User login
The Simple Change That Can Improve Patient Satisfaction
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.
This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.
We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.
We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.
There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.
I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”
It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.
What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.
In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.
The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.
This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.
It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.
I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.
I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.
For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.
Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.
This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.
We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.
We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.
There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.
I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”
It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.
What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.
In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.
The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.
This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.
It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.
I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.
I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.
For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.
Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.
This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.
We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.
We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.
There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.
I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”
It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.
What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.
In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.
The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.
This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.
It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.
I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.
I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.
For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.
Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
What Do Sex Therapists Do? (Hint: It’s Not What You Think)
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: We are here at the Harvard Continuing Medical Education Course in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about testosterone therapy and sexual medicine. I have with me today the wonderful Dr. Marianne Brandon, who is an amazing sex therapist. Could you introduce yourself?
Marianne Brandon, PhD: I am a clinical psychologist and sex therapist. I’ve been in practice for more than 25 years. I’m currently located in Sarasota. I have a Psychology Today blog called The Future of Intimacy, which I have a lot of fun with.
Dr. Rubin: It’s very important, when taking care of patients, that we work in a biopsychosocial model. Yes, we can fix erectile dysfunction. We can help with menopause symptoms and that helps sexual function. But what I find makes my patients able to live their best lives is when they have a team, including a mental health professional — often a sex therapist or a couples’ therapist — where they can learn communication skills. Why is it important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about sex? My primary care doctor has never asked me about sex.
Dr. Brandon: People have more struggles than you realize. Sexual dysfunction correlates with emotional issues such as depression and anxiety, with medical problems, and with medication use. Chances are that your patients have some kind of sexual concern, even if that’s not to the degree that it would be classified as a sexual dysfunction.
But sexual concerns wreak havoc. Believing they have a sexual problem, they stop touching, they stop relating to their partner. It becomes a really big deal in their lives. If you can open the door for a conversation about sex with your patients, it could do them a great deal of good. It’s also good for the practitioner, because if your patients think they can talk with you about anything, that’s going to establish your relationship with them. Practitioners avoid these conversations because they don’t have the time or the training to offer help.
Dr. Rubin: You don’t have to know all the answers. You just have to show empathy and compassion and say, “I hear you.” That’s the magic in the doctor-patient relationship. We refer patients to specialists when we don’t know what to do. What happens when I send a patient to a sex therapist? Do they watch them have sex? Of course not, but everyone thinks that is what sex therapists do.
Dr. Brandon: Sex therapy is just like any other type of therapy, but we discuss sexual issues. And because just about anything that’s happening in your patient’s life can trickle down into the bedroom, we end up talking about a lot of stuff that’s not directly related to sex but ultimately impacts the patient’s sex life.
Dr. Rubin: It’s true. Most medical conditions that we treat — from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity to depression and anxiety — are strongly correlated with sexual health. We treat the underlying condition, but our patients don’t care about their A1c levels. They care about the fact that they cannot get aroused; their genitals don’t feel the same way they used to.
Dr. Brandon: I love that point because people make meaning out of their sexual concerns and dysfunction. Suddenly their body isn’t responding the way it used to. They think something’s wrong with them, or maybe they are with the wrong partner. This meaning becomes very powerful in their mind and perpetuates the sexual problem.
Dr. Rubin: First and foremost, we are educators. We can say, “You have pretty out-of-control diabetes,” or, “You’re a smoker, which can affect the health of your genitals. Have you noticed any issues going on there?” If you don’t ask, patients will not bring up their concerns with their doctors.
So how do people find a sex therapist?
Dr. Brandon: There are a few fabulous organizations that provide on their websites ways to find a therapist: the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) and Sex Therapy and Research (STAR). Giving patients this information is a huge intervention.
Other places to find a therapist include the International Society for Sexual Medicine, and the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health.
Since COVID, many therapists have gone virtual. Encourage your patients to look within their states to find options for therapists and psychologists. Recent legislation allows psychologists who have signed up for PSYPACT to practice almost throughout the entire United States. We used to think if we didn’t have a therapist in the community, we couldn’t make a referral. That›s not the case anymore.
Dr. Rubin: All doctors are really sexual medicine doctors. We can change the whole world by giving our patients a better quality of life.
Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, disclosed ties to Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: We are here at the Harvard Continuing Medical Education Course in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about testosterone therapy and sexual medicine. I have with me today the wonderful Dr. Marianne Brandon, who is an amazing sex therapist. Could you introduce yourself?
Marianne Brandon, PhD: I am a clinical psychologist and sex therapist. I’ve been in practice for more than 25 years. I’m currently located in Sarasota. I have a Psychology Today blog called The Future of Intimacy, which I have a lot of fun with.
Dr. Rubin: It’s very important, when taking care of patients, that we work in a biopsychosocial model. Yes, we can fix erectile dysfunction. We can help with menopause symptoms and that helps sexual function. But what I find makes my patients able to live their best lives is when they have a team, including a mental health professional — often a sex therapist or a couples’ therapist — where they can learn communication skills. Why is it important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about sex? My primary care doctor has never asked me about sex.
Dr. Brandon: People have more struggles than you realize. Sexual dysfunction correlates with emotional issues such as depression and anxiety, with medical problems, and with medication use. Chances are that your patients have some kind of sexual concern, even if that’s not to the degree that it would be classified as a sexual dysfunction.
But sexual concerns wreak havoc. Believing they have a sexual problem, they stop touching, they stop relating to their partner. It becomes a really big deal in their lives. If you can open the door for a conversation about sex with your patients, it could do them a great deal of good. It’s also good for the practitioner, because if your patients think they can talk with you about anything, that’s going to establish your relationship with them. Practitioners avoid these conversations because they don’t have the time or the training to offer help.
Dr. Rubin: You don’t have to know all the answers. You just have to show empathy and compassion and say, “I hear you.” That’s the magic in the doctor-patient relationship. We refer patients to specialists when we don’t know what to do. What happens when I send a patient to a sex therapist? Do they watch them have sex? Of course not, but everyone thinks that is what sex therapists do.
Dr. Brandon: Sex therapy is just like any other type of therapy, but we discuss sexual issues. And because just about anything that’s happening in your patient’s life can trickle down into the bedroom, we end up talking about a lot of stuff that’s not directly related to sex but ultimately impacts the patient’s sex life.
Dr. Rubin: It’s true. Most medical conditions that we treat — from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity to depression and anxiety — are strongly correlated with sexual health. We treat the underlying condition, but our patients don’t care about their A1c levels. They care about the fact that they cannot get aroused; their genitals don’t feel the same way they used to.
Dr. Brandon: I love that point because people make meaning out of their sexual concerns and dysfunction. Suddenly their body isn’t responding the way it used to. They think something’s wrong with them, or maybe they are with the wrong partner. This meaning becomes very powerful in their mind and perpetuates the sexual problem.
Dr. Rubin: First and foremost, we are educators. We can say, “You have pretty out-of-control diabetes,” or, “You’re a smoker, which can affect the health of your genitals. Have you noticed any issues going on there?” If you don’t ask, patients will not bring up their concerns with their doctors.
So how do people find a sex therapist?
Dr. Brandon: There are a few fabulous organizations that provide on their websites ways to find a therapist: the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) and Sex Therapy and Research (STAR). Giving patients this information is a huge intervention.
Other places to find a therapist include the International Society for Sexual Medicine, and the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health.
Since COVID, many therapists have gone virtual. Encourage your patients to look within their states to find options for therapists and psychologists. Recent legislation allows psychologists who have signed up for PSYPACT to practice almost throughout the entire United States. We used to think if we didn’t have a therapist in the community, we couldn’t make a referral. That›s not the case anymore.
Dr. Rubin: All doctors are really sexual medicine doctors. We can change the whole world by giving our patients a better quality of life.
Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, disclosed ties to Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: We are here at the Harvard Continuing Medical Education Course in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about testosterone therapy and sexual medicine. I have with me today the wonderful Dr. Marianne Brandon, who is an amazing sex therapist. Could you introduce yourself?
Marianne Brandon, PhD: I am a clinical psychologist and sex therapist. I’ve been in practice for more than 25 years. I’m currently located in Sarasota. I have a Psychology Today blog called The Future of Intimacy, which I have a lot of fun with.
Dr. Rubin: It’s very important, when taking care of patients, that we work in a biopsychosocial model. Yes, we can fix erectile dysfunction. We can help with menopause symptoms and that helps sexual function. But what I find makes my patients able to live their best lives is when they have a team, including a mental health professional — often a sex therapist or a couples’ therapist — where they can learn communication skills. Why is it important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about sex? My primary care doctor has never asked me about sex.
Dr. Brandon: People have more struggles than you realize. Sexual dysfunction correlates with emotional issues such as depression and anxiety, with medical problems, and with medication use. Chances are that your patients have some kind of sexual concern, even if that’s not to the degree that it would be classified as a sexual dysfunction.
But sexual concerns wreak havoc. Believing they have a sexual problem, they stop touching, they stop relating to their partner. It becomes a really big deal in their lives. If you can open the door for a conversation about sex with your patients, it could do them a great deal of good. It’s also good for the practitioner, because if your patients think they can talk with you about anything, that’s going to establish your relationship with them. Practitioners avoid these conversations because they don’t have the time or the training to offer help.
Dr. Rubin: You don’t have to know all the answers. You just have to show empathy and compassion and say, “I hear you.” That’s the magic in the doctor-patient relationship. We refer patients to specialists when we don’t know what to do. What happens when I send a patient to a sex therapist? Do they watch them have sex? Of course not, but everyone thinks that is what sex therapists do.
Dr. Brandon: Sex therapy is just like any other type of therapy, but we discuss sexual issues. And because just about anything that’s happening in your patient’s life can trickle down into the bedroom, we end up talking about a lot of stuff that’s not directly related to sex but ultimately impacts the patient’s sex life.
Dr. Rubin: It’s true. Most medical conditions that we treat — from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity to depression and anxiety — are strongly correlated with sexual health. We treat the underlying condition, but our patients don’t care about their A1c levels. They care about the fact that they cannot get aroused; their genitals don’t feel the same way they used to.
Dr. Brandon: I love that point because people make meaning out of their sexual concerns and dysfunction. Suddenly their body isn’t responding the way it used to. They think something’s wrong with them, or maybe they are with the wrong partner. This meaning becomes very powerful in their mind and perpetuates the sexual problem.
Dr. Rubin: First and foremost, we are educators. We can say, “You have pretty out-of-control diabetes,” or, “You’re a smoker, which can affect the health of your genitals. Have you noticed any issues going on there?” If you don’t ask, patients will not bring up their concerns with their doctors.
So how do people find a sex therapist?
Dr. Brandon: There are a few fabulous organizations that provide on their websites ways to find a therapist: the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) and Sex Therapy and Research (STAR). Giving patients this information is a huge intervention.
Other places to find a therapist include the International Society for Sexual Medicine, and the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health.
Since COVID, many therapists have gone virtual. Encourage your patients to look within their states to find options for therapists and psychologists. Recent legislation allows psychologists who have signed up for PSYPACT to practice almost throughout the entire United States. We used to think if we didn’t have a therapist in the community, we couldn’t make a referral. That›s not the case anymore.
Dr. Rubin: All doctors are really sexual medicine doctors. We can change the whole world by giving our patients a better quality of life.
Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, disclosed ties to Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Drug Approvals Are the Wrong Metric for Cancer Policy
How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?
It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?
One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.
I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success.
Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.
Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.
However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.
When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.
This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.
In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.
Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.
Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.
When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.
5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.
Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.
Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.
This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.
We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.
Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.
Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?
It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?
One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.
I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success.
Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.
Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.
However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.
When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.
This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.
In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.
Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.
Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.
When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.
5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.
Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.
Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.
This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.
We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.
Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.
Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?
It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?
One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.
I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success.
Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.
Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.
However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.
When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.
This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.
In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.
Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.
Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.
When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.
5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.
Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.
Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.
This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.
We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.
Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.
Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
We Must Learn About Abortion as Primary Care Doctors
“No greater opportunity, responsibility, or obligation can fall to the lot of a human being than to become a physician. In the care of the suffering, [the physician] needs technical skill, scientific knowledge, and human understanding.”1 Internal medicine physicians have risen to this challenge for centuries. Today, it is time for us to use these skills to care for patients who need access to reproductive care — particularly medication abortion. Nationally accredited internal medicine training programs have not been required to provide abortion education, and this may evolve in the future.
However, considering the difficulty in people receiving contraception, the failure rate of contraception, the known risks from pregnancy, the increasing difficulty in accessing abortion, and the recent advocating to protect access to reproductive care by leadership of internal medicine and internal medicine subspecialty societies, we advocate that abortion must become a part of our education and practice.2
Most abortions are performed during the first trimester and can be managed with medications that are very safe.3 In fact, legal medication abortion is so safe that pregnancy in the United States has fourteen times the mortality risk as does legal medication abortion.4 Inability to access an abortion has widely documented negative health effects for women and their children.5,6
Within this context, it is important for internal medicine physicians to understand that the ability to access an abortion is the ability to access a life-saving procedure and there is no medical justification for restricting such a prescription any more than restricting any other standard medical therapy. Furthermore, the recent widespread criminalization of abortion gives new urgency to expanding the pool of physicians who understand this and are trained, able, and willing to prescribe medication abortion.
We understand that reproductive health care may not now be a component of clinical practice for some, but given the heterogeneity of internal medicine, we believe that some knowledge about medical abortion is an essential competency of foundational medical knowledge.7 The heterogeneity of practice in internal medicine lends itself to different levels of knowledge that should be embraced. Because of poor access to abortion, both ambulatory and hospital-based physicians will increasingly be required to care for patients who need abortion for medical or other reasons.
We advocate that all physicians — including those with internal medicine training — should understand counseling about choices and options (including an unbiased discussion of the options to continue or terminate the pregnancy), the safety of medication abortion in contrast to the risks from pregnancy, and where to refer someone seeking an abortion. In addition to this information, primary care physicians with a special interest in women’s health must have basic knowledge about mifepristone and misoprostol and how they work, the benefits and risks of these, and what the pregnant person seeking an abortion will experience.8
Lastly, physicians who wish to provide medication abortion — including in primary care, hospital medicine, and subspecialty care — should receive training and ongoing professional development. Such professional development should include counseling, indications, contraindications, medication regimens, navigating required documentation and reporting, and anticipating possible side effects and complications.
A major challenge to internal medicine and other primary care physicians, subspecialists, and hospitalists addressing abortion is the inadequate training in and knowledge about providing this care. However, the entire spectrum of medical education (undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education) should evolve to address this lack.
Integrating this education into medical conferences and journals is a meaningful start, possibly in partnership with medical societies that have been teaching these skills for decades. Partnering with other specialties can also help us stay current on the local legal landscape and engage in collaborative advocacy.
Specifically, some resources for training can be found at:
- www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2014/11/abortion-training-and-education
- https://prochoice.org/providers/continuing-medical-education/
- www.reproductiveaccess.org/medicationabortion/
Some may have concerns that managing the possible complications of medication abortion is a reason for internal medicine to not be involved in abortion care. However, medication abortions are safe and effective for pregnancy termination and internal medicine physicians can refer patients with complications to peers in gynecology, family medicine, and emergency medicine should complications arise.8 We have managed countless other conditions this way, including most recently during the pandemic.
We live in a country with increasing barriers to care – now with laws in many states that prevent basic health care for women. Internal medicine doctors increasingly may see patients who need care urgently, particularly those who practice in states that neighbor those that prevent this access. We are calling for all who practice internal medicine to educate themselves, optimizing their skills within the full scope of medical practice to provide possibly lifesaving care and thereby address increased needs for medical services.
We must continue to advocate for our patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the fact that internal medicine–trained physicians are able to care for conditions that are new and, as a profession, we are capable of rapidly switching practices and learning new modalities of care. It is time for us to extend this competency to care for patients who constitute half the population and are at risk: women.
Dr. Barrett is an internal medicine hospitalist based in Albuquerque, New Mexico; she completed a medical justice in advocacy fellowship in 2022. Dr. Radhakrishnan is an internal medicine physician educator who completed an equity matters fellowship in 2022 and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. Neither reports conflicts of interest.
References
1. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 20e. Jameson J et al., eds. McGraw Hill; 2018. Accessed Sept. 27, 2023.
2. Serchen J et al. Reproductive Health Policy in the United States: An American College of Physicians Policy Brief. Ann Intern Med.2023;176:364-6. epub 28 Feb. 2023.
3. Jatlaoui TC et al. Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2016. MMWR Surveill Summ 2019;68(No. SS-11):1-41.
4. Raymond EG and Grimes DA. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(2 Pt 1):215-9.
5. Ralph LJ et al. Self-reported Physical Health of Women Who Did and Did Not Terminate Pregnancy After Seeking Abortion Services: A Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med.2019;171:238-47. epub 11 June 2019.
6. Gerdts C et al. Side effects, physical health consequences, and mortality associated with abortion and birth after an unwanted pregnancy. Women’s Health Issues 2016;26:55-59.
7. Nobel K et al. Patient-reported experience with discussion of all options during pregnancy options counseling in the US south. Contraception. 2022;106:68-74.
8. Liu N and Ray JG. Short-Term Adverse Outcomes After Mifepristone–Misoprostol Versus Procedural Induced Abortion: A Population-Based Propensity-Weighted Study. Ann Intern Med.2023;176:145-53. epub 3 January 2023.
“No greater opportunity, responsibility, or obligation can fall to the lot of a human being than to become a physician. In the care of the suffering, [the physician] needs technical skill, scientific knowledge, and human understanding.”1 Internal medicine physicians have risen to this challenge for centuries. Today, it is time for us to use these skills to care for patients who need access to reproductive care — particularly medication abortion. Nationally accredited internal medicine training programs have not been required to provide abortion education, and this may evolve in the future.
However, considering the difficulty in people receiving contraception, the failure rate of contraception, the known risks from pregnancy, the increasing difficulty in accessing abortion, and the recent advocating to protect access to reproductive care by leadership of internal medicine and internal medicine subspecialty societies, we advocate that abortion must become a part of our education and practice.2
Most abortions are performed during the first trimester and can be managed with medications that are very safe.3 In fact, legal medication abortion is so safe that pregnancy in the United States has fourteen times the mortality risk as does legal medication abortion.4 Inability to access an abortion has widely documented negative health effects for women and their children.5,6
Within this context, it is important for internal medicine physicians to understand that the ability to access an abortion is the ability to access a life-saving procedure and there is no medical justification for restricting such a prescription any more than restricting any other standard medical therapy. Furthermore, the recent widespread criminalization of abortion gives new urgency to expanding the pool of physicians who understand this and are trained, able, and willing to prescribe medication abortion.
We understand that reproductive health care may not now be a component of clinical practice for some, but given the heterogeneity of internal medicine, we believe that some knowledge about medical abortion is an essential competency of foundational medical knowledge.7 The heterogeneity of practice in internal medicine lends itself to different levels of knowledge that should be embraced. Because of poor access to abortion, both ambulatory and hospital-based physicians will increasingly be required to care for patients who need abortion for medical or other reasons.
We advocate that all physicians — including those with internal medicine training — should understand counseling about choices and options (including an unbiased discussion of the options to continue or terminate the pregnancy), the safety of medication abortion in contrast to the risks from pregnancy, and where to refer someone seeking an abortion. In addition to this information, primary care physicians with a special interest in women’s health must have basic knowledge about mifepristone and misoprostol and how they work, the benefits and risks of these, and what the pregnant person seeking an abortion will experience.8
Lastly, physicians who wish to provide medication abortion — including in primary care, hospital medicine, and subspecialty care — should receive training and ongoing professional development. Such professional development should include counseling, indications, contraindications, medication regimens, navigating required documentation and reporting, and anticipating possible side effects and complications.
A major challenge to internal medicine and other primary care physicians, subspecialists, and hospitalists addressing abortion is the inadequate training in and knowledge about providing this care. However, the entire spectrum of medical education (undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education) should evolve to address this lack.
Integrating this education into medical conferences and journals is a meaningful start, possibly in partnership with medical societies that have been teaching these skills for decades. Partnering with other specialties can also help us stay current on the local legal landscape and engage in collaborative advocacy.
Specifically, some resources for training can be found at:
- www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2014/11/abortion-training-and-education
- https://prochoice.org/providers/continuing-medical-education/
- www.reproductiveaccess.org/medicationabortion/
Some may have concerns that managing the possible complications of medication abortion is a reason for internal medicine to not be involved in abortion care. However, medication abortions are safe and effective for pregnancy termination and internal medicine physicians can refer patients with complications to peers in gynecology, family medicine, and emergency medicine should complications arise.8 We have managed countless other conditions this way, including most recently during the pandemic.
We live in a country with increasing barriers to care – now with laws in many states that prevent basic health care for women. Internal medicine doctors increasingly may see patients who need care urgently, particularly those who practice in states that neighbor those that prevent this access. We are calling for all who practice internal medicine to educate themselves, optimizing their skills within the full scope of medical practice to provide possibly lifesaving care and thereby address increased needs for medical services.
We must continue to advocate for our patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the fact that internal medicine–trained physicians are able to care for conditions that are new and, as a profession, we are capable of rapidly switching practices and learning new modalities of care. It is time for us to extend this competency to care for patients who constitute half the population and are at risk: women.
Dr. Barrett is an internal medicine hospitalist based in Albuquerque, New Mexico; she completed a medical justice in advocacy fellowship in 2022. Dr. Radhakrishnan is an internal medicine physician educator who completed an equity matters fellowship in 2022 and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. Neither reports conflicts of interest.
References
1. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 20e. Jameson J et al., eds. McGraw Hill; 2018. Accessed Sept. 27, 2023.
2. Serchen J et al. Reproductive Health Policy in the United States: An American College of Physicians Policy Brief. Ann Intern Med.2023;176:364-6. epub 28 Feb. 2023.
3. Jatlaoui TC et al. Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2016. MMWR Surveill Summ 2019;68(No. SS-11):1-41.
4. Raymond EG and Grimes DA. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(2 Pt 1):215-9.
5. Ralph LJ et al. Self-reported Physical Health of Women Who Did and Did Not Terminate Pregnancy After Seeking Abortion Services: A Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med.2019;171:238-47. epub 11 June 2019.
6. Gerdts C et al. Side effects, physical health consequences, and mortality associated with abortion and birth after an unwanted pregnancy. Women’s Health Issues 2016;26:55-59.
7. Nobel K et al. Patient-reported experience with discussion of all options during pregnancy options counseling in the US south. Contraception. 2022;106:68-74.
8. Liu N and Ray JG. Short-Term Adverse Outcomes After Mifepristone–Misoprostol Versus Procedural Induced Abortion: A Population-Based Propensity-Weighted Study. Ann Intern Med.2023;176:145-53. epub 3 January 2023.
“No greater opportunity, responsibility, or obligation can fall to the lot of a human being than to become a physician. In the care of the suffering, [the physician] needs technical skill, scientific knowledge, and human understanding.”1 Internal medicine physicians have risen to this challenge for centuries. Today, it is time for us to use these skills to care for patients who need access to reproductive care — particularly medication abortion. Nationally accredited internal medicine training programs have not been required to provide abortion education, and this may evolve in the future.
However, considering the difficulty in people receiving contraception, the failure rate of contraception, the known risks from pregnancy, the increasing difficulty in accessing abortion, and the recent advocating to protect access to reproductive care by leadership of internal medicine and internal medicine subspecialty societies, we advocate that abortion must become a part of our education and practice.2
Most abortions are performed during the first trimester and can be managed with medications that are very safe.3 In fact, legal medication abortion is so safe that pregnancy in the United States has fourteen times the mortality risk as does legal medication abortion.4 Inability to access an abortion has widely documented negative health effects for women and their children.5,6
Within this context, it is important for internal medicine physicians to understand that the ability to access an abortion is the ability to access a life-saving procedure and there is no medical justification for restricting such a prescription any more than restricting any other standard medical therapy. Furthermore, the recent widespread criminalization of abortion gives new urgency to expanding the pool of physicians who understand this and are trained, able, and willing to prescribe medication abortion.
We understand that reproductive health care may not now be a component of clinical practice for some, but given the heterogeneity of internal medicine, we believe that some knowledge about medical abortion is an essential competency of foundational medical knowledge.7 The heterogeneity of practice in internal medicine lends itself to different levels of knowledge that should be embraced. Because of poor access to abortion, both ambulatory and hospital-based physicians will increasingly be required to care for patients who need abortion for medical or other reasons.
We advocate that all physicians — including those with internal medicine training — should understand counseling about choices and options (including an unbiased discussion of the options to continue or terminate the pregnancy), the safety of medication abortion in contrast to the risks from pregnancy, and where to refer someone seeking an abortion. In addition to this information, primary care physicians with a special interest in women’s health must have basic knowledge about mifepristone and misoprostol and how they work, the benefits and risks of these, and what the pregnant person seeking an abortion will experience.8
Lastly, physicians who wish to provide medication abortion — including in primary care, hospital medicine, and subspecialty care — should receive training and ongoing professional development. Such professional development should include counseling, indications, contraindications, medication regimens, navigating required documentation and reporting, and anticipating possible side effects and complications.
A major challenge to internal medicine and other primary care physicians, subspecialists, and hospitalists addressing abortion is the inadequate training in and knowledge about providing this care. However, the entire spectrum of medical education (undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education) should evolve to address this lack.
Integrating this education into medical conferences and journals is a meaningful start, possibly in partnership with medical societies that have been teaching these skills for decades. Partnering with other specialties can also help us stay current on the local legal landscape and engage in collaborative advocacy.
Specifically, some resources for training can be found at:
- www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2014/11/abortion-training-and-education
- https://prochoice.org/providers/continuing-medical-education/
- www.reproductiveaccess.org/medicationabortion/
Some may have concerns that managing the possible complications of medication abortion is a reason for internal medicine to not be involved in abortion care. However, medication abortions are safe and effective for pregnancy termination and internal medicine physicians can refer patients with complications to peers in gynecology, family medicine, and emergency medicine should complications arise.8 We have managed countless other conditions this way, including most recently during the pandemic.
We live in a country with increasing barriers to care – now with laws in many states that prevent basic health care for women. Internal medicine doctors increasingly may see patients who need care urgently, particularly those who practice in states that neighbor those that prevent this access. We are calling for all who practice internal medicine to educate themselves, optimizing their skills within the full scope of medical practice to provide possibly lifesaving care and thereby address increased needs for medical services.
We must continue to advocate for our patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the fact that internal medicine–trained physicians are able to care for conditions that are new and, as a profession, we are capable of rapidly switching practices and learning new modalities of care. It is time for us to extend this competency to care for patients who constitute half the population and are at risk: women.
Dr. Barrett is an internal medicine hospitalist based in Albuquerque, New Mexico; she completed a medical justice in advocacy fellowship in 2022. Dr. Radhakrishnan is an internal medicine physician educator who completed an equity matters fellowship in 2022 and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. Neither reports conflicts of interest.
References
1. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 20e. Jameson J et al., eds. McGraw Hill; 2018. Accessed Sept. 27, 2023.
2. Serchen J et al. Reproductive Health Policy in the United States: An American College of Physicians Policy Brief. Ann Intern Med.2023;176:364-6. epub 28 Feb. 2023.
3. Jatlaoui TC et al. Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2016. MMWR Surveill Summ 2019;68(No. SS-11):1-41.
4. Raymond EG and Grimes DA. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(2 Pt 1):215-9.
5. Ralph LJ et al. Self-reported Physical Health of Women Who Did and Did Not Terminate Pregnancy After Seeking Abortion Services: A Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med.2019;171:238-47. epub 11 June 2019.
6. Gerdts C et al. Side effects, physical health consequences, and mortality associated with abortion and birth after an unwanted pregnancy. Women’s Health Issues 2016;26:55-59.
7. Nobel K et al. Patient-reported experience with discussion of all options during pregnancy options counseling in the US south. Contraception. 2022;106:68-74.
8. Liu N and Ray JG. Short-Term Adverse Outcomes After Mifepristone–Misoprostol Versus Procedural Induced Abortion: A Population-Based Propensity-Weighted Study. Ann Intern Med.2023;176:145-53. epub 3 January 2023.
Clock Watchers
The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:
Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.
I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”
; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.
A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.
Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.
Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:
1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.
2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.
3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.
4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.
5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.
6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.
7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.
8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.
9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.
10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:
Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.
I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”
; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.
A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.
Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.
Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:
1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.
2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.
3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.
4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.
5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.
6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.
7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.
8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.
9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.
10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:
Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.
I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”
; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.
A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.
Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.
Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:
1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.
2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.
3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.
4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.
5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.
6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.
7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.
8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.
9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.
10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Is It Possible to Reverse Osteoporosis?
Fractures, particularly hip and spine fractures, are a major cause of mortality and morbidity among older individuals. The term “osteoporosis” indicates increased porosity of bones resulting in low bone density; increased bone fragility; and an increased risk for fracture, often with minimal trauma.
During the adolescent years, bone accrues at a rapid rate, and optimal bone accrual during this time is essential to attain optimal peak bone mass, typically achieved in the third decade of life. Bone mass then stays stable until the 40s-50s, after which it starts to decline. One’s peak bone mass sets the stage for both immediate and future bone health. Individuals with lower peak bone mass tend to have less optimal bone health throughout their lives, and this becomes particularly problematic in older men and in the postmenopausal years for women.
One’s genes have a major impact on bone density and are currently not modifiable.
Modifiable factors include mechanical loading of bones through exercise activity, maintaining a normal body weight, and ensuring adequate intake of micronutrients (including calcium and vitamin D) and macronutrients. Medications such as glucocorticoids that have deleterious effects on bones should be limited as far as possible. Endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, and rheumatologic conditions and others, such as cancer, which are known to be associated with reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, should be managed appropriately.
A deficiency of the gonadal hormones (estrogen and testosterone) and high blood concentrations of cortisol are particularly deleterious to bone. Hormone replacement therapy in those with gonadal hormone deficiency and strategies to reduce cortisol levels in those with hypercortisolemia are essential to prevent osteoporosis and also improve bone density over time. The same applies to management of conditions such as anorexia nervosa, relative energy deficiency in sports, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and chronic arthritis.
Once osteoporosis has developed, depending on the cause, these strategies may not be sufficient to completely reverse the condition, and pharmacologic therapy may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk. This is particularly an issue with postmenopausal women and older men. In these individuals, medications that increase bone formation or reduce bone loss may be necessary.
Medications that reduce bone loss include bisphosphonates and denosumab; these are also called “antiresorptive medications” because they reduce bone resorption by cells called osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates include alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid, and these medications have direct effects on osteoclasts, reducing their activity. Some bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, are taken orally (daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the medication and its strength), whereas others, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, are administered intravenously: every 3-4 months for pamidronate and every 6-12 months for zoledronic acid. Ibandronate is available both orally and intravenously.
Denosumab is a medication that inhibits the action of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1 (RANKL), which otherwise increases osteoclast activity. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months to treat osteoporosis. One concern with denosumab is a rapid increase in bone loss after its discontinuation.
Medications that increase bone formation are called bone anabolics and include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Teriparatide is a synthetic form of parathyroid hormone (recombinant PTH1-34) administered daily for up to 2 years. Abaloparatide is a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone–related peptide (PTHrP), which is also administered daily as a subcutaneous injection. Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin (a substance that otherwise reduces bone formation and increases bone resorption) and is administered as a subcutaneous injection once a month. Effects of these medications tend to be lost after they are discontinued.
In 2019, the Endocrine Society published guidelines for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis. The guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including attention to diet, calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weight-bearing exercise for all postmenopausal women. They also recommend assessing fracture risk using country-specific existing models.
Guidelines vary depending on whether fracture risk is low, moderate, or high. Patients at low risk are followed and reassessed every 2-4 years for fracture risk. Those at moderate risk may be followed similarly or prescribed bisphosphonates. Those at high risk are prescribed an antiresorptive, such as a bisphosphonate or denosumab, or a bone anabolic, such as teriparatide or abaloparatide (for up to 2 years) or romosozumab (for a year), with calcium and vitamin D and are reassessed at defined intervals for fracture risk; subsequent management then depends on the assessed fracture risk.
People who are on a bone anabolic should typically follow this with an antiresorptive medication to maintain the gains achieved with the former after that medication is discontinued. Patients who discontinue denosumab should be switched to bisphosphonates to prevent the increase in bone loss that typically occurs.
In postmenopausal women who are intolerant to or inappropriate for use of these medications, guidelines vary depending on age (younger or older than 60 years) and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms (such as hot flashes). Options could include the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements; hormone replacement therapy with estrogen with or without a progestin; or selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as raloxifene or bazedoxifene), tibolone, or calcitonin.
It’s important to recognize that all pharmacologic therapy carries the risk for adverse events, and it’s essential to take the necessary steps to prevent, monitor for, and manage any adverse effects that may develop.
Managing osteoporosis in older men could include the use of bone anabolics and/or antiresorptives. In younger individuals, use of pharmacologic therapy is less common but sometimes necessary, particularly when bone density is very low and associated with a problematic fracture history — for example, in those with genetic conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta. Furthermore, the occurrence of vertebral compression fractures often requires bisphosphonate treatment regardless of bone density, particularly in patients on chronic glucocorticoid therapy.
Preventing osteoporosis is best managed by paying attention to lifestyle; optimizing nutrition and calcium and vitamin D intake; and managing conditions and limiting the use of medications that reduce bone density.
However, in certain patients, these measures are not enough, and pharmacologic therapy with bone anabolics or antiresorptives may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk.
Dr. Misra, of the University of Virginia and UVA Health Children’s Hospital, Charlottesville, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Fractures, particularly hip and spine fractures, are a major cause of mortality and morbidity among older individuals. The term “osteoporosis” indicates increased porosity of bones resulting in low bone density; increased bone fragility; and an increased risk for fracture, often with minimal trauma.
During the adolescent years, bone accrues at a rapid rate, and optimal bone accrual during this time is essential to attain optimal peak bone mass, typically achieved in the third decade of life. Bone mass then stays stable until the 40s-50s, after which it starts to decline. One’s peak bone mass sets the stage for both immediate and future bone health. Individuals with lower peak bone mass tend to have less optimal bone health throughout their lives, and this becomes particularly problematic in older men and in the postmenopausal years for women.
One’s genes have a major impact on bone density and are currently not modifiable.
Modifiable factors include mechanical loading of bones through exercise activity, maintaining a normal body weight, and ensuring adequate intake of micronutrients (including calcium and vitamin D) and macronutrients. Medications such as glucocorticoids that have deleterious effects on bones should be limited as far as possible. Endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, and rheumatologic conditions and others, such as cancer, which are known to be associated with reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, should be managed appropriately.
A deficiency of the gonadal hormones (estrogen and testosterone) and high blood concentrations of cortisol are particularly deleterious to bone. Hormone replacement therapy in those with gonadal hormone deficiency and strategies to reduce cortisol levels in those with hypercortisolemia are essential to prevent osteoporosis and also improve bone density over time. The same applies to management of conditions such as anorexia nervosa, relative energy deficiency in sports, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and chronic arthritis.
Once osteoporosis has developed, depending on the cause, these strategies may not be sufficient to completely reverse the condition, and pharmacologic therapy may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk. This is particularly an issue with postmenopausal women and older men. In these individuals, medications that increase bone formation or reduce bone loss may be necessary.
Medications that reduce bone loss include bisphosphonates and denosumab; these are also called “antiresorptive medications” because they reduce bone resorption by cells called osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates include alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid, and these medications have direct effects on osteoclasts, reducing their activity. Some bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, are taken orally (daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the medication and its strength), whereas others, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, are administered intravenously: every 3-4 months for pamidronate and every 6-12 months for zoledronic acid. Ibandronate is available both orally and intravenously.
Denosumab is a medication that inhibits the action of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1 (RANKL), which otherwise increases osteoclast activity. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months to treat osteoporosis. One concern with denosumab is a rapid increase in bone loss after its discontinuation.
Medications that increase bone formation are called bone anabolics and include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Teriparatide is a synthetic form of parathyroid hormone (recombinant PTH1-34) administered daily for up to 2 years. Abaloparatide is a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone–related peptide (PTHrP), which is also administered daily as a subcutaneous injection. Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin (a substance that otherwise reduces bone formation and increases bone resorption) and is administered as a subcutaneous injection once a month. Effects of these medications tend to be lost after they are discontinued.
In 2019, the Endocrine Society published guidelines for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis. The guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including attention to diet, calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weight-bearing exercise for all postmenopausal women. They also recommend assessing fracture risk using country-specific existing models.
Guidelines vary depending on whether fracture risk is low, moderate, or high. Patients at low risk are followed and reassessed every 2-4 years for fracture risk. Those at moderate risk may be followed similarly or prescribed bisphosphonates. Those at high risk are prescribed an antiresorptive, such as a bisphosphonate or denosumab, or a bone anabolic, such as teriparatide or abaloparatide (for up to 2 years) or romosozumab (for a year), with calcium and vitamin D and are reassessed at defined intervals for fracture risk; subsequent management then depends on the assessed fracture risk.
People who are on a bone anabolic should typically follow this with an antiresorptive medication to maintain the gains achieved with the former after that medication is discontinued. Patients who discontinue denosumab should be switched to bisphosphonates to prevent the increase in bone loss that typically occurs.
In postmenopausal women who are intolerant to or inappropriate for use of these medications, guidelines vary depending on age (younger or older than 60 years) and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms (such as hot flashes). Options could include the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements; hormone replacement therapy with estrogen with or without a progestin; or selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as raloxifene or bazedoxifene), tibolone, or calcitonin.
It’s important to recognize that all pharmacologic therapy carries the risk for adverse events, and it’s essential to take the necessary steps to prevent, monitor for, and manage any adverse effects that may develop.
Managing osteoporosis in older men could include the use of bone anabolics and/or antiresorptives. In younger individuals, use of pharmacologic therapy is less common but sometimes necessary, particularly when bone density is very low and associated with a problematic fracture history — for example, in those with genetic conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta. Furthermore, the occurrence of vertebral compression fractures often requires bisphosphonate treatment regardless of bone density, particularly in patients on chronic glucocorticoid therapy.
Preventing osteoporosis is best managed by paying attention to lifestyle; optimizing nutrition and calcium and vitamin D intake; and managing conditions and limiting the use of medications that reduce bone density.
However, in certain patients, these measures are not enough, and pharmacologic therapy with bone anabolics or antiresorptives may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk.
Dr. Misra, of the University of Virginia and UVA Health Children’s Hospital, Charlottesville, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Fractures, particularly hip and spine fractures, are a major cause of mortality and morbidity among older individuals. The term “osteoporosis” indicates increased porosity of bones resulting in low bone density; increased bone fragility; and an increased risk for fracture, often with minimal trauma.
During the adolescent years, bone accrues at a rapid rate, and optimal bone accrual during this time is essential to attain optimal peak bone mass, typically achieved in the third decade of life. Bone mass then stays stable until the 40s-50s, after which it starts to decline. One’s peak bone mass sets the stage for both immediate and future bone health. Individuals with lower peak bone mass tend to have less optimal bone health throughout their lives, and this becomes particularly problematic in older men and in the postmenopausal years for women.
One’s genes have a major impact on bone density and are currently not modifiable.
Modifiable factors include mechanical loading of bones through exercise activity, maintaining a normal body weight, and ensuring adequate intake of micronutrients (including calcium and vitamin D) and macronutrients. Medications such as glucocorticoids that have deleterious effects on bones should be limited as far as possible. Endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, and rheumatologic conditions and others, such as cancer, which are known to be associated with reduced bone density and increased fracture risk, should be managed appropriately.
A deficiency of the gonadal hormones (estrogen and testosterone) and high blood concentrations of cortisol are particularly deleterious to bone. Hormone replacement therapy in those with gonadal hormone deficiency and strategies to reduce cortisol levels in those with hypercortisolemia are essential to prevent osteoporosis and also improve bone density over time. The same applies to management of conditions such as anorexia nervosa, relative energy deficiency in sports, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and chronic arthritis.
Once osteoporosis has developed, depending on the cause, these strategies may not be sufficient to completely reverse the condition, and pharmacologic therapy may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk. This is particularly an issue with postmenopausal women and older men. In these individuals, medications that increase bone formation or reduce bone loss may be necessary.
Medications that reduce bone loss include bisphosphonates and denosumab; these are also called “antiresorptive medications” because they reduce bone resorption by cells called osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates include alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid, and these medications have direct effects on osteoclasts, reducing their activity. Some bisphosphonates, such as alendronate and risedronate, are taken orally (daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the medication and its strength), whereas others, such as pamidronate and zoledronic acid, are administered intravenously: every 3-4 months for pamidronate and every 6-12 months for zoledronic acid. Ibandronate is available both orally and intravenously.
Denosumab is a medication that inhibits the action of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1 (RANKL), which otherwise increases osteoclast activity. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection every 6 months to treat osteoporosis. One concern with denosumab is a rapid increase in bone loss after its discontinuation.
Medications that increase bone formation are called bone anabolics and include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. Teriparatide is a synthetic form of parathyroid hormone (recombinant PTH1-34) administered daily for up to 2 years. Abaloparatide is a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone–related peptide (PTHrP), which is also administered daily as a subcutaneous injection. Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin (a substance that otherwise reduces bone formation and increases bone resorption) and is administered as a subcutaneous injection once a month. Effects of these medications tend to be lost after they are discontinued.
In 2019, the Endocrine Society published guidelines for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis. The guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications, including attention to diet, calcium and vitamin D supplements, and weight-bearing exercise for all postmenopausal women. They also recommend assessing fracture risk using country-specific existing models.
Guidelines vary depending on whether fracture risk is low, moderate, or high. Patients at low risk are followed and reassessed every 2-4 years for fracture risk. Those at moderate risk may be followed similarly or prescribed bisphosphonates. Those at high risk are prescribed an antiresorptive, such as a bisphosphonate or denosumab, or a bone anabolic, such as teriparatide or abaloparatide (for up to 2 years) or romosozumab (for a year), with calcium and vitamin D and are reassessed at defined intervals for fracture risk; subsequent management then depends on the assessed fracture risk.
People who are on a bone anabolic should typically follow this with an antiresorptive medication to maintain the gains achieved with the former after that medication is discontinued. Patients who discontinue denosumab should be switched to bisphosphonates to prevent the increase in bone loss that typically occurs.
In postmenopausal women who are intolerant to or inappropriate for use of these medications, guidelines vary depending on age (younger or older than 60 years) and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms (such as hot flashes). Options could include the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements; hormone replacement therapy with estrogen with or without a progestin; or selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as raloxifene or bazedoxifene), tibolone, or calcitonin.
It’s important to recognize that all pharmacologic therapy carries the risk for adverse events, and it’s essential to take the necessary steps to prevent, monitor for, and manage any adverse effects that may develop.
Managing osteoporosis in older men could include the use of bone anabolics and/or antiresorptives. In younger individuals, use of pharmacologic therapy is less common but sometimes necessary, particularly when bone density is very low and associated with a problematic fracture history — for example, in those with genetic conditions such as osteogenesis imperfecta. Furthermore, the occurrence of vertebral compression fractures often requires bisphosphonate treatment regardless of bone density, particularly in patients on chronic glucocorticoid therapy.
Preventing osteoporosis is best managed by paying attention to lifestyle; optimizing nutrition and calcium and vitamin D intake; and managing conditions and limiting the use of medications that reduce bone density.
However, in certain patients, these measures are not enough, and pharmacologic therapy with bone anabolics or antiresorptives may be necessary to improve bone density and reduce fracture risk.
Dr. Misra, of the University of Virginia and UVA Health Children’s Hospital, Charlottesville, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Next Big Thing Falls Short
Recently, Acadia Pharmaceuticals announced it was stopping trials on Nuplazid for indications outside of Parkinson’s disease psychosis.
I was impressed with what I saw in my office. Although I know there’s some controversy over the drug, the majority of studies do show efficacy, and in my little practice I clearly noticed improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who’d previously failed the more standard agents (note - I have no financial affiliation with Acadia Pharmaceuticals).
So, as a lay-neurologist, I expected the drug to work for other kinds of psychosis, particularly Alzheimer’s disease. All of us in practice know how much we need new options for that.
But when the clinical trials came, the drug didn’t work. It didn’t work for schizophrenia, either, Finally, Acadia threw in the towel and gave up.
I have no idea what happened. I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. On paper, I’d have thought it would work for Alzheimer’s psychosis, but in the real world it didn’t.
Is psychosis between the two disorders that different, with different neurotransmitter causes? Are the benefits in my patients with Parkinson’s disease really just from my own selection bias? Or is there just a lot we still don’t know?
Look at the graveyard full of amyloid-targeting drugs. Yeah, I know Leqembi is out there, and donanemab is in the wings, but are they anywhere near as good as we thought they’d be? Not at all.
At the same time, we’ve been waiting for the BTK drugs (not to be confused with a Korean pop band) for multiple sclerosis. They sounded like they were the Next Big Thing.
They may be, but recent data on one of them, evobrutinib, was less than encouraging. Of course, that shouldn’t extrapolate to the group as a whole, but it does leave you wondering why.
Medicine is always improving, but it’s also still a trial-and-error process. Just because something should work doesn’t mean it will, and it may be years before we know why.
It’s just a reminder that, here in 2024, we still have a lot to learn.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Recently, Acadia Pharmaceuticals announced it was stopping trials on Nuplazid for indications outside of Parkinson’s disease psychosis.
I was impressed with what I saw in my office. Although I know there’s some controversy over the drug, the majority of studies do show efficacy, and in my little practice I clearly noticed improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who’d previously failed the more standard agents (note - I have no financial affiliation with Acadia Pharmaceuticals).
So, as a lay-neurologist, I expected the drug to work for other kinds of psychosis, particularly Alzheimer’s disease. All of us in practice know how much we need new options for that.
But when the clinical trials came, the drug didn’t work. It didn’t work for schizophrenia, either, Finally, Acadia threw in the towel and gave up.
I have no idea what happened. I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. On paper, I’d have thought it would work for Alzheimer’s psychosis, but in the real world it didn’t.
Is psychosis between the two disorders that different, with different neurotransmitter causes? Are the benefits in my patients with Parkinson’s disease really just from my own selection bias? Or is there just a lot we still don’t know?
Look at the graveyard full of amyloid-targeting drugs. Yeah, I know Leqembi is out there, and donanemab is in the wings, but are they anywhere near as good as we thought they’d be? Not at all.
At the same time, we’ve been waiting for the BTK drugs (not to be confused with a Korean pop band) for multiple sclerosis. They sounded like they were the Next Big Thing.
They may be, but recent data on one of them, evobrutinib, was less than encouraging. Of course, that shouldn’t extrapolate to the group as a whole, but it does leave you wondering why.
Medicine is always improving, but it’s also still a trial-and-error process. Just because something should work doesn’t mean it will, and it may be years before we know why.
It’s just a reminder that, here in 2024, we still have a lot to learn.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Recently, Acadia Pharmaceuticals announced it was stopping trials on Nuplazid for indications outside of Parkinson’s disease psychosis.
I was impressed with what I saw in my office. Although I know there’s some controversy over the drug, the majority of studies do show efficacy, and in my little practice I clearly noticed improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who’d previously failed the more standard agents (note - I have no financial affiliation with Acadia Pharmaceuticals).
So, as a lay-neurologist, I expected the drug to work for other kinds of psychosis, particularly Alzheimer’s disease. All of us in practice know how much we need new options for that.
But when the clinical trials came, the drug didn’t work. It didn’t work for schizophrenia, either, Finally, Acadia threw in the towel and gave up.
I have no idea what happened. I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. On paper, I’d have thought it would work for Alzheimer’s psychosis, but in the real world it didn’t.
Is psychosis between the two disorders that different, with different neurotransmitter causes? Are the benefits in my patients with Parkinson’s disease really just from my own selection bias? Or is there just a lot we still don’t know?
Look at the graveyard full of amyloid-targeting drugs. Yeah, I know Leqembi is out there, and donanemab is in the wings, but are they anywhere near as good as we thought they’d be? Not at all.
At the same time, we’ve been waiting for the BTK drugs (not to be confused with a Korean pop band) for multiple sclerosis. They sounded like they were the Next Big Thing.
They may be, but recent data on one of them, evobrutinib, was less than encouraging. Of course, that shouldn’t extrapolate to the group as a whole, but it does leave you wondering why.
Medicine is always improving, but it’s also still a trial-and-error process. Just because something should work doesn’t mean it will, and it may be years before we know why.
It’s just a reminder that, here in 2024, we still have a lot to learn.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Paid Parental Leave: Impact on Maternal Mental Health and Child Wellbeing
Maternal mental health has a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of the child. Since the onset of the pandemic, rates of postpartum depression have increased, affecting an estimated 1 in 5 women.1 Numerous studies show the impact of postpartum depression on the newborn child across multiple domains, from bonding to healthy weight gain to meeting developmental milestones.
While new medications are being studied and approved to specifically target postpartum depression, these treatments are inaccessible to many because of high costs and long wait lists. Beyond medication, structural changes such as paid parental leave have been shown to have a substantial impact on maternal mental health, thus impacting the health of children as well.
Implications for Mothers and Children
Psychiatric diagnoses such as postpartum depression are on the rise.1,2 This is likely attributable to a combination of factors, including increased isolation since the start of the pandemic, worsening health inequities across race and socioeconomic status, and difficulty accessing mental health care.3-5 The effect that postpartum depression has on the family is significant for the newborn as well as other children in the home.
Data suggest that postpartum depression impacts both the physical and mental health of the child. Infants of mothers with postpartum depression may experience challenges with weight gain, decreased breastfeeding, sleep disruptions, and delays in achieving developmental milestones.6-9 They may also show decreased maternal infant bonding, challenges with cognitive development including language and IQ, and increased risk of behavioral disturbances.10,11 These effects are likely attributable to a combination of factors, including decreased maternal responsiveness to infant cues.7,12 Many of these effects are mediated by the chronicity and severity of depressive symptoms, suggesting the importance of screening and treatment of postpartum depression.10,11 However, treatment for postpartum depression can be difficult to access, particularly given the increased level of need.
It is therefore critical to consider what structural interventions and policy changes can decrease the risk of developing postpartum depression. Data consistently show that access to paid parental leave improves maternal mental health outcomes. Among patients with access to parental leave, research shows that paid leave of longer duration, at least 2-3 months, is the most protective.13 Studies have identified decreased depressive symptoms, decreased stress, decreased use of mental health services, and decreased hospital admissions among women with longer parental leave.13 The positive effects of paid parental leave on maternal mental health can extend beyond the postpartum period, solidifying its impact on the long-term health outcomes of both mother and child.13
Advocacy Is Imperative
In 2024, the United States is the only high-income country, and one of only seven countries in the world, that does not guarantee access to paid parental leave. The Family Medical Leave Act is a 31-year-old federal law that requires some employers to provide unpaid leave to eligible employees. It is narrow in scope, and it excludes many low-wage workers and LGBTQ+ families. Thirteen states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington — as well as the District of Columbia, have enacted their own paid leave policies. However, there are no federal laws requiring access to paid parental leave. As of 2023, fewer than 30% of workers in the United States have access to paid parental leave, and only 16% of employees in the service industry have access to paid parental leave.14 This disproportionately affects families from lower income backgrounds, and further exacerbates socioeconomic, racial, and gender inequities. From a health systems lens, this increases risk of adverse maternal mental health outcomes among those who already have decreased access to mental health services, worsening health disparities.
Paid parental leave has strong public support across party lines, with polls showing the majority of Americans support comprehensive paid family and medical leave.15 Despite this, the United States has failed to enact legislation on this issue since 1993. Multiple attempts at expanding leave have not come to fruition. In the past year, both the house and the senate have announced bipartisan efforts to expand access to paid parental leave. However, legislative frameworks are still in early stages.
As physicians, it is crucial that we advocate for expanded access to paid parental leave. We must use our expertise to speak to the impact that paid parental leave can have on the mental and physical health of parents, children, and families. By advocating for paid parental leave, we can help create a more just and equitable healthcare system.
Dr. Shannon is a second-year psychiatry resident at University of California, Los Angeles. She attended Stanford University for her undergraduate degree and Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine for medical school. Her interests include perinatal psychiatry, health systems research, and mental health policy advocacy. Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences; program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship; and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles.
References
1. Wang Z et al. Mapping Global Prevalence of Depression Among Postpartum Women. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Oct 20. doi: 10.1038/s41398-021-01663-6.
2. Iyengar U et al. One Year Into the Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Perinatal Mental Health Outcomes During COVID-19. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jun 24. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.674194.
3. World Health Organization. Mental Health and COVID-19: Early Evidence of the Pandemic’s Impact: Scientific Brief. 2022 Mar 2. www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci_Brief-Mental_health-2022.1.
4. Masters GA et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health, Access to Care, and Health Disparities in the Perinatal Period. J Psychiatr Res. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.02.056.
5. Shuffrey LC et al. Improving Perinatal Maternal Mental Health Starts With Addressing Structural Inequities. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0097.
6. Lubotzky-Gete S et al. Postpartum Depression and Infant Development Up to 24 months: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. J Affect Disord. 2021 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.02.042.
7. Saharoy R et al. Postpartum Depression and Maternal Care: Exploring the Complex Effects on Mothers and Infants. Cureus. 2023 Jul 4. doi: 10.7759/cureus.41381..
8. Gress-Smith JL et al. Postpartum Depression Prevalence and Impact on Infant Health, Weight, and Sleep in Low-Income and Ethnic Minority Women and Infants. Matern Child Health J. 2012 May. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0812-y.
9. Kim S et al. The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Nurs Res. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.1177/10547738211053507.
10. Mirhosseini H et al. Cognitive Behavioral Development in Children Following Maternal Postpartum Depression: A Review Article. Electron Physician. 2015 Dec 20. doi: 10.19082/1673.
11. Grace SL et al. The Effect of Postpartum Depression on Child Cognitive Development and Behavior: A Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2003 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s00737-003-0024-6.
12. Milgrom J et al. The Mediating Role of Maternal Responsiveness in Some Longer Term Effects of Postnatal Depression on Infant Development. Infant Behavior and Development. 2004 Sep 11. doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.03.003.
13. Heshmati A et al. The Effect of Parental Leave on Parents’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Lancet Public Health. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00311-5.
14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, What Data Does the BLS Publish on Family Leave? 2023 Sept 21. www.bls.gov/ebs/factsheets/family-leave-benefits-fact-sheet.htm.
15. Horowitz JM et al. Americans Widely Support Paid Family and Medical Leave, But Differ Over Specific Policies. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, Pew Research Center. 2017 Mar 23. www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies/.
Maternal mental health has a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of the child. Since the onset of the pandemic, rates of postpartum depression have increased, affecting an estimated 1 in 5 women.1 Numerous studies show the impact of postpartum depression on the newborn child across multiple domains, from bonding to healthy weight gain to meeting developmental milestones.
While new medications are being studied and approved to specifically target postpartum depression, these treatments are inaccessible to many because of high costs and long wait lists. Beyond medication, structural changes such as paid parental leave have been shown to have a substantial impact on maternal mental health, thus impacting the health of children as well.
Implications for Mothers and Children
Psychiatric diagnoses such as postpartum depression are on the rise.1,2 This is likely attributable to a combination of factors, including increased isolation since the start of the pandemic, worsening health inequities across race and socioeconomic status, and difficulty accessing mental health care.3-5 The effect that postpartum depression has on the family is significant for the newborn as well as other children in the home.
Data suggest that postpartum depression impacts both the physical and mental health of the child. Infants of mothers with postpartum depression may experience challenges with weight gain, decreased breastfeeding, sleep disruptions, and delays in achieving developmental milestones.6-9 They may also show decreased maternal infant bonding, challenges with cognitive development including language and IQ, and increased risk of behavioral disturbances.10,11 These effects are likely attributable to a combination of factors, including decreased maternal responsiveness to infant cues.7,12 Many of these effects are mediated by the chronicity and severity of depressive symptoms, suggesting the importance of screening and treatment of postpartum depression.10,11 However, treatment for postpartum depression can be difficult to access, particularly given the increased level of need.
It is therefore critical to consider what structural interventions and policy changes can decrease the risk of developing postpartum depression. Data consistently show that access to paid parental leave improves maternal mental health outcomes. Among patients with access to parental leave, research shows that paid leave of longer duration, at least 2-3 months, is the most protective.13 Studies have identified decreased depressive symptoms, decreased stress, decreased use of mental health services, and decreased hospital admissions among women with longer parental leave.13 The positive effects of paid parental leave on maternal mental health can extend beyond the postpartum period, solidifying its impact on the long-term health outcomes of both mother and child.13
Advocacy Is Imperative
In 2024, the United States is the only high-income country, and one of only seven countries in the world, that does not guarantee access to paid parental leave. The Family Medical Leave Act is a 31-year-old federal law that requires some employers to provide unpaid leave to eligible employees. It is narrow in scope, and it excludes many low-wage workers and LGBTQ+ families. Thirteen states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington — as well as the District of Columbia, have enacted their own paid leave policies. However, there are no federal laws requiring access to paid parental leave. As of 2023, fewer than 30% of workers in the United States have access to paid parental leave, and only 16% of employees in the service industry have access to paid parental leave.14 This disproportionately affects families from lower income backgrounds, and further exacerbates socioeconomic, racial, and gender inequities. From a health systems lens, this increases risk of adverse maternal mental health outcomes among those who already have decreased access to mental health services, worsening health disparities.
Paid parental leave has strong public support across party lines, with polls showing the majority of Americans support comprehensive paid family and medical leave.15 Despite this, the United States has failed to enact legislation on this issue since 1993. Multiple attempts at expanding leave have not come to fruition. In the past year, both the house and the senate have announced bipartisan efforts to expand access to paid parental leave. However, legislative frameworks are still in early stages.
As physicians, it is crucial that we advocate for expanded access to paid parental leave. We must use our expertise to speak to the impact that paid parental leave can have on the mental and physical health of parents, children, and families. By advocating for paid parental leave, we can help create a more just and equitable healthcare system.
Dr. Shannon is a second-year psychiatry resident at University of California, Los Angeles. She attended Stanford University for her undergraduate degree and Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine for medical school. Her interests include perinatal psychiatry, health systems research, and mental health policy advocacy. Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences; program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship; and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles.
References
1. Wang Z et al. Mapping Global Prevalence of Depression Among Postpartum Women. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Oct 20. doi: 10.1038/s41398-021-01663-6.
2. Iyengar U et al. One Year Into the Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Perinatal Mental Health Outcomes During COVID-19. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jun 24. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.674194.
3. World Health Organization. Mental Health and COVID-19: Early Evidence of the Pandemic’s Impact: Scientific Brief. 2022 Mar 2. www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci_Brief-Mental_health-2022.1.
4. Masters GA et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health, Access to Care, and Health Disparities in the Perinatal Period. J Psychiatr Res. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.02.056.
5. Shuffrey LC et al. Improving Perinatal Maternal Mental Health Starts With Addressing Structural Inequities. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0097.
6. Lubotzky-Gete S et al. Postpartum Depression and Infant Development Up to 24 months: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. J Affect Disord. 2021 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.02.042.
7. Saharoy R et al. Postpartum Depression and Maternal Care: Exploring the Complex Effects on Mothers and Infants. Cureus. 2023 Jul 4. doi: 10.7759/cureus.41381..
8. Gress-Smith JL et al. Postpartum Depression Prevalence and Impact on Infant Health, Weight, and Sleep in Low-Income and Ethnic Minority Women and Infants. Matern Child Health J. 2012 May. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0812-y.
9. Kim S et al. The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Nurs Res. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.1177/10547738211053507.
10. Mirhosseini H et al. Cognitive Behavioral Development in Children Following Maternal Postpartum Depression: A Review Article. Electron Physician. 2015 Dec 20. doi: 10.19082/1673.
11. Grace SL et al. The Effect of Postpartum Depression on Child Cognitive Development and Behavior: A Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2003 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s00737-003-0024-6.
12. Milgrom J et al. The Mediating Role of Maternal Responsiveness in Some Longer Term Effects of Postnatal Depression on Infant Development. Infant Behavior and Development. 2004 Sep 11. doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.03.003.
13. Heshmati A et al. The Effect of Parental Leave on Parents’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Lancet Public Health. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00311-5.
14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, What Data Does the BLS Publish on Family Leave? 2023 Sept 21. www.bls.gov/ebs/factsheets/family-leave-benefits-fact-sheet.htm.
15. Horowitz JM et al. Americans Widely Support Paid Family and Medical Leave, But Differ Over Specific Policies. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, Pew Research Center. 2017 Mar 23. www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies/.
Maternal mental health has a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of the child. Since the onset of the pandemic, rates of postpartum depression have increased, affecting an estimated 1 in 5 women.1 Numerous studies show the impact of postpartum depression on the newborn child across multiple domains, from bonding to healthy weight gain to meeting developmental milestones.
While new medications are being studied and approved to specifically target postpartum depression, these treatments are inaccessible to many because of high costs and long wait lists. Beyond medication, structural changes such as paid parental leave have been shown to have a substantial impact on maternal mental health, thus impacting the health of children as well.
Implications for Mothers and Children
Psychiatric diagnoses such as postpartum depression are on the rise.1,2 This is likely attributable to a combination of factors, including increased isolation since the start of the pandemic, worsening health inequities across race and socioeconomic status, and difficulty accessing mental health care.3-5 The effect that postpartum depression has on the family is significant for the newborn as well as other children in the home.
Data suggest that postpartum depression impacts both the physical and mental health of the child. Infants of mothers with postpartum depression may experience challenges with weight gain, decreased breastfeeding, sleep disruptions, and delays in achieving developmental milestones.6-9 They may also show decreased maternal infant bonding, challenges with cognitive development including language and IQ, and increased risk of behavioral disturbances.10,11 These effects are likely attributable to a combination of factors, including decreased maternal responsiveness to infant cues.7,12 Many of these effects are mediated by the chronicity and severity of depressive symptoms, suggesting the importance of screening and treatment of postpartum depression.10,11 However, treatment for postpartum depression can be difficult to access, particularly given the increased level of need.
It is therefore critical to consider what structural interventions and policy changes can decrease the risk of developing postpartum depression. Data consistently show that access to paid parental leave improves maternal mental health outcomes. Among patients with access to parental leave, research shows that paid leave of longer duration, at least 2-3 months, is the most protective.13 Studies have identified decreased depressive symptoms, decreased stress, decreased use of mental health services, and decreased hospital admissions among women with longer parental leave.13 The positive effects of paid parental leave on maternal mental health can extend beyond the postpartum period, solidifying its impact on the long-term health outcomes of both mother and child.13
Advocacy Is Imperative
In 2024, the United States is the only high-income country, and one of only seven countries in the world, that does not guarantee access to paid parental leave. The Family Medical Leave Act is a 31-year-old federal law that requires some employers to provide unpaid leave to eligible employees. It is narrow in scope, and it excludes many low-wage workers and LGBTQ+ families. Thirteen states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington — as well as the District of Columbia, have enacted their own paid leave policies. However, there are no federal laws requiring access to paid parental leave. As of 2023, fewer than 30% of workers in the United States have access to paid parental leave, and only 16% of employees in the service industry have access to paid parental leave.14 This disproportionately affects families from lower income backgrounds, and further exacerbates socioeconomic, racial, and gender inequities. From a health systems lens, this increases risk of adverse maternal mental health outcomes among those who already have decreased access to mental health services, worsening health disparities.
Paid parental leave has strong public support across party lines, with polls showing the majority of Americans support comprehensive paid family and medical leave.15 Despite this, the United States has failed to enact legislation on this issue since 1993. Multiple attempts at expanding leave have not come to fruition. In the past year, both the house and the senate have announced bipartisan efforts to expand access to paid parental leave. However, legislative frameworks are still in early stages.
As physicians, it is crucial that we advocate for expanded access to paid parental leave. We must use our expertise to speak to the impact that paid parental leave can have on the mental and physical health of parents, children, and families. By advocating for paid parental leave, we can help create a more just and equitable healthcare system.
Dr. Shannon is a second-year psychiatry resident at University of California, Los Angeles. She attended Stanford University for her undergraduate degree and Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine for medical school. Her interests include perinatal psychiatry, health systems research, and mental health policy advocacy. Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences; program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship; and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles.
References
1. Wang Z et al. Mapping Global Prevalence of Depression Among Postpartum Women. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Oct 20. doi: 10.1038/s41398-021-01663-6.
2. Iyengar U et al. One Year Into the Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Perinatal Mental Health Outcomes During COVID-19. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jun 24. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.674194.
3. World Health Organization. Mental Health and COVID-19: Early Evidence of the Pandemic’s Impact: Scientific Brief. 2022 Mar 2. www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci_Brief-Mental_health-2022.1.
4. Masters GA et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health, Access to Care, and Health Disparities in the Perinatal Period. J Psychiatr Res. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.02.056.
5. Shuffrey LC et al. Improving Perinatal Maternal Mental Health Starts With Addressing Structural Inequities. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0097.
6. Lubotzky-Gete S et al. Postpartum Depression and Infant Development Up to 24 months: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. J Affect Disord. 2021 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.02.042.
7. Saharoy R et al. Postpartum Depression and Maternal Care: Exploring the Complex Effects on Mothers and Infants. Cureus. 2023 Jul 4. doi: 10.7759/cureus.41381..
8. Gress-Smith JL et al. Postpartum Depression Prevalence and Impact on Infant Health, Weight, and Sleep in Low-Income and Ethnic Minority Women and Infants. Matern Child Health J. 2012 May. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0812-y.
9. Kim S et al. The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Nurs Res. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.1177/10547738211053507.
10. Mirhosseini H et al. Cognitive Behavioral Development in Children Following Maternal Postpartum Depression: A Review Article. Electron Physician. 2015 Dec 20. doi: 10.19082/1673.
11. Grace SL et al. The Effect of Postpartum Depression on Child Cognitive Development and Behavior: A Review and Critical Analysis of the Literature. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2003 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s00737-003-0024-6.
12. Milgrom J et al. The Mediating Role of Maternal Responsiveness in Some Longer Term Effects of Postnatal Depression on Infant Development. Infant Behavior and Development. 2004 Sep 11. doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.03.003.
13. Heshmati A et al. The Effect of Parental Leave on Parents’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Lancet Public Health. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00311-5.
14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, What Data Does the BLS Publish on Family Leave? 2023 Sept 21. www.bls.gov/ebs/factsheets/family-leave-benefits-fact-sheet.htm.
15. Horowitz JM et al. Americans Widely Support Paid Family and Medical Leave, But Differ Over Specific Policies. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, Pew Research Center. 2017 Mar 23. www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies/.
ERISA Health Plan Lawsuits: Why Should We Care?
A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.
The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.
Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?
With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.
Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.
Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
CSRO Payer Issue Response Team
I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.
I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.
I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?
A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)
We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.
The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.
Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?
With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.
Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.
Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
CSRO Payer Issue Response Team
I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.
I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.
I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?
A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)
We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.
The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.
Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?
With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.
Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.
Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
CSRO Payer Issue Response Team
I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.
I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.
I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?
A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)
We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
A 35-year-old female presented with a 1-day history of eroded papules and vesicles distributed periorally
.1 While it predominantly affects children, it is important to note that it can also affect adults. Although it is not a life threatening infection, it can cause a painful rash and is highly contagious. The infection is easily spread in multiple ways, including via respiratory droplets, contact with vesicular or nasal secretions, or through fecal-oral transmission. Most cases occur during the summer and fall seasons but individuals can be infected at any time of the year.
HFMD typically starts with a few days of non-specific viral symptoms, such as fever, cough, sore throat, and fatigue. It is then followed by an eruption of intraoral macules and vesicles and a widespread distribution of oval shaped macules that predominantly involve the hands and feet.1 Both children and adults can present atypically. Atypical presentations include vesicles and bullae on extensor surfaces such as the forearms, as well as eruptions on the face or buttocks.2 Other atypical morphologies include eczema herpeticum-like, Gianotti-Crosti-like, and purpuric/petechiae.3 Atypical hand, food, and mouth disease cases are often caused by coxsackievirus A6, however other strains of coxsackievirus can also cause atypical symptoms.2,3
Our 35-year-old female patient presented with eroded papules and vesicles around the mouth. A diagnosis of atypical HFMD was made clinically in the following days when the patient developed the more classic intraoral and acral macules and vesicles.
Similar to our case, HFMD is most often diagnosed clinically. PCR testing from an active vesicle or nasopharyngeal swab can be obtained. Treatment for HFMD is supportive and symptoms generally resolve over 7-10 days. Over-the-counter analgesics, such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen, as well as oral analgesics that contain lidocaine or diphenhydramine are often helpful3. In this case, our patient improved over the course of seven days without needing therapy.
This case and the photos were submitted by Vanessa Ortega, BS, University of California, San Diego; Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, and Justin Gordon, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, June 20). Symptoms of hand, foot, and mouth disease.
2. Drago F et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Aug;77(2):e51-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.03.046.
3. Starkey SY et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2024 Jan-Feb;41(1):23-7. doi: 10.1111/pde.15461.
.1 While it predominantly affects children, it is important to note that it can also affect adults. Although it is not a life threatening infection, it can cause a painful rash and is highly contagious. The infection is easily spread in multiple ways, including via respiratory droplets, contact with vesicular or nasal secretions, or through fecal-oral transmission. Most cases occur during the summer and fall seasons but individuals can be infected at any time of the year.
HFMD typically starts with a few days of non-specific viral symptoms, such as fever, cough, sore throat, and fatigue. It is then followed by an eruption of intraoral macules and vesicles and a widespread distribution of oval shaped macules that predominantly involve the hands and feet.1 Both children and adults can present atypically. Atypical presentations include vesicles and bullae on extensor surfaces such as the forearms, as well as eruptions on the face or buttocks.2 Other atypical morphologies include eczema herpeticum-like, Gianotti-Crosti-like, and purpuric/petechiae.3 Atypical hand, food, and mouth disease cases are often caused by coxsackievirus A6, however other strains of coxsackievirus can also cause atypical symptoms.2,3
Our 35-year-old female patient presented with eroded papules and vesicles around the mouth. A diagnosis of atypical HFMD was made clinically in the following days when the patient developed the more classic intraoral and acral macules and vesicles.
Similar to our case, HFMD is most often diagnosed clinically. PCR testing from an active vesicle or nasopharyngeal swab can be obtained. Treatment for HFMD is supportive and symptoms generally resolve over 7-10 days. Over-the-counter analgesics, such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen, as well as oral analgesics that contain lidocaine or diphenhydramine are often helpful3. In this case, our patient improved over the course of seven days without needing therapy.
This case and the photos were submitted by Vanessa Ortega, BS, University of California, San Diego; Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, and Justin Gordon, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, June 20). Symptoms of hand, foot, and mouth disease.
2. Drago F et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Aug;77(2):e51-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.03.046.
3. Starkey SY et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2024 Jan-Feb;41(1):23-7. doi: 10.1111/pde.15461.
.1 While it predominantly affects children, it is important to note that it can also affect adults. Although it is not a life threatening infection, it can cause a painful rash and is highly contagious. The infection is easily spread in multiple ways, including via respiratory droplets, contact with vesicular or nasal secretions, or through fecal-oral transmission. Most cases occur during the summer and fall seasons but individuals can be infected at any time of the year.
HFMD typically starts with a few days of non-specific viral symptoms, such as fever, cough, sore throat, and fatigue. It is then followed by an eruption of intraoral macules and vesicles and a widespread distribution of oval shaped macules that predominantly involve the hands and feet.1 Both children and adults can present atypically. Atypical presentations include vesicles and bullae on extensor surfaces such as the forearms, as well as eruptions on the face or buttocks.2 Other atypical morphologies include eczema herpeticum-like, Gianotti-Crosti-like, and purpuric/petechiae.3 Atypical hand, food, and mouth disease cases are often caused by coxsackievirus A6, however other strains of coxsackievirus can also cause atypical symptoms.2,3
Our 35-year-old female patient presented with eroded papules and vesicles around the mouth. A diagnosis of atypical HFMD was made clinically in the following days when the patient developed the more classic intraoral and acral macules and vesicles.
Similar to our case, HFMD is most often diagnosed clinically. PCR testing from an active vesicle or nasopharyngeal swab can be obtained. Treatment for HFMD is supportive and symptoms generally resolve over 7-10 days. Over-the-counter analgesics, such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen, as well as oral analgesics that contain lidocaine or diphenhydramine are often helpful3. In this case, our patient improved over the course of seven days without needing therapy.
This case and the photos were submitted by Vanessa Ortega, BS, University of California, San Diego; Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, and Justin Gordon, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, June 20). Symptoms of hand, foot, and mouth disease.
2. Drago F et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Aug;77(2):e51-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.03.046.
3. Starkey SY et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2024 Jan-Feb;41(1):23-7. doi: 10.1111/pde.15461.
