skills and knowledge in a manner comparable to that possessed today by orthopedists.

Continue to: Of major significance...

Of major significance in the overall issue of critical objectivity is the unquestionable fact that orthopedics voluntarily relegated to the surgical implant industry the control of many of its traditional educational responsibilities to the point where, at present, it is assumed that educational programs cannot be conducted without the financial support of industry. Hundreds, if not thousands, of conferences; grand rounds; local, state, and regional society meetings; the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ (AAOS) annual meeting, and its many other educational activities take place with the financial support of industry. Such a dominance has placed the orthopedic profession in a relative subservient position, since the “generosity” provided by industry must be reciprocated. This explains the rapid and overwhelming favorable response given by the practitioners of the medical profession by seeming to accept whatever new products appear on the market. The issue has become even more complicated by the growing acceptance of kickbacks and perks for cooperation with the manufactures, simply for the use of the industrial products and assistance in advertising them.^5,6.

I have previously described episodes in which I was personally involved. The one I now describe consisted of a visit by an industrial representative who approached me during my tenure as Chairman of Orthopedics at the University of Southern California.¹ He offered me what he called “a very good deal” where I was to be given $200 for every one of his total joint implants I were to use, as well as from those used by any of the orthopedists working at any and all 5 hospitals affiliated with the department. I was to receive a monthly check at home, so no one else would be aware of the transactions. When I asked him what had prompted him to think I was a prostitute, all he could say was, “But Doctor Sarmiento, we do that all the time.”

I am certain that episodes of the nature of my experience occur every day of the week. Had it not been aware of their frequent occurrence, the United States Justice Department’s investigation of the “egregious unethical transgressions” and the “corruption in the relationship between the industry and orthopedics”, and the search for a solution would not have been initiated.⁶ What can we expect to come out of such investigations? As far as I am concerned, those who may have been accused unfairly, as well as the guilty ones, have probably stated that “all conflicts of interest have been resolved.” I insist that the orthopedic profession, and particularly its representative organizations, should stand up and, as loudly and clearly as possible, protest the despicable practice and bring about a cure for the festering ulcer.

The power of industry in controlling orthopedics has reached a previously unsuspected level. In a commentary I published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,⁷ I described an episode where a powerful industrial concern had prevented the release of a book I had written. The product had reached its final form in hardbound and softbound editions in English, as well as in Spanish. After much struggle to find out why at the last minute the marketing had not begun, I learned that an industrial firm had “convinced” the publishers to cancel the release of the book. Though I considered the litigation route, I realized that I did not have the financial resources for such a venture. I have experienced similar problems with other publishers in the past.⁷ When our representative organizations will seek involvement in this delicate issue and try to bring about a solution is as yet unknown.   

A fact influencing the decline of professionalism in our ranks is the now well-known lack of credibility in an increasing number of publications.⁸ Some respectable journals are making a serious effort to overcome the problem, but they realize how difficult it is to see the truth, since distorting data is not that difficult, and exposing the culprits is even more so. What possible solution can be structured to resolve this embarrassing situation? It is an issue of morality that cannot be legislated; however, it can be positively influenced by the example set for the younger generations, especially by our representative officers. Unfortunately, the latter group has failed to do a very good job, since we frequently observe individuals with obvious conflicts of interest occupying positions of leadership and power.

Continue to: In the United States another move...

For the various issues I have identified and for which critical objectivity is necessary, it is essential that our representative organizations assume a leading role, concentrate on fundamental issues, and set aside time-consuming projects of questionable importance. Among those projects I identity 3 important ones: The Joint Replacement Registry, The Orthopedic Guidelines, and Evidence-Based Orthopedics. The Joint Replacement Registry can wait, since its foundations as presented today are weak and based on the illusion that the alleged success of the Scandinavian Registries can be easily duplicated in this country. I envision that 15 years from now the only thing the Registry will give us is millions of pieces of data that were already available through the traditional methods of publications and other means of dissemination of information.⁹

The recent infatuation with The Orthopedic Guidelines may be a temporary success that will die before they reach maturity. It is a noble effort, since it proposes a mechanism by which to provide “advice” to orthopedic surgeons regarding the degree of benefit that various treatment approaches have to offer. The problem, as I see it, is that soon the “advice” will become, in the eyes of many, “dictates” to be followed. The fear of litigation for not following the “guidelines” could result in deprivation of the independence that is acquired from experience and lessons from others. We are not children in need of instructions regarding behavior. Rather than making changes with new but probably imperfect projects, we should emphasize the credibility of publications and oral presentations. The authors of the Guidelines are appointed individuals who, like all human beings, are afflicted with the innate biases and prejudices that make them see things according to their personal perceptions, and their views are not necessarily representative of ideal situations.¹⁰

Evidence-Based Orthopedics is another noble effort to improve matters. I find in this effort the same flaws I have identified with Registries and Guidelines. There is not yet any evidence to suggest that the profession will be helped from the time and expense they require. Any publication should be based on evidence; otherwise it should not be brought to the orthopedic community. Emphasizing credibility is more likely to be beneficial to the profession and to the people we represent. To have 2 different types of articles in our journals where some are based on evidence and others lack evidence does not make sense.

In summary, orthopedics is confronting situations that require critical objectivity as we search for solutions. Some of the situations I have tried to identify may not be “problems” but examples of normal evolution or transient developments that time alone would resolve. On the other hand, some others may be of a serious nature and require our involvement. To ignore them will bring about problems for the next generation who will wonder what precluded us from seeking answers before it was too late.

The genesis of the ongoing debate on healthcare is complex, in part because of the perceived flaws within the proposed systems. Denying the guilt that the medical profession has had is a disingenuous exercise in futility. In fact, orthopedics is possibly the most egregious among the culprits. Such a charge, supportable or not, calls for serious objective criticism.¹ No one would dare question the fact that from the orthopedic point of view, the cost of healthcare delivery is an important factor because of the critical level this issue has reached. The use of expensive technology and frequent surgery are of major importance.^2,3 However, I submit that it is not the high cost of the technology and surgical procedures per se but their frequent abuse.

As I look at orthopedics in an objective, critical manner, I have the uncomfortable feeling that the profession is rapidly becoming a business where greater and greater profit is its primary raison d’etre. The discipline has lost much of its traditional scientific/biological foundations, and is converting itself into a technical trade heavily controlled in its educational duties and the subsequent conduct of its members by industry. This metamorphous evolution has shown ill effects as demonstrated by the loss of traditional territory to other disciplines and a borderline ridiculous fragmentation into a multitude of subspecialties that contribute to the erosion of the profession. Orthopedics is no longer a solid eclectic body of knowledge and expertise in the care of musculoskeletal conditions, but a fragmented body of techniques independent of each other. This statement is not a criticism of fragmentation per se, because fragmentation in most human endeavors is a natural evolutionary phenomenon that occurs in virtually all walks of life, and to our profession it has brought much progress. My concerns are over the apparent exaggerated degree it has reached.⁴

The fragmentation and erosion of orthopedics took a relatively short time to occur without any evidence of concern among the orthopedic community, which apparently assumed that the advances made by other disciplines would not compromise the security and independence it had enjoyed for generations. The spectacular advances in joint replacement began to occupy a large segment of orthopedists’ professional time. The attractive reimbursement accompanying these procedures further justified the complacency regarding the shrinking of the discipline, while the previous outsiders expanded their territory. Critical objectivity of this issue is important in the event we decide to address the consequences of further erosion and fragmentation of our profession.

There should be no question that if all, or the overwhelming majority of, orthopedists become subspecialists who take care of only a limited number of pathological conditions, the cost of care will grow exponentially. The poor, regardless of the outcome of any legislation addressing their problems, will suffer most.

In small communities there are not enough patients with conditions requiring subspecialized orthopedic services to satisfy the emotional and economic needs of the fellowship-trained orthopedists. Other physicians and allied health practitioners will fill the void and provide the needed services. However, the facts facing us today suggest that if the current trends continue unabated, orthopedics as a distinct branch of medicine may not survive. Nonetheless, people in need of musculoskeletal care will receive it from a variety of medical and paramedical people, who will gradually develop skills and knowledge in a manner comparable to that possessed today by orthopedists.

Continue to: Of major significance...

Of major significance in the overall issue of critical objectivity is the unquestionable fact that orthopedics voluntarily relegated to the surgical implant industry the control of many of its traditional educational responsibilities to the point where, at present, it is assumed that educational programs cannot be conducted without the financial support of industry. Hundreds, if not thousands, of conferences; grand rounds; local, state, and regional society meetings; the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ (AAOS) annual meeting, and its many other educational activities take place with the financial support of industry. Such a dominance has placed the orthopedic profession in a relative subservient position, since the “generosity” provided by industry must be reciprocated. This explains the rapid and overwhelming favorable response given by the practitioners of the medical profession by seeming to accept whatever new products appear on the market. The issue has become even more complicated by the growing acceptance of kickbacks and perks for cooperation with the manufactures, simply for the use of the industrial products and assistance in advertising them.^5,6.

I have previously described episodes in which I was personally involved. The one I now describe consisted of a visit by an industrial representative who approached me during my tenure as Chairman of Orthopedics at the University of Southern California.¹ He offered me what he called “a very good deal” where I was to be given $200 for every one of his total joint implants I were to use, as well as from those used by any of the orthopedists working at any and all 5 hospitals affiliated with the department. I was to receive a monthly check at home, so no one else would be aware of the transactions. When I asked him what had prompted him to think I was a prostitute, all he could say was, “But Doctor Sarmiento, we do that all the time.”

I am certain that episodes of the nature of my experience occur every day of the week. Had it not been aware of their frequent occurrence, the United States Justice Department’s investigation of the “egregious unethical transgressions” and the “corruption in the relationship between the industry and orthopedics”, and the search for a solution would not have been initiated.⁶ What can we expect to come out of such investigations? As far as I am concerned, those who may have been accused unfairly, as well as the guilty ones, have probably stated that “all conflicts of interest have been resolved.” I insist that the orthopedic profession, and particularly its representative organizations, should stand up and, as loudly and clearly as possible, protest the despicable practice and bring about a cure for the festering ulcer.

The power of industry in controlling orthopedics has reached a previously unsuspected level. In a commentary I published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,⁷ I described an episode where a powerful industrial concern had prevented the release of a book I had written. The product had reached its final form in hardbound and softbound editions in English, as well as in Spanish. After much struggle to find out why at the last minute the marketing had not begun, I learned that an industrial firm had “convinced” the publishers to cancel the release of the book. Though I considered the litigation route, I realized that I did not have the financial resources for such a venture. I have experienced similar problems with other publishers in the past.⁷ When our representative organizations will seek involvement in this delicate issue and try to bring about a solution is as yet unknown.   

A fact influencing the decline of professionalism in our ranks is the now well-known lack of credibility in an increasing number of publications.⁸ Some respectable journals are making a serious effort to overcome the problem, but they realize how difficult it is to see the truth, since distorting data is not that difficult, and exposing the culprits is even more so. What possible solution can be structured to resolve this embarrassing situation? It is an issue of morality that cannot be legislated; however, it can be positively influenced by the example set for the younger generations, especially by our representative officers. Unfortunately, the latter group has failed to do a very good job, since we frequently observe individuals with obvious conflicts of interest occupying positions of leadership and power.

Continue to: In the United States another move...

For the various issues I have identified and for which critical objectivity is necessary, it is essential that our representative organizations assume a leading role, concentrate on fundamental issues, and set aside time-consuming projects of questionable importance. Among those projects I identity 3 important ones: The Joint Replacement Registry, The Orthopedic Guidelines, and Evidence-Based Orthopedics. The Joint Replacement Registry can wait, since its foundations as presented today are weak and based on the illusion that the alleged success of the Scandinavian Registries can be easily duplicated in this country. I envision that 15 years from now the only thing the Registry will give us is millions of pieces of data that were already available through the traditional methods of publications and other means of dissemination of information.⁹

The recent infatuation with The Orthopedic Guidelines may be a temporary success that will die before they reach maturity. It is a noble effort, since it proposes a mechanism by which to provide “advice” to orthopedic surgeons regarding the degree of benefit that various treatment approaches have to offer. The problem, as I see it, is that soon the “advice” will become, in the eyes of many, “dictates” to be followed. The fear of litigation for not following the “guidelines” could result in deprivation of the independence that is acquired from experience and lessons from others. We are not children in need of instructions regarding behavior. Rather than making changes with new but probably imperfect projects, we should emphasize the credibility of publications and oral presentations. The authors of the Guidelines are appointed individuals who, like all human beings, are afflicted with the innate biases and prejudices that make them see things according to their personal perceptions, and their views are not necessarily representative of ideal situations.¹⁰

Evidence-Based Orthopedics is another noble effort to improve matters. I find in this effort the same flaws I have identified with Registries and Guidelines. There is not yet any evidence to suggest that the profession will be helped from the time and expense they require. Any publication should be based on evidence; otherwise it should not be brought to the orthopedic community. Emphasizing credibility is more likely to be beneficial to the profession and to the people we represent. To have 2 different types of articles in our journals where some are based on evidence and others lack evidence does not make sense.

In summary, orthopedics is confronting situations that require critical objectivity as we search for solutions. Some of the situations I have tried to identify may not be “problems” but examples of normal evolution or transient developments that time alone would resolve. On the other hand, some others may be of a serious nature and require our involvement. To ignore them will bring about problems for the next generation who will wonder what precluded us from seeking answers before it was too late.

The genesis of the ongoing debate on healthcare is complex, in part because of the perceived flaws within the proposed systems. Denying the guilt that the medical profession has had is a disingenuous exercise in futility. In fact, orthopedics is possibly the most egregious among the culprits. Such a charge, supportable or not, calls for serious objective criticism.¹ No one would dare question the fact that from the orthopedic point of view, the cost of healthcare delivery is an important factor because of the critical level this issue has reached. The use of expensive technology and frequent surgery are of major importance.^2,3 However, I submit that it is not the high cost of the technology and surgical procedures per se but their frequent abuse.

As I look at orthopedics in an objective, critical manner, I have the uncomfortable feeling that the profession is rapidly becoming a business where greater and greater profit is its primary raison d’etre. The discipline has lost much of its traditional scientific/biological foundations, and is converting itself into a technical trade heavily controlled in its educational duties and the subsequent conduct of its members by industry. This metamorphous evolution has shown ill effects as demonstrated by the loss of traditional territory to other disciplines and a borderline ridiculous fragmentation into a multitude of subspecialties that contribute to the erosion of the profession. Orthopedics is no longer a solid eclectic body of knowledge and expertise in the care of musculoskeletal conditions, but a fragmented body of techniques independent of each other. This statement is not a criticism of fragmentation per se, because fragmentation in most human endeavors is a natural evolutionary phenomenon that occurs in virtually all walks of life, and to our profession it has brought much progress. My concerns are over the apparent exaggerated degree it has reached.⁴

The fragmentation and erosion of orthopedics took a relatively short time to occur without any evidence of concern among the orthopedic community, which apparently assumed that the advances made by other disciplines would not compromise the security and independence it had enjoyed for generations. The spectacular advances in joint replacement began to occupy a large segment of orthopedists’ professional time. The attractive reimbursement accompanying these procedures further justified the complacency regarding the shrinking of the discipline, while the previous outsiders expanded their territory. Critical objectivity of this issue is important in the event we decide to address the consequences of further erosion and fragmentation of our profession.

There should be no question that if all, or the overwhelming majority of, orthopedists become subspecialists who take care of only a limited number of pathological conditions, the cost of care will grow exponentially. The poor, regardless of the outcome of any legislation addressing their problems, will suffer most.

In small communities there are not enough patients with conditions requiring subspecialized orthopedic services to satisfy the emotional and economic needs of the fellowship-trained orthopedists. Other physicians and allied health practitioners will fill the void and provide the needed services. However, the facts facing us today suggest that if the current trends continue unabated, orthopedics as a distinct branch of medicine may not survive. Nonetheless, people in need of musculoskeletal care will receive it from a variety of medical and paramedical people, who will gradually develop skills and knowledge in a manner comparable to that possessed today by orthopedists.

Continue to: Of major significance...

Of major significance in the overall issue of critical objectivity is the unquestionable fact that orthopedics voluntarily relegated to the surgical implant industry the control of many of its traditional educational responsibilities to the point where, at present, it is assumed that educational programs cannot be conducted without the financial support of industry. Hundreds, if not thousands, of conferences; grand rounds; local, state, and regional society meetings; the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ (AAOS) annual meeting, and its many other educational activities take place with the financial support of industry. Such a dominance has placed the orthopedic profession in a relative subservient position, since the “generosity” provided by industry must be reciprocated. This explains the rapid and overwhelming favorable response given by the practitioners of the medical profession by seeming to accept whatever new products appear on the market. The issue has become even more complicated by the growing acceptance of kickbacks and perks for cooperation with the manufactures, simply for the use of the industrial products and assistance in advertising them.^5,6.

I have previously described episodes in which I was personally involved. The one I now describe consisted of a visit by an industrial representative who approached me during my tenure as Chairman of Orthopedics at the University of Southern California.¹ He offered me what he called “a very good deal” where I was to be given $200 for every one of his total joint implants I were to use, as well as from those used by any of the orthopedists working at any and all 5 hospitals affiliated with the department. I was to receive a monthly check at home, so no one else would be aware of the transactions. When I asked him what had prompted him to think I was a prostitute, all he could say was, “But Doctor Sarmiento, we do that all the time.”

I am certain that episodes of the nature of my experience occur every day of the week. Had it not been aware of their frequent occurrence, the United States Justice Department’s investigation of the “egregious unethical transgressions” and the “corruption in the relationship between the industry and orthopedics”, and the search for a solution would not have been initiated.⁶ What can we expect to come out of such investigations? As far as I am concerned, those who may have been accused unfairly, as well as the guilty ones, have probably stated that “all conflicts of interest have been resolved.” I insist that the orthopedic profession, and particularly its representative organizations, should stand up and, as loudly and clearly as possible, protest the despicable practice and bring about a cure for the festering ulcer.

The power of industry in controlling orthopedics has reached a previously unsuspected level. In a commentary I published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,⁷ I described an episode where a powerful industrial concern had prevented the release of a book I had written. The product had reached its final form in hardbound and softbound editions in English, as well as in Spanish. After much struggle to find out why at the last minute the marketing had not begun, I learned that an industrial firm had “convinced” the publishers to cancel the release of the book. Though I considered the litigation route, I realized that I did not have the financial resources for such a venture. I have experienced similar problems with other publishers in the past.⁷ When our representative organizations will seek involvement in this delicate issue and try to bring about a solution is as yet unknown.   

A fact influencing the decline of professionalism in our ranks is the now well-known lack of credibility in an increasing number of publications.⁸ Some respectable journals are making a serious effort to overcome the problem, but they realize how difficult it is to see the truth, since distorting data is not that difficult, and exposing the culprits is even more so. What possible solution can be structured to resolve this embarrassing situation? It is an issue of morality that cannot be legislated; however, it can be positively influenced by the example set for the younger generations, especially by our representative officers. Unfortunately, the latter group has failed to do a very good job, since we frequently observe individuals with obvious conflicts of interest occupying positions of leadership and power.

Continue to: In the United States another move...

For the various issues I have identified and for which critical objectivity is necessary, it is essential that our representative organizations assume a leading role, concentrate on fundamental issues, and set aside time-consuming projects of questionable importance. Among those projects I identity 3 important ones: The Joint Replacement Registry, The Orthopedic Guidelines, and Evidence-Based Orthopedics. The Joint Replacement Registry can wait, since its foundations as presented today are weak and based on the illusion that the alleged success of the Scandinavian Registries can be easily duplicated in this country. I envision that 15 years from now the only thing the Registry will give us is millions of pieces of data that were already available through the traditional methods of publications and other means of dissemination of information.⁹

The recent infatuation with The Orthopedic Guidelines may be a temporary success that will die before they reach maturity. It is a noble effort, since it proposes a mechanism by which to provide “advice” to orthopedic surgeons regarding the degree of benefit that various treatment approaches have to offer. The problem, as I see it, is that soon the “advice” will become, in the eyes of many, “dictates” to be followed. The fear of litigation for not following the “guidelines” could result in deprivation of the independence that is acquired from experience and lessons from others. We are not children in need of instructions regarding behavior. Rather than making changes with new but probably imperfect projects, we should emphasize the credibility of publications and oral presentations. The authors of the Guidelines are appointed individuals who, like all human beings, are afflicted with the innate biases and prejudices that make them see things according to their personal perceptions, and their views are not necessarily representative of ideal situations.¹⁰

Evidence-Based Orthopedics is another noble effort to improve matters. I find in this effort the same flaws I have identified with Registries and Guidelines. There is not yet any evidence to suggest that the profession will be helped from the time and expense they require. Any publication should be based on evidence; otherwise it should not be brought to the orthopedic community. Emphasizing credibility is more likely to be beneficial to the profession and to the people we represent. To have 2 different types of articles in our journals where some are based on evidence and others lack evidence does not make sense.

In summary, orthopedics is confronting situations that require critical objectivity as we search for solutions. Some of the situations I have tried to identify may not be “problems” but examples of normal evolution or transient developments that time alone would resolve. On the other hand, some others may be of a serious nature and require our involvement. To ignore them will bring about problems for the next generation who will wonder what precluded us from seeking answers before it was too late.

Collagen drinks and supplements have been getting a lot of buzz lately, from media advertisements and patients asking us about them. The question is, do they really do anything? Previously, most collagen supplements in the beauty industry came in the form of a topical cream or an injectable, with collagen being the main filler of choice before hyaluronic acid fillers became available. Today, collagen supplementation in the form of oral pills and drinks is rampant. These drinks and “vitamins” are purported to improve skin and provide a more youthful appearance, both from an immediate and preventative standpoint. Some of the drinks come from companies in Japan and beyond. According to market forecasts, the collagen supplement industry is anticipated to be worth $6.63 billion by 2025, up from $3.71 billion in 2016. An email advertisement this month from NewBeauty magazine claims one brand of collagen supplementation “with grape seed extract [as] an effective collagen drink for the skin.” Each 1.7 oz. bottle contains 13,000 mg of marine hydrolyzed collagen with six antiaging ingredients that – the ad claims – will help visibly transform your skin to a fuller, firmer, younger look in as soon as 21 days.

Diet absolutely plays a role in our overall health and skin appearance. But can these concentrated collagen drinks provide an increased benefit?

marekuliasz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Many questions about collagen drinks and supplementation remain to be answered. Photoprotection from an early age and a healthy diet that supports production of our bodies’ own natural collagen are the best measures for skin health. With the surplus of collagen drinks and supplements now on the market, objective studies should be conducted and are warranted to answer these question for ourselves and our patients.

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. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

Collagen drinks and supplements have been getting a lot of buzz lately, from media advertisements and patients asking us about them. The question is, do they really do anything? Previously, most collagen supplements in the beauty industry came in the form of a topical cream or an injectable, with collagen being the main filler of choice before hyaluronic acid fillers became available. Today, collagen supplementation in the form of oral pills and drinks is rampant. These drinks and “vitamins” are purported to improve skin and provide a more youthful appearance, both from an immediate and preventative standpoint. Some of the drinks come from companies in Japan and beyond. According to market forecasts, the collagen supplement industry is anticipated to be worth $6.63 billion by 2025, up from $3.71 billion in 2016. An email advertisement this month from NewBeauty magazine claims one brand of collagen supplementation “with grape seed extract [as] an effective collagen drink for the skin.” Each 1.7 oz. bottle contains 13,000 mg of marine hydrolyzed collagen with six antiaging ingredients that – the ad claims – will help visibly transform your skin to a fuller, firmer, younger look in as soon as 21 days.

Diet absolutely plays a role in our overall health and skin appearance. But can these concentrated collagen drinks provide an increased benefit?

marekuliasz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Many questions about collagen drinks and supplementation remain to be answered. Photoprotection from an early age and a healthy diet that supports production of our bodies’ own natural collagen are the best measures for skin health. With the surplus of collagen drinks and supplements now on the market, objective studies should be conducted and are warranted to answer these question for ourselves and our patients.

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. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

Collagen drinks and supplements have been getting a lot of buzz lately, from media advertisements and patients asking us about them. The question is, do they really do anything? Previously, most collagen supplements in the beauty industry came in the form of a topical cream or an injectable, with collagen being the main filler of choice before hyaluronic acid fillers became available. Today, collagen supplementation in the form of oral pills and drinks is rampant. These drinks and “vitamins” are purported to improve skin and provide a more youthful appearance, both from an immediate and preventative standpoint. Some of the drinks come from companies in Japan and beyond. According to market forecasts, the collagen supplement industry is anticipated to be worth $6.63 billion by 2025, up from $3.71 billion in 2016. An email advertisement this month from NewBeauty magazine claims one brand of collagen supplementation “with grape seed extract [as] an effective collagen drink for the skin.” Each 1.7 oz. bottle contains 13,000 mg of marine hydrolyzed collagen with six antiaging ingredients that – the ad claims – will help visibly transform your skin to a fuller, firmer, younger look in as soon as 21 days.

Diet absolutely plays a role in our overall health and skin appearance. But can these concentrated collagen drinks provide an increased benefit?

marekuliasz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Many questions about collagen drinks and supplementation remain to be answered. Photoprotection from an early age and a healthy diet that supports production of our bodies’ own natural collagen are the best measures for skin health. With the surplus of collagen drinks and supplements now on the market, objective studies should be conducted and are warranted to answer these question for ourselves and our patients.

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. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

Veterinarians and farmers have known it for decades. If you give a herd or flock antibiotics, its members grow better and have a better survival rate than an equivalent group of unmedicated animals. The economic benefits of administering antibiotics are so great that until very recently the practice has been the norm. However, the “everything organic” movement has begun to turn the tide as more consumers have become aware of the hazards inherent in the agricultural use of antibiotics.

Grigorev_Vladimir/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Veterinarians and farmers have known it for decades. If you give a herd or flock antibiotics, its members grow better and have a better survival rate than an equivalent group of unmedicated animals. The economic benefits of administering antibiotics are so great that until very recently the practice has been the norm. However, the “everything organic” movement has begun to turn the tide as more consumers have become aware of the hazards inherent in the agricultural use of antibiotics.

Grigorev_Vladimir/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Veterinarians and farmers have known it for decades. If you give a herd or flock antibiotics, its members grow better and have a better survival rate than an equivalent group of unmedicated animals. The economic benefits of administering antibiotics are so great that until very recently the practice has been the norm. However, the “everything organic” movement has begun to turn the tide as more consumers have become aware of the hazards inherent in the agricultural use of antibiotics.

Grigorev_Vladimir/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

When a patient fails to show up for his appointment, your reaction may run the gamut from elation to anger or land somewhere on the spectrum between concern and self-doubt. If you are overbooked and running behind with a waiting room that looks like a bus station at rush hour, an unexpectedly unfilled appointment slot can provide a much needed but all too brief respite. However, if the patient who no-shows is someone whom you have been worried about, you may wonder if he has slipped further into a debilitating depression. Or maybe he found a physician that he prefers?

If you keep your finger on the economic pulse of your practice, you know that the empty slot created when a patient no-shows is valuable time that is not generating any income. Your practice administrator may have sent a practice-wide email expressing concern about what she feels is an unacceptably high and economically unsustainable no-show rate. She already may have replaced your antiquated system using postcards and personal phone call reminders with preprogrammed emails and robo-calls.

If despite these high tech targeted reminders your no-show rate continues to be unacceptably high, the problem may be with how and when your office schedules appointments. When a parent or older patient calls with what she feels is an urgent or time-sensitive complaint, is she offered an appointment that satisfies her sense of urgency? She may agree to make an appointment but as soon as she hangs up may begin searching for another source of care and neglect to cancel the appointment with you when she finds a more timely response.

On the other hand, the patient’s problem may have resolved itself. With this in mind, I asked our receptionists to not make next-day appointments for a child with ear pain if for whatever reason the child was unable to come in for a same-day appointment. I knew from experience that ear pain often resolved and appointments weren’t kept or parents would cancel at the last minute. However, we guaranteed that if the child’s pain persisted we would see them immediately in the morning.

You may be muttering to yourself that you can’t possibly give every patient an appointment as soon as they would like to be seen. True. But aren’t there some patients who could be well served by a quick same-day appointment to allay their fear and sketch out a starting point for diagnosis and management at a later visit? A skillful and calming appointment secretary or nurse may be able to provide the same level of reassurance. But sometimes a short office visit is a more effective and efficient way to depressurize the situation and avoid a longer appointment that has a high likelihood of being no-showed or canceled.

DenGuy/iStock/Getty Images

The bottom line is that no-shows happen but when appointments are thoughtfully made the patients are more likely to keep them.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

When a patient fails to show up for his appointment, your reaction may run the gamut from elation to anger or land somewhere on the spectrum between concern and self-doubt. If you are overbooked and running behind with a waiting room that looks like a bus station at rush hour, an unexpectedly unfilled appointment slot can provide a much needed but all too brief respite. However, if the patient who no-shows is someone whom you have been worried about, you may wonder if he has slipped further into a debilitating depression. Or maybe he found a physician that he prefers?

If you keep your finger on the economic pulse of your practice, you know that the empty slot created when a patient no-shows is valuable time that is not generating any income. Your practice administrator may have sent a practice-wide email expressing concern about what she feels is an unacceptably high and economically unsustainable no-show rate. She already may have replaced your antiquated system using postcards and personal phone call reminders with preprogrammed emails and robo-calls.

If despite these high tech targeted reminders your no-show rate continues to be unacceptably high, the problem may be with how and when your office schedules appointments. When a parent or older patient calls with what she feels is an urgent or time-sensitive complaint, is she offered an appointment that satisfies her sense of urgency? She may agree to make an appointment but as soon as she hangs up may begin searching for another source of care and neglect to cancel the appointment with you when she finds a more timely response.

On the other hand, the patient’s problem may have resolved itself. With this in mind, I asked our receptionists to not make next-day appointments for a child with ear pain if for whatever reason the child was unable to come in for a same-day appointment. I knew from experience that ear pain often resolved and appointments weren’t kept or parents would cancel at the last minute. However, we guaranteed that if the child’s pain persisted we would see them immediately in the morning.

You may be muttering to yourself that you can’t possibly give every patient an appointment as soon as they would like to be seen. True. But aren’t there some patients who could be well served by a quick same-day appointment to allay their fear and sketch out a starting point for diagnosis and management at a later visit? A skillful and calming appointment secretary or nurse may be able to provide the same level of reassurance. But sometimes a short office visit is a more effective and efficient way to depressurize the situation and avoid a longer appointment that has a high likelihood of being no-showed or canceled.

DenGuy/iStock/Getty Images

The bottom line is that no-shows happen but when appointments are thoughtfully made the patients are more likely to keep them.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

When a patient fails to show up for his appointment, your reaction may run the gamut from elation to anger or land somewhere on the spectrum between concern and self-doubt. If you are overbooked and running behind with a waiting room that looks like a bus station at rush hour, an unexpectedly unfilled appointment slot can provide a much needed but all too brief respite. However, if the patient who no-shows is someone whom you have been worried about, you may wonder if he has slipped further into a debilitating depression. Or maybe he found a physician that he prefers?

If you keep your finger on the economic pulse of your practice, you know that the empty slot created when a patient no-shows is valuable time that is not generating any income. Your practice administrator may have sent a practice-wide email expressing concern about what she feels is an unacceptably high and economically unsustainable no-show rate. She already may have replaced your antiquated system using postcards and personal phone call reminders with preprogrammed emails and robo-calls.

If despite these high tech targeted reminders your no-show rate continues to be unacceptably high, the problem may be with how and when your office schedules appointments. When a parent or older patient calls with what she feels is an urgent or time-sensitive complaint, is she offered an appointment that satisfies her sense of urgency? She may agree to make an appointment but as soon as she hangs up may begin searching for another source of care and neglect to cancel the appointment with you when she finds a more timely response.

On the other hand, the patient’s problem may have resolved itself. With this in mind, I asked our receptionists to not make next-day appointments for a child with ear pain if for whatever reason the child was unable to come in for a same-day appointment. I knew from experience that ear pain often resolved and appointments weren’t kept or parents would cancel at the last minute. However, we guaranteed that if the child’s pain persisted we would see them immediately in the morning.

You may be muttering to yourself that you can’t possibly give every patient an appointment as soon as they would like to be seen. True. But aren’t there some patients who could be well served by a quick same-day appointment to allay their fear and sketch out a starting point for diagnosis and management at a later visit? A skillful and calming appointment secretary or nurse may be able to provide the same level of reassurance. But sometimes a short office visit is a more effective and efficient way to depressurize the situation and avoid a longer appointment that has a high likelihood of being no-showed or canceled.

DenGuy/iStock/Getty Images

The bottom line is that no-shows happen but when appointments are thoughtfully made the patients are more likely to keep them.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock

Like everyone in the arc of social media impact, I was shocked and terribly saddened by the recent suicides of two New York women in medicine – a final-year medical student on May 1 and a second-year resident on May 5. As a specialist in physician health, a former training director, a long-standing member of our institution’s medical student admissions committee, and the ombudsman for our medical students, I am finding these tragedies harder and harder to reconcile. Something isn’t working. But before I get to that, what follows is a bulleted list of some events of the past couple of weeks that may give a context for my statements and have informed my two recommendations.

• May 3, 2018: I give an invited GI grand rounds on stress, burnout, depression, and suicide in physicians. The residents are quiet and say nothing. Faculty members seem only concerned about preventing and eradicating burnout – and not that interested in anything more severe.
• May 5: A psychiatry resident from Melbourne arrives to spend 10 days with me to do an elective in physician health. As in the United States, there is a significant suicide death rate in medical students and residents Down Under. In the afternoon, I present a paper at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychodynamic Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis on the use of psychotherapy in treatment-resistant suicidal depression in physicians. There is increasing hope that this essential modality of care will return to the contemporary psychiatrist’s toolbox.
• May 6: At the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in New York, I’m the discussant for powerful heartfelt papers of five psychiatrists (mostly early career psychiatrists and one resident) that talked about living with a psychiatric illness. The audience is huge, and we hear narratives about internal stigma, self-disclosure, external stigma, shunning, bullying, acceptance, rejection, alienation, connection, and love by peers and family. The authenticity and valor of the speakers create an atmosphere of safety, which enables psychiatrists in attendance from all over the world to share their personal stories – some at the microphone, some privately.
• May 7: Again at the APA, I chair and facilitate a workshop on physician suicide. We hear from four speakers, all women, who have lost a loved one to suicide – a husband, a father, a brother, a son – all doctors. Two of the speakers are psychiatrists. The stories are gripping, detailed, and tender. Yes, the atmosphere is very sad, but there is not a pall. We learn how these doctors lived, not just how they died. They all loved medicine; they were creative; they cared deeply; they suffered silently; and with shame, they lost hope. Again, a big audience of psychiatrists, many of whom share their own stories, that they, too, had lost a physician son, wife, or mother to suicide. Some of their deceased family members fell through the cracks and did not receive the life-saving care they deserved; some, fearing assaults to their medical license, hospital privileges, or insurance, refused to see anyone. They died untreated.
• May 8: Still at the APA, a psychiatrist colleague and I collaborate on a clinical case conference. Each of us describes losing a physician patient to suicide. We walk the attendees through the clinical details of assessment, treatment, and the aftermath of their deaths. We talk openly and frankly about our feelings, grief, outreach to colleagues and the family, and our own personal journeys of learning, growth, and healing. The clinician audience members give constructive feedback, and some share their own stories of losing patients to suicide. Like the day before, some psychiatrists are grieving the loss of a physician son or sibling to suicide. As mental health professionals, they suffer from an additional layer of failure and guilt that a loved one died “under their watch.”
• May 8: I rush across the Javits Center to catch the discussant for a concurrent symposium on physician burnout and depression. She foregoes any prepared remarks to share her previous 48 hours with the audience. She is the training director of the program that lost the second-year resident on May 5. She did not learn of the death until 24 hours later. We are all on the edge of our seats as we listen to this grieving, courageous woman, a seasoned psychiatrist and educator, who has been blindsided by this tragedy. She has not slept. She called all of her residents and broke the news personally as best she could. Aided by “After A Suicide: A Toolkit for Residency/Fellowship Programs” (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention), she and her colleagues instituted a plan of action and worked with administration and faculty. Her strength and commitment to the well-being of her trainees is palpable and magnanimous. When the session ends, many of us stand in line to give her a hug. It is a stark reminder of how many lives are affected when someone you know or care about takes his/her own life – and how, in the house of medicine, medical students and residents really are part of an institutional family.
• May 10: I facilitate a meeting of our 12 second-year residents, many of whom knew of or had met the resident who died. Almost everyone speaks, shares their feelings, poses questions, and calls for answers and change. There is disbelief, sadness, confusion, some guilt, and lots of anger. Also a feeling of disillusionment or paradox about the field of psychiatry: “Of all branches of medicine, shouldn’t residents who are struggling with psychiatric issues feel safe, protected, cared for in psychiatry?” There is also a feeling of lip service being paid to personal treatment, as in quoted statements: “By all means, get treatment for your issues, but don’t let it encroach on your duty hours” or “It’s good you’re getting help, but do you still have to go weekly?”

In the immediate aftermath of suicide, feelings run high, as they should. But rather than wait it out – and fearing a return to “business as usual” – let me make only two suggestions:

Dr. Myers is a professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and the author of “Why Physicians Die by Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”
 

Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock

Like everyone in the arc of social media impact, I was shocked and terribly saddened by the recent suicides of two New York women in medicine – a final-year medical student on May 1 and a second-year resident on May 5. As a specialist in physician health, a former training director, a long-standing member of our institution’s medical student admissions committee, and the ombudsman for our medical students, I am finding these tragedies harder and harder to reconcile. Something isn’t working. But before I get to that, what follows is a bulleted list of some events of the past couple of weeks that may give a context for my statements and have informed my two recommendations.

• May 3, 2018: I give an invited GI grand rounds on stress, burnout, depression, and suicide in physicians. The residents are quiet and say nothing. Faculty members seem only concerned about preventing and eradicating burnout – and not that interested in anything more severe.
• May 5: A psychiatry resident from Melbourne arrives to spend 10 days with me to do an elective in physician health. As in the United States, there is a significant suicide death rate in medical students and residents Down Under. In the afternoon, I present a paper at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychodynamic Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis on the use of psychotherapy in treatment-resistant suicidal depression in physicians. There is increasing hope that this essential modality of care will return to the contemporary psychiatrist’s toolbox.
• May 6: At the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in New York, I’m the discussant for powerful heartfelt papers of five psychiatrists (mostly early career psychiatrists and one resident) that talked about living with a psychiatric illness. The audience is huge, and we hear narratives about internal stigma, self-disclosure, external stigma, shunning, bullying, acceptance, rejection, alienation, connection, and love by peers and family. The authenticity and valor of the speakers create an atmosphere of safety, which enables psychiatrists in attendance from all over the world to share their personal stories – some at the microphone, some privately.
• May 7: Again at the APA, I chair and facilitate a workshop on physician suicide. We hear from four speakers, all women, who have lost a loved one to suicide – a husband, a father, a brother, a son – all doctors. Two of the speakers are psychiatrists. The stories are gripping, detailed, and tender. Yes, the atmosphere is very sad, but there is not a pall. We learn how these doctors lived, not just how they died. They all loved medicine; they were creative; they cared deeply; they suffered silently; and with shame, they lost hope. Again, a big audience of psychiatrists, many of whom share their own stories, that they, too, had lost a physician son, wife, or mother to suicide. Some of their deceased family members fell through the cracks and did not receive the life-saving care they deserved; some, fearing assaults to their medical license, hospital privileges, or insurance, refused to see anyone. They died untreated.
• May 8: Still at the APA, a psychiatrist colleague and I collaborate on a clinical case conference. Each of us describes losing a physician patient to suicide. We walk the attendees through the clinical details of assessment, treatment, and the aftermath of their deaths. We talk openly and frankly about our feelings, grief, outreach to colleagues and the family, and our own personal journeys of learning, growth, and healing. The clinician audience members give constructive feedback, and some share their own stories of losing patients to suicide. Like the day before, some psychiatrists are grieving the loss of a physician son or sibling to suicide. As mental health professionals, they suffer from an additional layer of failure and guilt that a loved one died “under their watch.”
• May 8: I rush across the Javits Center to catch the discussant for a concurrent symposium on physician burnout and depression. She foregoes any prepared remarks to share her previous 48 hours with the audience. She is the training director of the program that lost the second-year resident on May 5. She did not learn of the death until 24 hours later. We are all on the edge of our seats as we listen to this grieving, courageous woman, a seasoned psychiatrist and educator, who has been blindsided by this tragedy. She has not slept. She called all of her residents and broke the news personally as best she could. Aided by “After A Suicide: A Toolkit for Residency/Fellowship Programs” (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention), she and her colleagues instituted a plan of action and worked with administration and faculty. Her strength and commitment to the well-being of her trainees is palpable and magnanimous. When the session ends, many of us stand in line to give her a hug. It is a stark reminder of how many lives are affected when someone you know or care about takes his/her own life – and how, in the house of medicine, medical students and residents really are part of an institutional family.
• May 10: I facilitate a meeting of our 12 second-year residents, many of whom knew of or had met the resident who died. Almost everyone speaks, shares their feelings, poses questions, and calls for answers and change. There is disbelief, sadness, confusion, some guilt, and lots of anger. Also a feeling of disillusionment or paradox about the field of psychiatry: “Of all branches of medicine, shouldn’t residents who are struggling with psychiatric issues feel safe, protected, cared for in psychiatry?” There is also a feeling of lip service being paid to personal treatment, as in quoted statements: “By all means, get treatment for your issues, but don’t let it encroach on your duty hours” or “It’s good you’re getting help, but do you still have to go weekly?”

In the immediate aftermath of suicide, feelings run high, as they should. But rather than wait it out – and fearing a return to “business as usual” – let me make only two suggestions:

Dr. Myers is a professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and the author of “Why Physicians Die by Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”
 

Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock

Like everyone in the arc of social media impact, I was shocked and terribly saddened by the recent suicides of two New York women in medicine – a final-year medical student on May 1 and a second-year resident on May 5. As a specialist in physician health, a former training director, a long-standing member of our institution’s medical student admissions committee, and the ombudsman for our medical students, I am finding these tragedies harder and harder to reconcile. Something isn’t working. But before I get to that, what follows is a bulleted list of some events of the past couple of weeks that may give a context for my statements and have informed my two recommendations.

• May 3, 2018: I give an invited GI grand rounds on stress, burnout, depression, and suicide in physicians. The residents are quiet and say nothing. Faculty members seem only concerned about preventing and eradicating burnout – and not that interested in anything more severe.
• May 5: A psychiatry resident from Melbourne arrives to spend 10 days with me to do an elective in physician health. As in the United States, there is a significant suicide death rate in medical students and residents Down Under. In the afternoon, I present a paper at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychodynamic Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis on the use of psychotherapy in treatment-resistant suicidal depression in physicians. There is increasing hope that this essential modality of care will return to the contemporary psychiatrist’s toolbox.
• May 6: At the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in New York, I’m the discussant for powerful heartfelt papers of five psychiatrists (mostly early career psychiatrists and one resident) that talked about living with a psychiatric illness. The audience is huge, and we hear narratives about internal stigma, self-disclosure, external stigma, shunning, bullying, acceptance, rejection, alienation, connection, and love by peers and family. The authenticity and valor of the speakers create an atmosphere of safety, which enables psychiatrists in attendance from all over the world to share their personal stories – some at the microphone, some privately.
• May 7: Again at the APA, I chair and facilitate a workshop on physician suicide. We hear from four speakers, all women, who have lost a loved one to suicide – a husband, a father, a brother, a son – all doctors. Two of the speakers are psychiatrists. The stories are gripping, detailed, and tender. Yes, the atmosphere is very sad, but there is not a pall. We learn how these doctors lived, not just how they died. They all loved medicine; they were creative; they cared deeply; they suffered silently; and with shame, they lost hope. Again, a big audience of psychiatrists, many of whom share their own stories, that they, too, had lost a physician son, wife, or mother to suicide. Some of their deceased family members fell through the cracks and did not receive the life-saving care they deserved; some, fearing assaults to their medical license, hospital privileges, or insurance, refused to see anyone. They died untreated.
• May 8: Still at the APA, a psychiatrist colleague and I collaborate on a clinical case conference. Each of us describes losing a physician patient to suicide. We walk the attendees through the clinical details of assessment, treatment, and the aftermath of their deaths. We talk openly and frankly about our feelings, grief, outreach to colleagues and the family, and our own personal journeys of learning, growth, and healing. The clinician audience members give constructive feedback, and some share their own stories of losing patients to suicide. Like the day before, some psychiatrists are grieving the loss of a physician son or sibling to suicide. As mental health professionals, they suffer from an additional layer of failure and guilt that a loved one died “under their watch.”
• May 8: I rush across the Javits Center to catch the discussant for a concurrent symposium on physician burnout and depression. She foregoes any prepared remarks to share her previous 48 hours with the audience. She is the training director of the program that lost the second-year resident on May 5. She did not learn of the death until 24 hours later. We are all on the edge of our seats as we listen to this grieving, courageous woman, a seasoned psychiatrist and educator, who has been blindsided by this tragedy. She has not slept. She called all of her residents and broke the news personally as best she could. Aided by “After A Suicide: A Toolkit for Residency/Fellowship Programs” (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention), she and her colleagues instituted a plan of action and worked with administration and faculty. Her strength and commitment to the well-being of her trainees is palpable and magnanimous. When the session ends, many of us stand in line to give her a hug. It is a stark reminder of how many lives are affected when someone you know or care about takes his/her own life – and how, in the house of medicine, medical students and residents really are part of an institutional family.
• May 10: I facilitate a meeting of our 12 second-year residents, many of whom knew of or had met the resident who died. Almost everyone speaks, shares their feelings, poses questions, and calls for answers and change. There is disbelief, sadness, confusion, some guilt, and lots of anger. Also a feeling of disillusionment or paradox about the field of psychiatry: “Of all branches of medicine, shouldn’t residents who are struggling with psychiatric issues feel safe, protected, cared for in psychiatry?” There is also a feeling of lip service being paid to personal treatment, as in quoted statements: “By all means, get treatment for your issues, but don’t let it encroach on your duty hours” or “It’s good you’re getting help, but do you still have to go weekly?”

In the immediate aftermath of suicide, feelings run high, as they should. But rather than wait it out – and fearing a return to “business as usual” – let me make only two suggestions:

Dr. Myers is a professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and the author of “Why Physicians Die by Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”
 

Many of you reading this column joined Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) sometime between 2011 and 2016. As the power of prevention, wellness, and the medical home model are starting to be realized and appreciated, those benefits may be swamped by two new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services value-based revenue streams that did not exist when many of you first joined your ACO.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) was passed in 2015 and is just now being implemented. Value-based, fee-for-service payments started out rather modestly a few years ago as chronic care management codes, but they have exploded to include more than 20 codes, counting the new ones coming online in 2018. Let’s call them collectively value-based care codes, or VCCs.

There’s a wide range of primary care physicians who are seizing opportunities offered by VCCs.

A family physician friend of mine who practices in a rural area generated more than 50% of his revenue from value-based care coding last year. And he has personally generated more than $350,000 in additional annual revenue, not counting the revenue from additional medically necessary procedures revealed by this more proactive wellness assessment activity and early diagnoses.

On the other hand, because busy physicians have a hard time wading through all these regulations and implementing the required staff and technology changes, it is reported that only about 8% of physicians are employing even the chronic care management codes. And when they do, they only achieve an 18% eligible patient penetration. My friend has broken the code, so to speak; he has protocolized and templated the process, has happy patients, has an ongoing 93% penetration rate, and actually has more free time.

While you are busy saving lives, I have had the luxury of looking from a high level at these tectonic, value-based payment shifts. To me, it’s a no-brainer for a primary care physician to leverage their ACO to maximize all three revenue streams. Look at MACRA MIPS, MIPS-APM, and AAPM measures anew, and see how well they play into integrated care.

As quarterback of health care through the patient-centered medical home, you are in great position to drive substantial bonuses. Similarly, when one looks at VCCs, the ACO can: help you navigate through the paperwork, perform much of the required reporting, and select the highest value-adding initiatives to monitor and drive higher quality and shared savings for the ACO.

As readers know, we firmly believe that, to have sustained incentivization, every ACO needs to have a merit-based, shared savings distribution formula. Accordingly, your compensation should rise under MACRA, VCCs, and the ACO.

This shift to value care is hard. But your colleagues who have made these changes are enjoying practice as never before. Their professional and financial rewards have climbed. But, most important, their patients love it.

Mr. Bobbitt is head of the health law group at the Smith Anderson law firm in Raleigh, N.C. He is president of Value Health Partners, a health care strategic consulting company. He has years of experience assisting physicians form integrated delivery systems. He has spoken and written nationally to primary care physicians on the strategies and practicalities of forming or joining ACOs. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected] or 919-821-6612.

Many of you reading this column joined Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) sometime between 2011 and 2016. As the power of prevention, wellness, and the medical home model are starting to be realized and appreciated, those benefits may be swamped by two new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services value-based revenue streams that did not exist when many of you first joined your ACO.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) was passed in 2015 and is just now being implemented. Value-based, fee-for-service payments started out rather modestly a few years ago as chronic care management codes, but they have exploded to include more than 20 codes, counting the new ones coming online in 2018. Let’s call them collectively value-based care codes, or VCCs.

There’s a wide range of primary care physicians who are seizing opportunities offered by VCCs.

A family physician friend of mine who practices in a rural area generated more than 50% of his revenue from value-based care coding last year. And he has personally generated more than $350,000 in additional annual revenue, not counting the revenue from additional medically necessary procedures revealed by this more proactive wellness assessment activity and early diagnoses.

On the other hand, because busy physicians have a hard time wading through all these regulations and implementing the required staff and technology changes, it is reported that only about 8% of physicians are employing even the chronic care management codes. And when they do, they only achieve an 18% eligible patient penetration. My friend has broken the code, so to speak; he has protocolized and templated the process, has happy patients, has an ongoing 93% penetration rate, and actually has more free time.

While you are busy saving lives, I have had the luxury of looking from a high level at these tectonic, value-based payment shifts. To me, it’s a no-brainer for a primary care physician to leverage their ACO to maximize all three revenue streams. Look at MACRA MIPS, MIPS-APM, and AAPM measures anew, and see how well they play into integrated care.

As quarterback of health care through the patient-centered medical home, you are in great position to drive substantial bonuses. Similarly, when one looks at VCCs, the ACO can: help you navigate through the paperwork, perform much of the required reporting, and select the highest value-adding initiatives to monitor and drive higher quality and shared savings for the ACO.

As readers know, we firmly believe that, to have sustained incentivization, every ACO needs to have a merit-based, shared savings distribution formula. Accordingly, your compensation should rise under MACRA, VCCs, and the ACO.

This shift to value care is hard. But your colleagues who have made these changes are enjoying practice as never before. Their professional and financial rewards have climbed. But, most important, their patients love it.

Mr. Bobbitt is head of the health law group at the Smith Anderson law firm in Raleigh, N.C. He is president of Value Health Partners, a health care strategic consulting company. He has years of experience assisting physicians form integrated delivery systems. He has spoken and written nationally to primary care physicians on the strategies and practicalities of forming or joining ACOs. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected] or 919-821-6612.

Many of you reading this column joined Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) sometime between 2011 and 2016. As the power of prevention, wellness, and the medical home model are starting to be realized and appreciated, those benefits may be swamped by two new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services value-based revenue streams that did not exist when many of you first joined your ACO.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) was passed in 2015 and is just now being implemented. Value-based, fee-for-service payments started out rather modestly a few years ago as chronic care management codes, but they have exploded to include more than 20 codes, counting the new ones coming online in 2018. Let’s call them collectively value-based care codes, or VCCs.

There’s a wide range of primary care physicians who are seizing opportunities offered by VCCs.

A family physician friend of mine who practices in a rural area generated more than 50% of his revenue from value-based care coding last year. And he has personally generated more than $350,000 in additional annual revenue, not counting the revenue from additional medically necessary procedures revealed by this more proactive wellness assessment activity and early diagnoses.

On the other hand, because busy physicians have a hard time wading through all these regulations and implementing the required staff and technology changes, it is reported that only about 8% of physicians are employing even the chronic care management codes. And when they do, they only achieve an 18% eligible patient penetration. My friend has broken the code, so to speak; he has protocolized and templated the process, has happy patients, has an ongoing 93% penetration rate, and actually has more free time.

While you are busy saving lives, I have had the luxury of looking from a high level at these tectonic, value-based payment shifts. To me, it’s a no-brainer for a primary care physician to leverage their ACO to maximize all three revenue streams. Look at MACRA MIPS, MIPS-APM, and AAPM measures anew, and see how well they play into integrated care.

As quarterback of health care through the patient-centered medical home, you are in great position to drive substantial bonuses. Similarly, when one looks at VCCs, the ACO can: help you navigate through the paperwork, perform much of the required reporting, and select the highest value-adding initiatives to monitor and drive higher quality and shared savings for the ACO.

As readers know, we firmly believe that, to have sustained incentivization, every ACO needs to have a merit-based, shared savings distribution formula. Accordingly, your compensation should rise under MACRA, VCCs, and the ACO.

This shift to value care is hard. But your colleagues who have made these changes are enjoying practice as never before. Their professional and financial rewards have climbed. But, most important, their patients love it.

Mr. Bobbitt is head of the health law group at the Smith Anderson law firm in Raleigh, N.C. He is president of Value Health Partners, a health care strategic consulting company. He has years of experience assisting physicians form integrated delivery systems. He has spoken and written nationally to primary care physicians on the strategies and practicalities of forming or joining ACOs. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected] or 919-821-6612.