Commentary

Editor’s note: This is Dr. Chan’s last post for her “Rheum in Bloom” column. She is saying goodbye to New England, leaving the private practice setting for a different challenge.

All too often these days, I find myself fidgeting by the doorway to my exam room, trying to conclude an office visit with one of my patients. When I look at my career at midlife, I realize that in many ways I have become the kind of doctor I never thought I’d be: impatient, occasionally indifferent, at times dismissive or paternalistic.

–Sandeep Jauhar, MD

For as long as I’ve been a doctor, doctors have lamented how much medicine has changed. Columnist Charles Krauthammer, MD, wrote a widely-circulated piece in 2015 with the catchy title “Why Doctors Quit,” attributing physician dissatisfaction to the wasteful and frustrating electronic health record mandate. It is worth noting here that Dr. Krauthammer is a political partisan making a point about government overreach and not really about the state of medicine, but the piece certainly resonated with doctors, judging by the number of times it was shared with me. In Medscape’s physician compensation poll of 2016, only 64% of doctors would choose medicine again. In a separate Medscape poll on burnout, under 30% of physicians felt happy at work.

In Dr. Sandeep Jauhar’s book, “Doctored,” (from which the above quote is taken), he cites several issues: the lack of respect that the profession is afforded, the practice of defensive medicine, inadequate compensation, the lack of independence. He goes further: “... Surveys have shown that 30%-40% of practicing physicians would not choose to enter the medical profession if they were deciding on a career again, and an even higher percentage would not encourage their children to pursue a medical career.” He does not say where he got that information, but it sounds plausible.

I asked peers, mostly people I went through training with and therefore generally belonging to my age group. This small, nonrepresentative sample of young physician parents, many of whom are foreign graduates, seemed to belie Dr. Jauhar’s pessimism. Most of my friends thought medicine is still rewarding. They see our profession as emotionally meaningful and intellectually fulfilling – this despite a surprising number of them having been named in ultimately unsuccessful lawsuits. “The headaches are many, but most professions that make decent money have their own set of headaches and problems,” my allergist friend says. In addition, a career in medicine, they feel, would provide their children financial stability. The consensus was that if their children wanted to, my peers would be nothing but supportive.

I asked my boss about it, too. He is older and very vocal about what he perceives as a hostile working environment. If there was just one demographic that Dr. Krauthammer was speaking for, that is exactly the demographic that my boss belongs to. So I was certain that he had similarly dissuaded his son from going into medicine. But I was wrong.

It isn’t that my boss discouraged his son; it’s that his son was not interested. He says if he thought his son might have enjoyed the work he absolutely would have encouraged it. Because as onerous as our profession has become, it is still a meaningful and rewarding one. And as long as we derive meaning from the work that we do, it is much easier to put up with the unsavory parts.

Dr. Chan practices rheumatology in Pawtucket, R.I.

Editor’s note: This is Dr. Chan’s last post for her “Rheum in Bloom” column. She is saying goodbye to New England, leaving the private practice setting for a different challenge.

All too often these days, I find myself fidgeting by the doorway to my exam room, trying to conclude an office visit with one of my patients. When I look at my career at midlife, I realize that in many ways I have become the kind of doctor I never thought I’d be: impatient, occasionally indifferent, at times dismissive or paternalistic.

–Sandeep Jauhar, MD

For as long as I’ve been a doctor, doctors have lamented how much medicine has changed. Columnist Charles Krauthammer, MD, wrote a widely-circulated piece in 2015 with the catchy title “Why Doctors Quit,” attributing physician dissatisfaction to the wasteful and frustrating electronic health record mandate. It is worth noting here that Dr. Krauthammer is a political partisan making a point about government overreach and not really about the state of medicine, but the piece certainly resonated with doctors, judging by the number of times it was shared with me. In Medscape’s physician compensation poll of 2016, only 64% of doctors would choose medicine again. In a separate Medscape poll on burnout, under 30% of physicians felt happy at work.

In Dr. Sandeep Jauhar’s book, “Doctored,” (from which the above quote is taken), he cites several issues: the lack of respect that the profession is afforded, the practice of defensive medicine, inadequate compensation, the lack of independence. He goes further: “... Surveys have shown that 30%-40% of practicing physicians would not choose to enter the medical profession if they were deciding on a career again, and an even higher percentage would not encourage their children to pursue a medical career.” He does not say where he got that information, but it sounds plausible.

I asked peers, mostly people I went through training with and therefore generally belonging to my age group. This small, nonrepresentative sample of young physician parents, many of whom are foreign graduates, seemed to belie Dr. Jauhar’s pessimism. Most of my friends thought medicine is still rewarding. They see our profession as emotionally meaningful and intellectually fulfilling – this despite a surprising number of them having been named in ultimately unsuccessful lawsuits. “The headaches are many, but most professions that make decent money have their own set of headaches and problems,” my allergist friend says. In addition, a career in medicine, they feel, would provide their children financial stability. The consensus was that if their children wanted to, my peers would be nothing but supportive.

I asked my boss about it, too. He is older and very vocal about what he perceives as a hostile working environment. If there was just one demographic that Dr. Krauthammer was speaking for, that is exactly the demographic that my boss belongs to. So I was certain that he had similarly dissuaded his son from going into medicine. But I was wrong.

It isn’t that my boss discouraged his son; it’s that his son was not interested. He says if he thought his son might have enjoyed the work he absolutely would have encouraged it. Because as onerous as our profession has become, it is still a meaningful and rewarding one. And as long as we derive meaning from the work that we do, it is much easier to put up with the unsavory parts.

Dr. Chan practices rheumatology in Pawtucket, R.I.

Editor’s note: This is Dr. Chan’s last post for her “Rheum in Bloom” column. She is saying goodbye to New England, leaving the private practice setting for a different challenge.

All too often these days, I find myself fidgeting by the doorway to my exam room, trying to conclude an office visit with one of my patients. When I look at my career at midlife, I realize that in many ways I have become the kind of doctor I never thought I’d be: impatient, occasionally indifferent, at times dismissive or paternalistic.

–Sandeep Jauhar, MD

For as long as I’ve been a doctor, doctors have lamented how much medicine has changed. Columnist Charles Krauthammer, MD, wrote a widely-circulated piece in 2015 with the catchy title “Why Doctors Quit,” attributing physician dissatisfaction to the wasteful and frustrating electronic health record mandate. It is worth noting here that Dr. Krauthammer is a political partisan making a point about government overreach and not really about the state of medicine, but the piece certainly resonated with doctors, judging by the number of times it was shared with me. In Medscape’s physician compensation poll of 2016, only 64% of doctors would choose medicine again. In a separate Medscape poll on burnout, under 30% of physicians felt happy at work.

In Dr. Sandeep Jauhar’s book, “Doctored,” (from which the above quote is taken), he cites several issues: the lack of respect that the profession is afforded, the practice of defensive medicine, inadequate compensation, the lack of independence. He goes further: “... Surveys have shown that 30%-40% of practicing physicians would not choose to enter the medical profession if they were deciding on a career again, and an even higher percentage would not encourage their children to pursue a medical career.” He does not say where he got that information, but it sounds plausible.

I asked peers, mostly people I went through training with and therefore generally belonging to my age group. This small, nonrepresentative sample of young physician parents, many of whom are foreign graduates, seemed to belie Dr. Jauhar’s pessimism. Most of my friends thought medicine is still rewarding. They see our profession as emotionally meaningful and intellectually fulfilling – this despite a surprising number of them having been named in ultimately unsuccessful lawsuits. “The headaches are many, but most professions that make decent money have their own set of headaches and problems,” my allergist friend says. In addition, a career in medicine, they feel, would provide their children financial stability. The consensus was that if their children wanted to, my peers would be nothing but supportive.

I asked my boss about it, too. He is older and very vocal about what he perceives as a hostile working environment. If there was just one demographic that Dr. Krauthammer was speaking for, that is exactly the demographic that my boss belongs to. So I was certain that he had similarly dissuaded his son from going into medicine. But I was wrong.

It isn’t that my boss discouraged his son; it’s that his son was not interested. He says if he thought his son might have enjoyed the work he absolutely would have encouraged it. Because as onerous as our profession has become, it is still a meaningful and rewarding one. And as long as we derive meaning from the work that we do, it is much easier to put up with the unsavory parts.

Dr. Chan practices rheumatology in Pawtucket, R.I.

Every 3 months I get a letter from the state, showing me how my controlled prescriptions stack up against those of other neurologists here.

I’ve always been in the “normal” range. Which is good, I guess. In this era, no one wants to be seen as running a pill mill.

But when I compare them over the last year, I notice that my narcotic prescriptions have been gradually declining. Am I reducing my scripts subconsciously, knowing that I’m being watched by regulatory agencies?

It’s quite possible. While I haven’t intentionally been cutting back on narcotics, I have been paying closer attention to who I’m writing them for. This has likely led me to use them more sparingly.

The trouble is that pain is a legitimate problem for many, and NSAIDs have numerous safety issues that limit their use. Acetaminophen has hepatic issues. My previous noncontrolled drug of choice, Tramadol, was reclassified as controlled in 2014.

Narcotic abuse and diversion are serious problems that need attention. But there are also people with legitimate noncancer pain who require them to function with a reasonable quality of life. We all have them in our practice. Sorting them out from abusers is never easy.

Unfortunately, the increased vigilance also affects those who need our help. A recent National Public Radio article noted the difficulty of finding a doctor in Montana who is willing to take on pain patients, with the result that some have to travel out of state to get help.

I’m sure they’re not the only ones, especially in states that have a low population density. And not all patients are going to have the financial resources to travel. Or afford the rates of the dwindling number of physicians willing to frequently prescribe narcotics. These people sadly become collateral damage in the drug wars.

Does this mean I’m going to increase my use of narcotics to help all who come to me? No.

Because, in a world where my licensure (and therefore livelihood) is potentially affected by my prescribing habits, I have to put my family first. This doesn’t mean I’m abandoning any of my current or even future patients, but it does mean I’ll be more vigilant on every controlled script I write.

I don’t know anyone who’d do otherwise in today’s climate.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Every 3 months I get a letter from the state, showing me how my controlled prescriptions stack up against those of other neurologists here.

I’ve always been in the “normal” range. Which is good, I guess. In this era, no one wants to be seen as running a pill mill.

But when I compare them over the last year, I notice that my narcotic prescriptions have been gradually declining. Am I reducing my scripts subconsciously, knowing that I’m being watched by regulatory agencies?

It’s quite possible. While I haven’t intentionally been cutting back on narcotics, I have been paying closer attention to who I’m writing them for. This has likely led me to use them more sparingly.

The trouble is that pain is a legitimate problem for many, and NSAIDs have numerous safety issues that limit their use. Acetaminophen has hepatic issues. My previous noncontrolled drug of choice, Tramadol, was reclassified as controlled in 2014.

Narcotic abuse and diversion are serious problems that need attention. But there are also people with legitimate noncancer pain who require them to function with a reasonable quality of life. We all have them in our practice. Sorting them out from abusers is never easy.

Unfortunately, the increased vigilance also affects those who need our help. A recent National Public Radio article noted the difficulty of finding a doctor in Montana who is willing to take on pain patients, with the result that some have to travel out of state to get help.

I’m sure they’re not the only ones, especially in states that have a low population density. And not all patients are going to have the financial resources to travel. Or afford the rates of the dwindling number of physicians willing to frequently prescribe narcotics. These people sadly become collateral damage in the drug wars.

Does this mean I’m going to increase my use of narcotics to help all who come to me? No.

Because, in a world where my licensure (and therefore livelihood) is potentially affected by my prescribing habits, I have to put my family first. This doesn’t mean I’m abandoning any of my current or even future patients, but it does mean I’ll be more vigilant on every controlled script I write.

I don’t know anyone who’d do otherwise in today’s climate.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Every 3 months I get a letter from the state, showing me how my controlled prescriptions stack up against those of other neurologists here.

I’ve always been in the “normal” range. Which is good, I guess. In this era, no one wants to be seen as running a pill mill.

But when I compare them over the last year, I notice that my narcotic prescriptions have been gradually declining. Am I reducing my scripts subconsciously, knowing that I’m being watched by regulatory agencies?

It’s quite possible. While I haven’t intentionally been cutting back on narcotics, I have been paying closer attention to who I’m writing them for. This has likely led me to use them more sparingly.

The trouble is that pain is a legitimate problem for many, and NSAIDs have numerous safety issues that limit their use. Acetaminophen has hepatic issues. My previous noncontrolled drug of choice, Tramadol, was reclassified as controlled in 2014.

Narcotic abuse and diversion are serious problems that need attention. But there are also people with legitimate noncancer pain who require them to function with a reasonable quality of life. We all have them in our practice. Sorting them out from abusers is never easy.

Unfortunately, the increased vigilance also affects those who need our help. A recent National Public Radio article noted the difficulty of finding a doctor in Montana who is willing to take on pain patients, with the result that some have to travel out of state to get help.

I’m sure they’re not the only ones, especially in states that have a low population density. And not all patients are going to have the financial resources to travel. Or afford the rates of the dwindling number of physicians willing to frequently prescribe narcotics. These people sadly become collateral damage in the drug wars.

Does this mean I’m going to increase my use of narcotics to help all who come to me? No.

Because, in a world where my licensure (and therefore livelihood) is potentially affected by my prescribing habits, I have to put my family first. This doesn’t mean I’m abandoning any of my current or even future patients, but it does mean I’ll be more vigilant on every controlled script I write.

I don’t know anyone who’d do otherwise in today’s climate.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Clinicians outside of the surgical specialties may consider surgeons primarily providers of technical services, but those of us who provide surgical care fully appreciate that communicating with patients and families is a large component of routine surgical practice. Typical communications in surgical practice include obtaining a history of present illness, which is a key element in the ultimate decision to offer a surgical intervention, or not; discussing the risks, benefits, and alternatives of any operation being considered; and the numerous discussions held following any surgical procedure. What many surgeons may not fully appreciate, however, is how these routine communication events can fall under the general category of advance care planning (ACP).

ACP is defined as a process in which physicians (and other health care providers) discuss a patient’s goals, values, and beliefs and determine how these inform a patient’s desire for current or future medical care. Hickman et al. (Hastings Center Report Special Report 35, no. 6 (2005):S26-S30) note that ACP should focus on defining “good” care for each patient. Furthermore, changes in a patient’s medical condition represent an opportune time to revisit a patient’s hopes and goals. Consideration of surgical intervention often represents a major change in a patient’s medical condition and therefore is an excellent opportunity to engage a patient in an ACP discussion.

Given that ACP discussions are likely occurring in surgical practices on a regular basis, surgeons need to be aware of a recent change in the Physician Fee Schedule that took effect Jan. 1, 2016. Effective this date, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 99497 and 99498 now allow for billing for ACP services. CPT code 99497 includes ACP “including the explanation and discussion of advance directives such as standard forms (with the completion of such forms, when performed), by the physician or other qualified health care professional; first 30 minutes, face-to-face with patient, family member(s) and/or surrogate.” CPT code 99498 is used for each additional 30 minutes spent in such face-to-face ACP counseling.

The nuts and bolts of how these ACP CPT codes work:

How many times can these code(s) be used? There are no limits on the number of times ACP can be reported for a given beneficiary in a given time period. For example, if an ACP discussion was held with a patient and/or family member and/or surrogate prior to a major elective procedure and again in the postoperative period, the above CPT codes could be used twice. In each instance, the ACP discussion must be documented, along with any relevant change in the patient’s clinical status that prompted another ACP discussion.

Can a patient or their family member/surrogate refuse ACP services? ACP services are voluntary; therefore, a patient or their family member/surrogate can refuse ACP services. These CPT codes only can be used if a patient or family member/surrogate consents for ACP services.

What must be documented in ACP services? Physicians should consult their Medicare Administrative Contractors for documentation requirements. Examples of elements to be included in the documentation are a brief description of the discussion with the patient or family/surrogate regarding the voluntary nature of ACP services, an explanation of advance directives and documentation if an advance directive is completed, who was present during the discussion, and time spent in the face-to-face encounter.

Does an advance directive have to be completed to bill the service? No. If an advance directive is completed, this should be documented (see above), but completion of the directive is not a requirement for billing the service.

Can ACP be reported in addition to an evaluation and management (E/M) service (such as an office visit)? Yes. CPT codes 99497 and 99498 may be billed on the same day or a different day as most other E/M services. They may be billed within the global surgical period.

Is a specific diagnosis required to use the ACP CPT codes? No, a specific diagnosis is not required for the ACP codes to be billed.

According to the 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, the reimbursement is $85.99 for CPT 99497 and $74.88 for CPT 99498. For comparison, the reimbursement for E/M CPT 99203 (30-minute initial evaluation) = $108.85, CPT 99204 (45-minute initial evaluation) = $166.13, and CPT 99205 (60-minute initial evaluation) = $208.38. Far more important than the financial remuneration for these discussions, however, is the critical need for surgeons to have and document their ACP discussions with their patients and/or their family member/surrogate. As surgeons, we are often called to see patients when they are facing a significant change in their health – whether that is a new diagnosis of cancer or after a traumatic injury. Understanding a patient’s values, hopes, and concerns is an essential component to ensuring that our patients receive the best care, as defined by them.

Dr. Fahy is associate professor of surgery and internal medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. She is a surgical oncologist who is also board certified in hospice and palliative medicine. Dr. Fahy does not have any relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Clinicians outside of the surgical specialties may consider surgeons primarily providers of technical services, but those of us who provide surgical care fully appreciate that communicating with patients and families is a large component of routine surgical practice. Typical communications in surgical practice include obtaining a history of present illness, which is a key element in the ultimate decision to offer a surgical intervention, or not; discussing the risks, benefits, and alternatives of any operation being considered; and the numerous discussions held following any surgical procedure. What many surgeons may not fully appreciate, however, is how these routine communication events can fall under the general category of advance care planning (ACP).

ACP is defined as a process in which physicians (and other health care providers) discuss a patient’s goals, values, and beliefs and determine how these inform a patient’s desire for current or future medical care. Hickman et al. (Hastings Center Report Special Report 35, no. 6 (2005):S26-S30) note that ACP should focus on defining “good” care for each patient. Furthermore, changes in a patient’s medical condition represent an opportune time to revisit a patient’s hopes and goals. Consideration of surgical intervention often represents a major change in a patient’s medical condition and therefore is an excellent opportunity to engage a patient in an ACP discussion.

Given that ACP discussions are likely occurring in surgical practices on a regular basis, surgeons need to be aware of a recent change in the Physician Fee Schedule that took effect Jan. 1, 2016. Effective this date, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 99497 and 99498 now allow for billing for ACP services. CPT code 99497 includes ACP “including the explanation and discussion of advance directives such as standard forms (with the completion of such forms, when performed), by the physician or other qualified health care professional; first 30 minutes, face-to-face with patient, family member(s) and/or surrogate.” CPT code 99498 is used for each additional 30 minutes spent in such face-to-face ACP counseling.

The nuts and bolts of how these ACP CPT codes work:

How many times can these code(s) be used? There are no limits on the number of times ACP can be reported for a given beneficiary in a given time period. For example, if an ACP discussion was held with a patient and/or family member and/or surrogate prior to a major elective procedure and again in the postoperative period, the above CPT codes could be used twice. In each instance, the ACP discussion must be documented, along with any relevant change in the patient’s clinical status that prompted another ACP discussion.

Can a patient or their family member/surrogate refuse ACP services? ACP services are voluntary; therefore, a patient or their family member/surrogate can refuse ACP services. These CPT codes only can be used if a patient or family member/surrogate consents for ACP services.

What must be documented in ACP services? Physicians should consult their Medicare Administrative Contractors for documentation requirements. Examples of elements to be included in the documentation are a brief description of the discussion with the patient or family/surrogate regarding the voluntary nature of ACP services, an explanation of advance directives and documentation if an advance directive is completed, who was present during the discussion, and time spent in the face-to-face encounter.

Does an advance directive have to be completed to bill the service? No. If an advance directive is completed, this should be documented (see above), but completion of the directive is not a requirement for billing the service.

Can ACP be reported in addition to an evaluation and management (E/M) service (such as an office visit)? Yes. CPT codes 99497 and 99498 may be billed on the same day or a different day as most other E/M services. They may be billed within the global surgical period.

Is a specific diagnosis required to use the ACP CPT codes? No, a specific diagnosis is not required for the ACP codes to be billed.

According to the 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, the reimbursement is $85.99 for CPT 99497 and $74.88 for CPT 99498. For comparison, the reimbursement for E/M CPT 99203 (30-minute initial evaluation) = $108.85, CPT 99204 (45-minute initial evaluation) = $166.13, and CPT 99205 (60-minute initial evaluation) = $208.38. Far more important than the financial remuneration for these discussions, however, is the critical need for surgeons to have and document their ACP discussions with their patients and/or their family member/surrogate. As surgeons, we are often called to see patients when they are facing a significant change in their health – whether that is a new diagnosis of cancer or after a traumatic injury. Understanding a patient’s values, hopes, and concerns is an essential component to ensuring that our patients receive the best care, as defined by them.

Dr. Fahy is associate professor of surgery and internal medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. She is a surgical oncologist who is also board certified in hospice and palliative medicine. Dr. Fahy does not have any relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Clinicians outside of the surgical specialties may consider surgeons primarily providers of technical services, but those of us who provide surgical care fully appreciate that communicating with patients and families is a large component of routine surgical practice. Typical communications in surgical practice include obtaining a history of present illness, which is a key element in the ultimate decision to offer a surgical intervention, or not; discussing the risks, benefits, and alternatives of any operation being considered; and the numerous discussions held following any surgical procedure. What many surgeons may not fully appreciate, however, is how these routine communication events can fall under the general category of advance care planning (ACP).

ACP is defined as a process in which physicians (and other health care providers) discuss a patient’s goals, values, and beliefs and determine how these inform a patient’s desire for current or future medical care. Hickman et al. (Hastings Center Report Special Report 35, no. 6 (2005):S26-S30) note that ACP should focus on defining “good” care for each patient. Furthermore, changes in a patient’s medical condition represent an opportune time to revisit a patient’s hopes and goals. Consideration of surgical intervention often represents a major change in a patient’s medical condition and therefore is an excellent opportunity to engage a patient in an ACP discussion.

Given that ACP discussions are likely occurring in surgical practices on a regular basis, surgeons need to be aware of a recent change in the Physician Fee Schedule that took effect Jan. 1, 2016. Effective this date, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 99497 and 99498 now allow for billing for ACP services. CPT code 99497 includes ACP “including the explanation and discussion of advance directives such as standard forms (with the completion of such forms, when performed), by the physician or other qualified health care professional; first 30 minutes, face-to-face with patient, family member(s) and/or surrogate.” CPT code 99498 is used for each additional 30 minutes spent in such face-to-face ACP counseling.

The nuts and bolts of how these ACP CPT codes work:

How many times can these code(s) be used? There are no limits on the number of times ACP can be reported for a given beneficiary in a given time period. For example, if an ACP discussion was held with a patient and/or family member and/or surrogate prior to a major elective procedure and again in the postoperative period, the above CPT codes could be used twice. In each instance, the ACP discussion must be documented, along with any relevant change in the patient’s clinical status that prompted another ACP discussion.

Can a patient or their family member/surrogate refuse ACP services? ACP services are voluntary; therefore, a patient or their family member/surrogate can refuse ACP services. These CPT codes only can be used if a patient or family member/surrogate consents for ACP services.

What must be documented in ACP services? Physicians should consult their Medicare Administrative Contractors for documentation requirements. Examples of elements to be included in the documentation are a brief description of the discussion with the patient or family/surrogate regarding the voluntary nature of ACP services, an explanation of advance directives and documentation if an advance directive is completed, who was present during the discussion, and time spent in the face-to-face encounter.

Does an advance directive have to be completed to bill the service? No. If an advance directive is completed, this should be documented (see above), but completion of the directive is not a requirement for billing the service.

Can ACP be reported in addition to an evaluation and management (E/M) service (such as an office visit)? Yes. CPT codes 99497 and 99498 may be billed on the same day or a different day as most other E/M services. They may be billed within the global surgical period.

Is a specific diagnosis required to use the ACP CPT codes? No, a specific diagnosis is not required for the ACP codes to be billed.

According to the 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, the reimbursement is $85.99 for CPT 99497 and $74.88 for CPT 99498. For comparison, the reimbursement for E/M CPT 99203 (30-minute initial evaluation) = $108.85, CPT 99204 (45-minute initial evaluation) = $166.13, and CPT 99205 (60-minute initial evaluation) = $208.38. Far more important than the financial remuneration for these discussions, however, is the critical need for surgeons to have and document their ACP discussions with their patients and/or their family member/surrogate. As surgeons, we are often called to see patients when they are facing a significant change in their health – whether that is a new diagnosis of cancer or after a traumatic injury. Understanding a patient’s values, hopes, and concerns is an essential component to ensuring that our patients receive the best care, as defined by them.

Dr. Fahy is associate professor of surgery and internal medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. She is a surgical oncologist who is also board certified in hospice and palliative medicine. Dr. Fahy does not have any relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

I feel honored to join Tyler G. Hughes as co-Editor of the ACS Surgery News and I am excited to work with its Managing Editor, Therese Borden, to bring to its readers breaking information on a broad range of subjects of interest and importance to practicing surgeons. Although we have a great challenge to fill the giant shoes of our immediate predecessor, Layton “Bing” Rikkers, we will do our best to address the vexing clinical, economic, social, and administrative challenges that continue to confront us no matter what our practice type and setting.

I could not ask for a more accomplished and versatile co-Editor than Tyler Hughes. As a general surgeon practicing in the truly rural setting of McPherson, Kan., since 1995, he became an articulate spokesman for rural surgeons across the country during his tenure on the ACS Board of Governors as Kansas’ at-large member. As the crisis in access to general surgical care for rural Americans became increasingly evident, Tyler was asked to speak to the Board of Regents in February 2012, and the first new Advisory Council in 50 years was formed: the Advisory Council for Rural Surgery (ACRS), of which Tyler was named the first Chair. In 4 short years, the ACRS has become a force to promote better communication among rural surgeons and to call attention to the needs of them and their patients.

Tyler’s communication skills have also been put to great use in his role as Editor of the ACS Web Portal and as the inaugural Editor-in-Chief of the ACS Communities, an activity that has met with incredible success in promoting communication among the far-flung individual surgeons who constitute the ACS membership. Along the way, he has also served as an Associate Editor of “Selected Readings in General Surgery” and a member of the steering committee of Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery.

He currently serves as a Director of the American Board of Surgery (ABS). He is therefore familiar with all of the issues of surgical training, certification, and re-certification. He is similarly well versed in the complexities surrounding the implementation of Maintenance of Certification, which remains a “work in progress” that his experience as a practicing, small-town general surgeon will certainly inform.

Tyler has distinguished himself in other leadership positions throughout his more than 30 years as a surgeon, including as President of his 600-member physician group when he initially practiced in Dallas. He has been a Fellow in the ACS for his entire surgical career and holds a deep respect, affection, and loyalty to the College. He possesses mainstream values, true to his upbringing and his long residence in America’s heartland; yet, he understands and respects the divergent views of surgeons across our country. He is also not afraid to tackle challenging problems, which is why I know that our tenure as co-Editors of ACS Surgery News is not likely to become boring.

I feel honored to join Tyler G. Hughes as co-Editor of the ACS Surgery News and I am excited to work with its Managing Editor, Therese Borden, to bring to its readers breaking information on a broad range of subjects of interest and importance to practicing surgeons. Although we have a great challenge to fill the giant shoes of our immediate predecessor, Layton “Bing” Rikkers, we will do our best to address the vexing clinical, economic, social, and administrative challenges that continue to confront us no matter what our practice type and setting.

I could not ask for a more accomplished and versatile co-Editor than Tyler Hughes. As a general surgeon practicing in the truly rural setting of McPherson, Kan., since 1995, he became an articulate spokesman for rural surgeons across the country during his tenure on the ACS Board of Governors as Kansas’ at-large member. As the crisis in access to general surgical care for rural Americans became increasingly evident, Tyler was asked to speak to the Board of Regents in February 2012, and the first new Advisory Council in 50 years was formed: the Advisory Council for Rural Surgery (ACRS), of which Tyler was named the first Chair. In 4 short years, the ACRS has become a force to promote better communication among rural surgeons and to call attention to the needs of them and their patients.

Tyler’s communication skills have also been put to great use in his role as Editor of the ACS Web Portal and as the inaugural Editor-in-Chief of the ACS Communities, an activity that has met with incredible success in promoting communication among the far-flung individual surgeons who constitute the ACS membership. Along the way, he has also served as an Associate Editor of “Selected Readings in General Surgery” and a member of the steering committee of Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery.

He currently serves as a Director of the American Board of Surgery (ABS). He is therefore familiar with all of the issues of surgical training, certification, and re-certification. He is similarly well versed in the complexities surrounding the implementation of Maintenance of Certification, which remains a “work in progress” that his experience as a practicing, small-town general surgeon will certainly inform.

Tyler has distinguished himself in other leadership positions throughout his more than 30 years as a surgeon, including as President of his 600-member physician group when he initially practiced in Dallas. He has been a Fellow in the ACS for his entire surgical career and holds a deep respect, affection, and loyalty to the College. He possesses mainstream values, true to his upbringing and his long residence in America’s heartland; yet, he understands and respects the divergent views of surgeons across our country. He is also not afraid to tackle challenging problems, which is why I know that our tenure as co-Editors of ACS Surgery News is not likely to become boring.

I feel honored to join Tyler G. Hughes as co-Editor of the ACS Surgery News and I am excited to work with its Managing Editor, Therese Borden, to bring to its readers breaking information on a broad range of subjects of interest and importance to practicing surgeons. Although we have a great challenge to fill the giant shoes of our immediate predecessor, Layton “Bing” Rikkers, we will do our best to address the vexing clinical, economic, social, and administrative challenges that continue to confront us no matter what our practice type and setting.

I could not ask for a more accomplished and versatile co-Editor than Tyler Hughes. As a general surgeon practicing in the truly rural setting of McPherson, Kan., since 1995, he became an articulate spokesman for rural surgeons across the country during his tenure on the ACS Board of Governors as Kansas’ at-large member. As the crisis in access to general surgical care for rural Americans became increasingly evident, Tyler was asked to speak to the Board of Regents in February 2012, and the first new Advisory Council in 50 years was formed: the Advisory Council for Rural Surgery (ACRS), of which Tyler was named the first Chair. In 4 short years, the ACRS has become a force to promote better communication among rural surgeons and to call attention to the needs of them and their patients.

Tyler’s communication skills have also been put to great use in his role as Editor of the ACS Web Portal and as the inaugural Editor-in-Chief of the ACS Communities, an activity that has met with incredible success in promoting communication among the far-flung individual surgeons who constitute the ACS membership. Along the way, he has also served as an Associate Editor of “Selected Readings in General Surgery” and a member of the steering committee of Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery.

He currently serves as a Director of the American Board of Surgery (ABS). He is therefore familiar with all of the issues of surgical training, certification, and re-certification. He is similarly well versed in the complexities surrounding the implementation of Maintenance of Certification, which remains a “work in progress” that his experience as a practicing, small-town general surgeon will certainly inform.

Tyler has distinguished himself in other leadership positions throughout his more than 30 years as a surgeon, including as President of his 600-member physician group when he initially practiced in Dallas. He has been a Fellow in the ACS for his entire surgical career and holds a deep respect, affection, and loyalty to the College. He possesses mainstream values, true to his upbringing and his long residence in America’s heartland; yet, he understands and respects the divergent views of surgeons across our country. He is also not afraid to tackle challenging problems, which is why I know that our tenure as co-Editors of ACS Surgery News is not likely to become boring.

As Layton “Bing” Rikkers leaves his post as Editor of ACS Surgery News, it has fallen to Karen Deveney and me to shepherd the paper forward as co-Editors. Dr. Rikkers felt that a combination approach of an academic surgeon and a community surgeon would bring balance to ACS Surgery News that would be representative of the nature of the American College of Surgeons (ACS).

In Karen Deveney we have an accomplished academic surgeon who has wide ranging interests in and out of surgery. Karen was raised in rural Oregon, went to Stanford for undergraduate education, and did her medical school and residency at University of California, San Francisco. Among her cohort in those times of training and her early academic career were Donald Trunkey, George Sheldon, and Brent Eastman, all of whom, like Karen, went on to have a major impact in the world of surgery.

After a stint in the military serving in Germany with her surgeon husband Cliff, Karen eventually landed at Oregon Health and Science University where she went on to serve as Program Director for 20 years at one of the best general surgery training programs in the country. She served as Second Vice-President of the ACS and is the immediate past-President of the Pacific Coast Surgical Association.

Her CV reflects varied academic interests and activities. So, Karen’s contributions to academic surgery are outstanding. But in Karen we also get a person who is alive to the needs of the population beyond the walls of her major medical center. Karen has been a leader in the march to save surgical access for rural populations. She is a founding member of the ACS Advisory Council for Rural Surgery, serving as the Education Pillar Chair of that Council. In her own institution, Karen is a pioneer in developing a model rural surgery track for general surgery residents – first in Grants Pass, Ore. and then in Coos Bay, Ore.

She has been a hardworking general and colorectal surgeon for over 30 years. And, like almost all dedicated surgical educators, she has taken call – enduring the long call schedule of her residents throughout her career.

Karen and I hope to make a good team in this new effort. We are different in many ways, but very much the same in others. We plan a synergy that will unflinchingly recognize the challenges in surgery and facilitate positive discussion and reporting of the solutions for those challenges. Among those challenges are the changing economic structure of surgery, the facilitation of useful quality efforts, and most importantly, the rapid dissemination of significant clinical and scientific information vital to surgeons everywhere.

Dr. Hughes is an ACS Fellow with the department of general surgery, McPherson Hospital, McPherson, Kan., and is the Editor in Chief of ACS Communities. He is also Associate Editor for ACS Surgery News.

As Layton “Bing” Rikkers leaves his post as Editor of ACS Surgery News, it has fallen to Karen Deveney and me to shepherd the paper forward as co-Editors. Dr. Rikkers felt that a combination approach of an academic surgeon and a community surgeon would bring balance to ACS Surgery News that would be representative of the nature of the American College of Surgeons (ACS).

In Karen Deveney we have an accomplished academic surgeon who has wide ranging interests in and out of surgery. Karen was raised in rural Oregon, went to Stanford for undergraduate education, and did her medical school and residency at University of California, San Francisco. Among her cohort in those times of training and her early academic career were Donald Trunkey, George Sheldon, and Brent Eastman, all of whom, like Karen, went on to have a major impact in the world of surgery.

After a stint in the military serving in Germany with her surgeon husband Cliff, Karen eventually landed at Oregon Health and Science University where she went on to serve as Program Director for 20 years at one of the best general surgery training programs in the country. She served as Second Vice-President of the ACS and is the immediate past-President of the Pacific Coast Surgical Association.

Her CV reflects varied academic interests and activities. So, Karen’s contributions to academic surgery are outstanding. But in Karen we also get a person who is alive to the needs of the population beyond the walls of her major medical center. Karen has been a leader in the march to save surgical access for rural populations. She is a founding member of the ACS Advisory Council for Rural Surgery, serving as the Education Pillar Chair of that Council. In her own institution, Karen is a pioneer in developing a model rural surgery track for general surgery residents – first in Grants Pass, Ore. and then in Coos Bay, Ore.

She has been a hardworking general and colorectal surgeon for over 30 years. And, like almost all dedicated surgical educators, she has taken call – enduring the long call schedule of her residents throughout her career.

Karen and I hope to make a good team in this new effort. We are different in many ways, but very much the same in others. We plan a synergy that will unflinchingly recognize the challenges in surgery and facilitate positive discussion and reporting of the solutions for those challenges. Among those challenges are the changing economic structure of surgery, the facilitation of useful quality efforts, and most importantly, the rapid dissemination of significant clinical and scientific information vital to surgeons everywhere.

Dr. Hughes is an ACS Fellow with the department of general surgery, McPherson Hospital, McPherson, Kan., and is the Editor in Chief of ACS Communities. He is also Associate Editor for ACS Surgery News.

As Layton “Bing” Rikkers leaves his post as Editor of ACS Surgery News, it has fallen to Karen Deveney and me to shepherd the paper forward as co-Editors. Dr. Rikkers felt that a combination approach of an academic surgeon and a community surgeon would bring balance to ACS Surgery News that would be representative of the nature of the American College of Surgeons (ACS).

In Karen Deveney we have an accomplished academic surgeon who has wide ranging interests in and out of surgery. Karen was raised in rural Oregon, went to Stanford for undergraduate education, and did her medical school and residency at University of California, San Francisco. Among her cohort in those times of training and her early academic career were Donald Trunkey, George Sheldon, and Brent Eastman, all of whom, like Karen, went on to have a major impact in the world of surgery.

After a stint in the military serving in Germany with her surgeon husband Cliff, Karen eventually landed at Oregon Health and Science University where she went on to serve as Program Director for 20 years at one of the best general surgery training programs in the country. She served as Second Vice-President of the ACS and is the immediate past-President of the Pacific Coast Surgical Association.

Her CV reflects varied academic interests and activities. So, Karen’s contributions to academic surgery are outstanding. But in Karen we also get a person who is alive to the needs of the population beyond the walls of her major medical center. Karen has been a leader in the march to save surgical access for rural populations. She is a founding member of the ACS Advisory Council for Rural Surgery, serving as the Education Pillar Chair of that Council. In her own institution, Karen is a pioneer in developing a model rural surgery track for general surgery residents – first in Grants Pass, Ore. and then in Coos Bay, Ore.

She has been a hardworking general and colorectal surgeon for over 30 years. And, like almost all dedicated surgical educators, she has taken call – enduring the long call schedule of her residents throughout her career.

Karen and I hope to make a good team in this new effort. We are different in many ways, but very much the same in others. We plan a synergy that will unflinchingly recognize the challenges in surgery and facilitate positive discussion and reporting of the solutions for those challenges. Among those challenges are the changing economic structure of surgery, the facilitation of useful quality efforts, and most importantly, the rapid dissemination of significant clinical and scientific information vital to surgeons everywhere.

Dr. Hughes is an ACS Fellow with the department of general surgery, McPherson Hospital, McPherson, Kan., and is the Editor in Chief of ACS Communities. He is also Associate Editor for ACS Surgery News.

Regular readers of this column may remember the March 2015 edition devoted to the topic of the CMS’s proposal to transition all 10-day and 90-day global codes to 0-day global codes in 2017 and 2018, respectively. As a result of a coordinated advocacy effort of the American College of Surgeons and a coalition of 24 other surgical and medical groups including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Dermatology, and the American College of Cardiology, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) included a provision that required that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) instead collect data from a representative sample of providers to facilitate the accurate valuation of surgical services before proposing any changes to the global payment structure.

Fast forward to July 7, 2016, and the release of the 2017 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) proposed rule. In that proposed rule, the CMS disregards the specific legislative language from Congress and proposes to collect data from all physicians who provide 10- and 90-day global services. This would obviously create yet another huge administrative burden AND also coincide with the time physicians and practices are engaged in efforts to implement the changes required by the new Quality Payment Program (QPP) mandated by MACRA. Specifically, if the proposed PFS rule is finalized, all surgeons would be required to submit data in 10-minute increments for all 10- and 90-day global code services.

Obviously, this is in direct conflict with the language in MACRA that directs the CMS to collect these data from a “representative sample” of practitioners.

Upon discovering the CMS’s plan in the proposed rule, the legislative team in ACS’s Division of Advocacy and Health Policy contacted the congressional sponsors of the original effort directed at the global codes, Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, FACS (R-IN), and Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-CA). Dr. Bucshon and Dr. Bera began circulating a letter, addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and CMS Acting Administrator Andrew Slavitt, urging the CMS to abandon the proposed policy outlined in the 2017 PFS proposed rule regarding the arduous data collection requirements for global codes.

In the week leading up to the summer congressional recess, the ACS sent the letter to all 435 offices in the House of Representatives urging other members to sign on to the letter. The ACS lobbyists and those from the coalition of groups previously involved in the efforts relative to global codes are currently engaged in individual follow-up with offices as well. The goal is to make a strong showing to the CMS with a large number of signatures from members of Congress in the hope that the CMS will modify the final rule in accordance with the legislative language found in MACRA.

This is where we need your help!

By the time you receive this issue of ACS Surgery News, all Fellows will have received an email requesting that they respond by contacting their individual members of Congress to urge them to sign on to the letter. This may be accomplished either by placing a call or by sending an email communication.

Those choosing to call may use the ACS Legislative Hotline at 877-996-4464. Follow the instructions to be connected to the office of your member of Congress. Once connected, please inform them that you are a constituent, and then deliver the following message:

“As a surgeon and a constituent, I urge Rep. _____ to join Rep Dr. Larry Bucshon and Rep. Dr. Ami Bera in supporting the bipartisan sign-on letter to the CMS in order to stop the administratively burdensome data entry changes proposed by the CMS relative to 10- and 90-day global codes.

“The proposed changes would mandate that all practitioners who perform global code services enter data in 10-minute intervals for every patient billed under global codes rather than adhering to the direction of Congress to obtain the necessary information from a ‘representative sample’ as was mandated in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).”

For those wishing further information on this matter or for those who would prefer to contact their representative by email, an ACTION Alert can be found on the SurgeonsVoice website (www.surgeonsvoice.com – click on the Take Action tab on the right side of the page). The alert addressing the global codes issue is at the top of the list and includes a fact sheet that outlines the issue and provides background information along with a link to facilitate transmittal of your message urging your representative to sign on to the Bucshon-Bera letter. Because Congress has adjourned for their summer recess and will not return until Sept. 6, 2016, we have ample time to gather the overwhelming support we need to initiate action precluding the inclusion of this flawed proposal in the final rule, which is expected to be released the first week of November 2016.

I respectfully request that ALL Fellows do their part and contact their member of Congress via one of the two methods provided. There can be no argument that the minimal time required to invest in our collective advocacy efforts relative to this matter pales in comparison to the time required to comply with the proposed CMS policy we seek to prevent being published in the final PFS rule.

Until next month …

Dr. Bailey is a pediatric surgeon, and Medical Director, Advocacy, for the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy in the ACS offices in Washington, D.C.

Regular readers of this column may remember the March 2015 edition devoted to the topic of the CMS’s proposal to transition all 10-day and 90-day global codes to 0-day global codes in 2017 and 2018, respectively. As a result of a coordinated advocacy effort of the American College of Surgeons and a coalition of 24 other surgical and medical groups including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Dermatology, and the American College of Cardiology, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) included a provision that required that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) instead collect data from a representative sample of providers to facilitate the accurate valuation of surgical services before proposing any changes to the global payment structure.

Fast forward to July 7, 2016, and the release of the 2017 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) proposed rule. In that proposed rule, the CMS disregards the specific legislative language from Congress and proposes to collect data from all physicians who provide 10- and 90-day global services. This would obviously create yet another huge administrative burden AND also coincide with the time physicians and practices are engaged in efforts to implement the changes required by the new Quality Payment Program (QPP) mandated by MACRA. Specifically, if the proposed PFS rule is finalized, all surgeons would be required to submit data in 10-minute increments for all 10- and 90-day global code services.

Obviously, this is in direct conflict with the language in MACRA that directs the CMS to collect these data from a “representative sample” of practitioners.

Upon discovering the CMS’s plan in the proposed rule, the legislative team in ACS’s Division of Advocacy and Health Policy contacted the congressional sponsors of the original effort directed at the global codes, Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, FACS (R-IN), and Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-CA). Dr. Bucshon and Dr. Bera began circulating a letter, addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and CMS Acting Administrator Andrew Slavitt, urging the CMS to abandon the proposed policy outlined in the 2017 PFS proposed rule regarding the arduous data collection requirements for global codes.

In the week leading up to the summer congressional recess, the ACS sent the letter to all 435 offices in the House of Representatives urging other members to sign on to the letter. The ACS lobbyists and those from the coalition of groups previously involved in the efforts relative to global codes are currently engaged in individual follow-up with offices as well. The goal is to make a strong showing to the CMS with a large number of signatures from members of Congress in the hope that the CMS will modify the final rule in accordance with the legislative language found in MACRA.

This is where we need your help!

By the time you receive this issue of ACS Surgery News, all Fellows will have received an email requesting that they respond by contacting their individual members of Congress to urge them to sign on to the letter. This may be accomplished either by placing a call or by sending an email communication.

Those choosing to call may use the ACS Legislative Hotline at 877-996-4464. Follow the instructions to be connected to the office of your member of Congress. Once connected, please inform them that you are a constituent, and then deliver the following message:

“As a surgeon and a constituent, I urge Rep. _____ to join Rep Dr. Larry Bucshon and Rep. Dr. Ami Bera in supporting the bipartisan sign-on letter to the CMS in order to stop the administratively burdensome data entry changes proposed by the CMS relative to 10- and 90-day global codes.

“The proposed changes would mandate that all practitioners who perform global code services enter data in 10-minute intervals for every patient billed under global codes rather than adhering to the direction of Congress to obtain the necessary information from a ‘representative sample’ as was mandated in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).”

For those wishing further information on this matter or for those who would prefer to contact their representative by email, an ACTION Alert can be found on the SurgeonsVoice website (www.surgeonsvoice.com – click on the Take Action tab on the right side of the page). The alert addressing the global codes issue is at the top of the list and includes a fact sheet that outlines the issue and provides background information along with a link to facilitate transmittal of your message urging your representative to sign on to the Bucshon-Bera letter. Because Congress has adjourned for their summer recess and will not return until Sept. 6, 2016, we have ample time to gather the overwhelming support we need to initiate action precluding the inclusion of this flawed proposal in the final rule, which is expected to be released the first week of November 2016.

I respectfully request that ALL Fellows do their part and contact their member of Congress via one of the two methods provided. There can be no argument that the minimal time required to invest in our collective advocacy efforts relative to this matter pales in comparison to the time required to comply with the proposed CMS policy we seek to prevent being published in the final PFS rule.

Until next month …

Dr. Bailey is a pediatric surgeon, and Medical Director, Advocacy, for the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy in the ACS offices in Washington, D.C.

Regular readers of this column may remember the March 2015 edition devoted to the topic of the CMS’s proposal to transition all 10-day and 90-day global codes to 0-day global codes in 2017 and 2018, respectively. As a result of a coordinated advocacy effort of the American College of Surgeons and a coalition of 24 other surgical and medical groups including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Dermatology, and the American College of Cardiology, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) included a provision that required that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) instead collect data from a representative sample of providers to facilitate the accurate valuation of surgical services before proposing any changes to the global payment structure.

Fast forward to July 7, 2016, and the release of the 2017 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) proposed rule. In that proposed rule, the CMS disregards the specific legislative language from Congress and proposes to collect data from all physicians who provide 10- and 90-day global services. This would obviously create yet another huge administrative burden AND also coincide with the time physicians and practices are engaged in efforts to implement the changes required by the new Quality Payment Program (QPP) mandated by MACRA. Specifically, if the proposed PFS rule is finalized, all surgeons would be required to submit data in 10-minute increments for all 10- and 90-day global code services.

Obviously, this is in direct conflict with the language in MACRA that directs the CMS to collect these data from a “representative sample” of practitioners.

Upon discovering the CMS’s plan in the proposed rule, the legislative team in ACS’s Division of Advocacy and Health Policy contacted the congressional sponsors of the original effort directed at the global codes, Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, FACS (R-IN), and Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-CA). Dr. Bucshon and Dr. Bera began circulating a letter, addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and CMS Acting Administrator Andrew Slavitt, urging the CMS to abandon the proposed policy outlined in the 2017 PFS proposed rule regarding the arduous data collection requirements for global codes.

In the week leading up to the summer congressional recess, the ACS sent the letter to all 435 offices in the House of Representatives urging other members to sign on to the letter. The ACS lobbyists and those from the coalition of groups previously involved in the efforts relative to global codes are currently engaged in individual follow-up with offices as well. The goal is to make a strong showing to the CMS with a large number of signatures from members of Congress in the hope that the CMS will modify the final rule in accordance with the legislative language found in MACRA.

This is where we need your help!

By the time you receive this issue of ACS Surgery News, all Fellows will have received an email requesting that they respond by contacting their individual members of Congress to urge them to sign on to the letter. This may be accomplished either by placing a call or by sending an email communication.

Those choosing to call may use the ACS Legislative Hotline at 877-996-4464. Follow the instructions to be connected to the office of your member of Congress. Once connected, please inform them that you are a constituent, and then deliver the following message:

“As a surgeon and a constituent, I urge Rep. _____ to join Rep Dr. Larry Bucshon and Rep. Dr. Ami Bera in supporting the bipartisan sign-on letter to the CMS in order to stop the administratively burdensome data entry changes proposed by the CMS relative to 10- and 90-day global codes.

“The proposed changes would mandate that all practitioners who perform global code services enter data in 10-minute intervals for every patient billed under global codes rather than adhering to the direction of Congress to obtain the necessary information from a ‘representative sample’ as was mandated in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).”

For those wishing further information on this matter or for those who would prefer to contact their representative by email, an ACTION Alert can be found on the SurgeonsVoice website (www.surgeonsvoice.com – click on the Take Action tab on the right side of the page). The alert addressing the global codes issue is at the top of the list and includes a fact sheet that outlines the issue and provides background information along with a link to facilitate transmittal of your message urging your representative to sign on to the Bucshon-Bera letter. Because Congress has adjourned for their summer recess and will not return until Sept. 6, 2016, we have ample time to gather the overwhelming support we need to initiate action precluding the inclusion of this flawed proposal in the final rule, which is expected to be released the first week of November 2016.

I respectfully request that ALL Fellows do their part and contact their member of Congress via one of the two methods provided. There can be no argument that the minimal time required to invest in our collective advocacy efforts relative to this matter pales in comparison to the time required to comply with the proposed CMS policy we seek to prevent being published in the final PFS rule.

Until next month …

Dr. Bailey is a pediatric surgeon, and Medical Director, Advocacy, for the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy in the ACS offices in Washington, D.C.

(This column is the first in a three-part series.)

Question: Which of the following statements about state medical boards is best?

A. They are made up exclusively of doctors.

B. Disciplinary actions are on the rise.

C. They investigate narrowly defined areas of clinical practice.

D. They usually end with physician suspension.

E. They are insufficiently vigilant, according to critics.

Answer: E. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution authorizes states to establish laws protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of their citizens.

All 50 states have enacted legislation under the Medical Practice Act authorizing medical boards to issue licenses and regulate physician conduct. The structure and authority of these boards vary from state to state, with some retaining all licensing and disciplinary powers, while others are more advisory in nature and report to the department of health.

Medical boards consist primarily of appointed volunteer physicians and may employ an administrative staff that includes an executive officer and support personnel.¹

State statutes, rules, and regulations govern the disciplinary function of medical boards, which receive, review, and investigate complaints directly from patients and other sources.

There are six main categories of complaints: substandard patient care, alcohol and substance abuse, fraud and other criminal conduct, dishonesty, sexual misconduct, and failure to meet CME requirements. Whether a board can sanction a physician for misconduct outside the realm of medical practice is frequently at issue.

In Maryland, for example, conduct that has merely a general or associative relationship to the physician in his or her capacity as a member of the medical profession is not sanctionable by the state board of physicians.

On the other hand, if it relates to the effective delivery of patient care, then the misconduct can be said to occur in the “practice of medicine,” even if there is no issue of the individual’s grasp of particular technical skills.

However, the term “practice of medicine” is liberally construed in most jurisdictions, and both boards and courts tend to take a dim view of physician dishonesty and lack of integrity.

For example, the California Court of Appeals in Windham v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance rejected a defendant’s position that his conviction for tax evasion was not the type of transgression that reflected on his professional standing.² Instead, the court held that such dishonesty necessarily involves moral turpitude, and is sufficiently related to the practice of medicine as to justify revocation of licensure.

The court stated that it was difficult to “compartmentalize dishonesty in such a way that a person who is willing to cheat his government out of $65,000 in taxes may yet be considered honest in his dealings with his patients.”

Likewise, the Washington Supreme Court in an older case upheld the suspension of a doctor’s license following his conviction for tax fraud.³ In taking a broad view of the requirement that improper conduct relates to the practice of medicine, the court held that conviction for tax fraud, which goes to the issue of trustworthiness, is a valid reason for taking disciplinary action against a physician.

The number of adverse actions taken by boards nationwide appears to be stabilizing. In 2009, they affected some 4,560 errant physicians. In some states, both the number of complaints and actions may even be subsiding.

For example, the 2014 report by the Texas Medical Board showed that the number of complaints had fallen 17% after reaching a peak in 2009. In 2012, the year with the latest published nationwide data, there were 9,219 total board actions affecting 4,479 physicians. However, only a minority – some 275 doctors – faced the most severe disciplinary sanction, i.e., license revocation. The others either saw their licenses denied (170) or suspended (739), or faced lesser sanctions such as reprimands, probations, restrictions, and fines.

Critics have labeled medical boards “a good old boys network” where any private admonition is never made public. A stinging report of medical licensing and discipline in the state of New York, using data from 1982 through 1989, concluded, “the structure and functioning of the process as they now exist are seriously deficient in these areas and that major reforms are urgently needed.”⁴

The consumer group Public Citizen has bemoaned the fact that most states are not living up to their obligations to protect patients from doctors who are practicing medicine in a substandard manner. Advocacy groups worry about insufficient vigilance, and cite the case of Dr. Farid Fata, an oncologist whose license was finally removed by the Michigan board in 2013 for giving chemotherapy to healthy patients. The board had received an earlier complaint from a nurse in 2010, but it took no action until federal authorities charged the doctor following a tip from a whistleblower.⁵

To be sure, there are troubling observations. For one thing, there is an inexplicably wide variability in the rates of disciplinary actions. During 2007-2009, for example, Minnesota had the lowest rate per 1,000 physicians (1.07), whereas Alaska had the highest rate of 7.89, some seven times higher. State rankings also change drastically from year to year without apparent good reason.

For another, criminal convictions for insurance fraud and violation of controlled substances prescriptions frequently end up with only mild or modest discipline.

In 1999, Public Citizen began publishing yearly rankings that purportedly showed each board’s effectiveness, based on its number of “serious actions.” The rankings were based on yearly data released by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), a national nonprofit organization that represents the 70 medical and osteopathic boards of the United States and its territories.

The federation protested the way its data were being used, but the rankings apparently caused some board executives to lose their jobs. In 2012, the FSMB stopped reporting state actions, thus ending this type of public disclosure.

To be seen as unbiased guardians of the public trust, boards now have nonphysician members, some of whom are health care attorneys. The state governor who appoints the board members is answerable to the voters for any delay or decision that permits a rogue physician to keep on practicing.

Accordingly, Michigan has instituted a process that allows it to overrule a disciplinary decision by the board, which raises an issue of due process rights. Theoretically, physicians would clear themselves in a formal hearing and be officially exonerated by the board, only to see the decision overruled by an administrative department.

Some medical boards have been accused of going too far. In Rhode Island, state legislator Rep. Michael W. Chippendale (R) is heading a commission to look into its medical board. The controversy arose from an “outlandish” and “personal” accusation against a physician in a gastroenterology group, which was forced to stop work for a week.

All the facts have not been made public, but a civil suit against the complainant is apparently in the works. The accused physician reportedly had to undergo three board-ordered psychiatric evaluations, and a fourth is pending.

Elsewhere, Oklahoma state lawmaker Rep. Richard Morrissette (D) is said to be introducing legislation limiting the powers of Oklahoma’s medical board.⁶

These are probably isolated events, however, and may not necessarily signal the development of any backlash across the country.

References

1. U.S. Medical Regulatory Trends and Actions, May 2014.

2. Windham v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 104 Cal. App.3d 461 (1980).

3. In Re Kindschi, 52 Wn.2d 8 (1958).

4. Post, J. “Medical Discipline and Licensing in the State of New York: A Critical Review.” Bull NY Acad Med. 1991;67:66-98.

5. “One nurse’s gutsy effort to protect patients.” Detroit News, Feb. 6, 2015.

6. “The Black Cloud of a Medical Board Investigation.” Medscape, Dec. 23, 2015.

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and a former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some of the articles in this series are adapted from the author’s 2006 book, “Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk,” and his 2012 Halsbury treatise, “Medical Negligence and Professional Misconduct.” For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

(This column is the first in a three-part series.)

Question: Which of the following statements about state medical boards is best?

A. They are made up exclusively of doctors.

B. Disciplinary actions are on the rise.

C. They investigate narrowly defined areas of clinical practice.

D. They usually end with physician suspension.

E. They are insufficiently vigilant, according to critics.

Answer: E. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution authorizes states to establish laws protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of their citizens.

All 50 states have enacted legislation under the Medical Practice Act authorizing medical boards to issue licenses and regulate physician conduct. The structure and authority of these boards vary from state to state, with some retaining all licensing and disciplinary powers, while others are more advisory in nature and report to the department of health.

Medical boards consist primarily of appointed volunteer physicians and may employ an administrative staff that includes an executive officer and support personnel.¹

State statutes, rules, and regulations govern the disciplinary function of medical boards, which receive, review, and investigate complaints directly from patients and other sources.

There are six main categories of complaints: substandard patient care, alcohol and substance abuse, fraud and other criminal conduct, dishonesty, sexual misconduct, and failure to meet CME requirements. Whether a board can sanction a physician for misconduct outside the realm of medical practice is frequently at issue.

In Maryland, for example, conduct that has merely a general or associative relationship to the physician in his or her capacity as a member of the medical profession is not sanctionable by the state board of physicians.

On the other hand, if it relates to the effective delivery of patient care, then the misconduct can be said to occur in the “practice of medicine,” even if there is no issue of the individual’s grasp of particular technical skills.

However, the term “practice of medicine” is liberally construed in most jurisdictions, and both boards and courts tend to take a dim view of physician dishonesty and lack of integrity.

For example, the California Court of Appeals in Windham v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance rejected a defendant’s position that his conviction for tax evasion was not the type of transgression that reflected on his professional standing.² Instead, the court held that such dishonesty necessarily involves moral turpitude, and is sufficiently related to the practice of medicine as to justify revocation of licensure.

The court stated that it was difficult to “compartmentalize dishonesty in such a way that a person who is willing to cheat his government out of $65,000 in taxes may yet be considered honest in his dealings with his patients.”

Likewise, the Washington Supreme Court in an older case upheld the suspension of a doctor’s license following his conviction for tax fraud.³ In taking a broad view of the requirement that improper conduct relates to the practice of medicine, the court held that conviction for tax fraud, which goes to the issue of trustworthiness, is a valid reason for taking disciplinary action against a physician.

The number of adverse actions taken by boards nationwide appears to be stabilizing. In 2009, they affected some 4,560 errant physicians. In some states, both the number of complaints and actions may even be subsiding.

For example, the 2014 report by the Texas Medical Board showed that the number of complaints had fallen 17% after reaching a peak in 2009. In 2012, the year with the latest published nationwide data, there were 9,219 total board actions affecting 4,479 physicians. However, only a minority – some 275 doctors – faced the most severe disciplinary sanction, i.e., license revocation. The others either saw their licenses denied (170) or suspended (739), or faced lesser sanctions such as reprimands, probations, restrictions, and fines.

Critics have labeled medical boards “a good old boys network” where any private admonition is never made public. A stinging report of medical licensing and discipline in the state of New York, using data from 1982 through 1989, concluded, “the structure and functioning of the process as they now exist are seriously deficient in these areas and that major reforms are urgently needed.”⁴

The consumer group Public Citizen has bemoaned the fact that most states are not living up to their obligations to protect patients from doctors who are practicing medicine in a substandard manner. Advocacy groups worry about insufficient vigilance, and cite the case of Dr. Farid Fata, an oncologist whose license was finally removed by the Michigan board in 2013 for giving chemotherapy to healthy patients. The board had received an earlier complaint from a nurse in 2010, but it took no action until federal authorities charged the doctor following a tip from a whistleblower.⁵

To be sure, there are troubling observations. For one thing, there is an inexplicably wide variability in the rates of disciplinary actions. During 2007-2009, for example, Minnesota had the lowest rate per 1,000 physicians (1.07), whereas Alaska had the highest rate of 7.89, some seven times higher. State rankings also change drastically from year to year without apparent good reason.

For another, criminal convictions for insurance fraud and violation of controlled substances prescriptions frequently end up with only mild or modest discipline.

In 1999, Public Citizen began publishing yearly rankings that purportedly showed each board’s effectiveness, based on its number of “serious actions.” The rankings were based on yearly data released by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), a national nonprofit organization that represents the 70 medical and osteopathic boards of the United States and its territories.

The federation protested the way its data were being used, but the rankings apparently caused some board executives to lose their jobs. In 2012, the FSMB stopped reporting state actions, thus ending this type of public disclosure.

To be seen as unbiased guardians of the public trust, boards now have nonphysician members, some of whom are health care attorneys. The state governor who appoints the board members is answerable to the voters for any delay or decision that permits a rogue physician to keep on practicing.

Accordingly, Michigan has instituted a process that allows it to overrule a disciplinary decision by the board, which raises an issue of due process rights. Theoretically, physicians would clear themselves in a formal hearing and be officially exonerated by the board, only to see the decision overruled by an administrative department.

Some medical boards have been accused of going too far. In Rhode Island, state legislator Rep. Michael W. Chippendale (R) is heading a commission to look into its medical board. The controversy arose from an “outlandish” and “personal” accusation against a physician in a gastroenterology group, which was forced to stop work for a week.

All the facts have not been made public, but a civil suit against the complainant is apparently in the works. The accused physician reportedly had to undergo three board-ordered psychiatric evaluations, and a fourth is pending.

Elsewhere, Oklahoma state lawmaker Rep. Richard Morrissette (D) is said to be introducing legislation limiting the powers of Oklahoma’s medical board.⁶

These are probably isolated events, however, and may not necessarily signal the development of any backlash across the country.

References

1. U.S. Medical Regulatory Trends and Actions, May 2014.

2. Windham v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 104 Cal. App.3d 461 (1980).

3. In Re Kindschi, 52 Wn.2d 8 (1958).

4. Post, J. “Medical Discipline and Licensing in the State of New York: A Critical Review.” Bull NY Acad Med. 1991;67:66-98.

5. “One nurse’s gutsy effort to protect patients.” Detroit News, Feb. 6, 2015.

6. “The Black Cloud of a Medical Board Investigation.” Medscape, Dec. 23, 2015.

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and a former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some of the articles in this series are adapted from the author’s 2006 book, “Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk,” and his 2012 Halsbury treatise, “Medical Negligence and Professional Misconduct.” For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

(This column is the first in a three-part series.)

Question: Which of the following statements about state medical boards is best?

A. They are made up exclusively of doctors.

B. Disciplinary actions are on the rise.

C. They investigate narrowly defined areas of clinical practice.

D. They usually end with physician suspension.

E. They are insufficiently vigilant, according to critics.

Answer: E. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution authorizes states to establish laws protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of their citizens.

All 50 states have enacted legislation under the Medical Practice Act authorizing medical boards to issue licenses and regulate physician conduct. The structure and authority of these boards vary from state to state, with some retaining all licensing and disciplinary powers, while others are more advisory in nature and report to the department of health.

Medical boards consist primarily of appointed volunteer physicians and may employ an administrative staff that includes an executive officer and support personnel.¹

State statutes, rules, and regulations govern the disciplinary function of medical boards, which receive, review, and investigate complaints directly from patients and other sources.

There are six main categories of complaints: substandard patient care, alcohol and substance abuse, fraud and other criminal conduct, dishonesty, sexual misconduct, and failure to meet CME requirements. Whether a board can sanction a physician for misconduct outside the realm of medical practice is frequently at issue.

In Maryland, for example, conduct that has merely a general or associative relationship to the physician in his or her capacity as a member of the medical profession is not sanctionable by the state board of physicians.

On the other hand, if it relates to the effective delivery of patient care, then the misconduct can be said to occur in the “practice of medicine,” even if there is no issue of the individual’s grasp of particular technical skills.

However, the term “practice of medicine” is liberally construed in most jurisdictions, and both boards and courts tend to take a dim view of physician dishonesty and lack of integrity.

For example, the California Court of Appeals in Windham v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance rejected a defendant’s position that his conviction for tax evasion was not the type of transgression that reflected on his professional standing.² Instead, the court held that such dishonesty necessarily involves moral turpitude, and is sufficiently related to the practice of medicine as to justify revocation of licensure.

The court stated that it was difficult to “compartmentalize dishonesty in such a way that a person who is willing to cheat his government out of $65,000 in taxes may yet be considered honest in his dealings with his patients.”

Likewise, the Washington Supreme Court in an older case upheld the suspension of a doctor’s license following his conviction for tax fraud.³ In taking a broad view of the requirement that improper conduct relates to the practice of medicine, the court held that conviction for tax fraud, which goes to the issue of trustworthiness, is a valid reason for taking disciplinary action against a physician.

The number of adverse actions taken by boards nationwide appears to be stabilizing. In 2009, they affected some 4,560 errant physicians. In some states, both the number of complaints and actions may even be subsiding.

For example, the 2014 report by the Texas Medical Board showed that the number of complaints had fallen 17% after reaching a peak in 2009. In 2012, the year with the latest published nationwide data, there were 9,219 total board actions affecting 4,479 physicians. However, only a minority – some 275 doctors – faced the most severe disciplinary sanction, i.e., license revocation. The others either saw their licenses denied (170) or suspended (739), or faced lesser sanctions such as reprimands, probations, restrictions, and fines.

Critics have labeled medical boards “a good old boys network” where any private admonition is never made public. A stinging report of medical licensing and discipline in the state of New York, using data from 1982 through 1989, concluded, “the structure and functioning of the process as they now exist are seriously deficient in these areas and that major reforms are urgently needed.”⁴

The consumer group Public Citizen has bemoaned the fact that most states are not living up to their obligations to protect patients from doctors who are practicing medicine in a substandard manner. Advocacy groups worry about insufficient vigilance, and cite the case of Dr. Farid Fata, an oncologist whose license was finally removed by the Michigan board in 2013 for giving chemotherapy to healthy patients. The board had received an earlier complaint from a nurse in 2010, but it took no action until federal authorities charged the doctor following a tip from a whistleblower.⁵

To be sure, there are troubling observations. For one thing, there is an inexplicably wide variability in the rates of disciplinary actions. During 2007-2009, for example, Minnesota had the lowest rate per 1,000 physicians (1.07), whereas Alaska had the highest rate of 7.89, some seven times higher. State rankings also change drastically from year to year without apparent good reason.

For another, criminal convictions for insurance fraud and violation of controlled substances prescriptions frequently end up with only mild or modest discipline.

In 1999, Public Citizen began publishing yearly rankings that purportedly showed each board’s effectiveness, based on its number of “serious actions.” The rankings were based on yearly data released by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), a national nonprofit organization that represents the 70 medical and osteopathic boards of the United States and its territories.

The federation protested the way its data were being used, but the rankings apparently caused some board executives to lose their jobs. In 2012, the FSMB stopped reporting state actions, thus ending this type of public disclosure.

To be seen as unbiased guardians of the public trust, boards now have nonphysician members, some of whom are health care attorneys. The state governor who appoints the board members is answerable to the voters for any delay or decision that permits a rogue physician to keep on practicing.

Accordingly, Michigan has instituted a process that allows it to overrule a disciplinary decision by the board, which raises an issue of due process rights. Theoretically, physicians would clear themselves in a formal hearing and be officially exonerated by the board, only to see the decision overruled by an administrative department.

Some medical boards have been accused of going too far. In Rhode Island, state legislator Rep. Michael W. Chippendale (R) is heading a commission to look into its medical board. The controversy arose from an “outlandish” and “personal” accusation against a physician in a gastroenterology group, which was forced to stop work for a week.

All the facts have not been made public, but a civil suit against the complainant is apparently in the works. The accused physician reportedly had to undergo three board-ordered psychiatric evaluations, and a fourth is pending.

Elsewhere, Oklahoma state lawmaker Rep. Richard Morrissette (D) is said to be introducing legislation limiting the powers of Oklahoma’s medical board.⁶

These are probably isolated events, however, and may not necessarily signal the development of any backlash across the country.

References

1. U.S. Medical Regulatory Trends and Actions, May 2014.

2. Windham v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 104 Cal. App.3d 461 (1980).

3. In Re Kindschi, 52 Wn.2d 8 (1958).

4. Post, J. “Medical Discipline and Licensing in the State of New York: A Critical Review.” Bull NY Acad Med. 1991;67:66-98.

5. “One nurse’s gutsy effort to protect patients.” Detroit News, Feb. 6, 2015.

6. “The Black Cloud of a Medical Board Investigation.” Medscape, Dec. 23, 2015.

Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine and a former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some of the articles in this series are adapted from the author’s 2006 book, “Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk,” and his 2012 Halsbury treatise, “Medical Negligence and Professional Misconduct.” For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

A 66-year-old woman presents as a new patient for a clinic visit. She has a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome 10 years ago. The last immunization she received was a tetanus-diphtheria 12 years ago.

What do you recommend for her to receive over the next year?

A. Pneumococcal 13/Pneumococcal 23/Tdap/influenza vaccines.

B. Pneumococcal 13/Pneumococcal 23/Tdap vaccines.

C. Influenza vaccine.

D. No vaccines.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare, acute, immune-mediated polyneuropathy that has an incidence of about 2 cases per 100,000 people each year.¹ Most cases of GBS follow an infectious event (usually an upper respiratory infection or gastrointestinal infection). In 1976, administration of the swine flu vaccine was associated with an up to eightfold increased risk of GBS.^2,3 Many patients who have had GBS have been advised not to – or are fearful to – receive influenza vaccine or any vaccine.

Is there good evidence for patients with a history of GBS to avoid influenza vaccines or vaccinations in general?

The initial concern over the increased risk of GBS following the large-scale influenza vaccination in 1976 has not been realized with subsequent influenza vaccines. In a study by Baxter and colleagues, GBS cases from Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 1995 to 2006 were reviewed.⁴ They looked at whether patients had received influenza vaccine in the 6 weeks prior to GBS, compared with vaccination within the prior 9 months.

The odds ratio for influenza vaccination in the 6 weeks prior to GBS was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-3.1). The odds ratio for receiving tetanus diphtheria vaccine in the 6 weeks prior to GBS was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.3-4.5); pneumococcal 23 vaccine, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1-2.9); and all vaccines combined, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.8-2.3).

Shahed Iqbal, MBBS, et al. looked at the relationship between influenza illness, pneumonia, influenza vaccination, and GBS.⁵ They found that although influenza vaccine coverage increased from 20% to 36% over the study period, there was not an increase in GBS hospitalizations over the same period. There was a significant correlation between hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza and GBS hospitalizations in the same month.

In a simulation study, Steven Hawken, PhD, and his colleagues concluded that under typical conditions (influenza incidence greater than 5% and vaccine effectiveness greater than 60%), influenza vaccination reduced GBS risk.⁶

There are fewer data on vaccination in patients who have previously had GBS, but there is enough evidence to help guide us.

Roger Baxter, MD, and colleagues, using the database in reference 4, looked at outcome of patients with GBS who received vaccinations subsequent to recovery from GBS.⁷ A total of 279 patient with previous GBS received a total of 989 vaccinations, including 405 trivalent influenza vaccinations. None of the patients with GBS who received vaccinations had a recurrence of GBS.

Krista Kuitwaard, MD, et al. reported identical findings in a survey of patients with a history of GBS or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP).⁸ A total of 245 patients with GBS responded to the survey. A total of 106 GBS patients had received influenza vaccine following their GBS diagnosis (a total of 775 vaccinations in those patients). None of the patients with a history of GBS who received influenza vaccination had a recurrence of their GBS.

The current position of the GBS/CIDP Foundation on vaccination for patients with GBS is as follows: The GBS/CIDP Foundation recommends avoiding immunizations that a GBS patient had received within 6 weeks of developing their initial symptoms.⁹

I think the current evidence is enough to guide us in this issue. Vaccinations, including influenza vaccine, are likely safe for patients with a history of GBS. The recommendation of the GBS/CIDP foundation is reasonable – to avoid immunizations that appeared to have potentially triggered the initial GBS (ones that had been received within 6 weeks of onset of symptoms).

In the case presented above, I think that choice A – receiving all the recommended immunizations – would be appropriate.

References

1. Neuroepidemiology 2011; 36(2):123-33.

2. Am J Epidemiol. 1979 Aug;110(2):105-23.

3. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Apr;58(8):1149-55.

4. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;57(2):197-204.

5. Vaccine. 2015 Apr 21;33(17):2045-9.

6. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Feb;21(2):224-31.

7. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;54(6):800-4.

8. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2009 Dec;14(4):310-5.

9. GBS/CIDP Foundation International, Position on Flu Shots and Vaccinations.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

A 66-year-old woman presents as a new patient for a clinic visit. She has a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome 10 years ago. The last immunization she received was a tetanus-diphtheria 12 years ago.

What do you recommend for her to receive over the next year?

A. Pneumococcal 13/Pneumococcal 23/Tdap/influenza vaccines.

B. Pneumococcal 13/Pneumococcal 23/Tdap vaccines.

C. Influenza vaccine.

D. No vaccines.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare, acute, immune-mediated polyneuropathy that has an incidence of about 2 cases per 100,000 people each year.¹ Most cases of GBS follow an infectious event (usually an upper respiratory infection or gastrointestinal infection). In 1976, administration of the swine flu vaccine was associated with an up to eightfold increased risk of GBS.^2,3 Many patients who have had GBS have been advised not to – or are fearful to – receive influenza vaccine or any vaccine.

Is there good evidence for patients with a history of GBS to avoid influenza vaccines or vaccinations in general?

The initial concern over the increased risk of GBS following the large-scale influenza vaccination in 1976 has not been realized with subsequent influenza vaccines. In a study by Baxter and colleagues, GBS cases from Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 1995 to 2006 were reviewed.⁴ They looked at whether patients had received influenza vaccine in the 6 weeks prior to GBS, compared with vaccination within the prior 9 months.

The odds ratio for influenza vaccination in the 6 weeks prior to GBS was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-3.1). The odds ratio for receiving tetanus diphtheria vaccine in the 6 weeks prior to GBS was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.3-4.5); pneumococcal 23 vaccine, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1-2.9); and all vaccines combined, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.8-2.3).

Shahed Iqbal, MBBS, et al. looked at the relationship between influenza illness, pneumonia, influenza vaccination, and GBS.⁵ They found that although influenza vaccine coverage increased from 20% to 36% over the study period, there was not an increase in GBS hospitalizations over the same period. There was a significant correlation between hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza and GBS hospitalizations in the same month.

In a simulation study, Steven Hawken, PhD, and his colleagues concluded that under typical conditions (influenza incidence greater than 5% and vaccine effectiveness greater than 60%), influenza vaccination reduced GBS risk.⁶

There are fewer data on vaccination in patients who have previously had GBS, but there is enough evidence to help guide us.

Roger Baxter, MD, and colleagues, using the database in reference 4, looked at outcome of patients with GBS who received vaccinations subsequent to recovery from GBS.⁷ A total of 279 patient with previous GBS received a total of 989 vaccinations, including 405 trivalent influenza vaccinations. None of the patients with GBS who received vaccinations had a recurrence of GBS.

Krista Kuitwaard, MD, et al. reported identical findings in a survey of patients with a history of GBS or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP).⁸ A total of 245 patients with GBS responded to the survey. A total of 106 GBS patients had received influenza vaccine following their GBS diagnosis (a total of 775 vaccinations in those patients). None of the patients with a history of GBS who received influenza vaccination had a recurrence of their GBS.

The current position of the GBS/CIDP Foundation on vaccination for patients with GBS is as follows: The GBS/CIDP Foundation recommends avoiding immunizations that a GBS patient had received within 6 weeks of developing their initial symptoms.⁹

I think the current evidence is enough to guide us in this issue. Vaccinations, including influenza vaccine, are likely safe for patients with a history of GBS. The recommendation of the GBS/CIDP foundation is reasonable – to avoid immunizations that appeared to have potentially triggered the initial GBS (ones that had been received within 6 weeks of onset of symptoms).

In the case presented above, I think that choice A – receiving all the recommended immunizations – would be appropriate.

References

1. Neuroepidemiology 2011; 36(2):123-33.

2. Am J Epidemiol. 1979 Aug;110(2):105-23.

3. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Apr;58(8):1149-55.

4. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;57(2):197-204.

5. Vaccine. 2015 Apr 21;33(17):2045-9.

6. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Feb;21(2):224-31.

7. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;54(6):800-4.

8. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2009 Dec;14(4):310-5.

9. GBS/CIDP Foundation International, Position on Flu Shots and Vaccinations.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

A 66-year-old woman presents as a new patient for a clinic visit. She has a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome 10 years ago. The last immunization she received was a tetanus-diphtheria 12 years ago.

What do you recommend for her to receive over the next year?

A. Pneumococcal 13/Pneumococcal 23/Tdap/influenza vaccines.

B. Pneumococcal 13/Pneumococcal 23/Tdap vaccines.

C. Influenza vaccine.

D. No vaccines.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare, acute, immune-mediated polyneuropathy that has an incidence of about 2 cases per 100,000 people each year.¹ Most cases of GBS follow an infectious event (usually an upper respiratory infection or gastrointestinal infection). In 1976, administration of the swine flu vaccine was associated with an up to eightfold increased risk of GBS.^2,3 Many patients who have had GBS have been advised not to – or are fearful to – receive influenza vaccine or any vaccine.

Is there good evidence for patients with a history of GBS to avoid influenza vaccines or vaccinations in general?

The initial concern over the increased risk of GBS following the large-scale influenza vaccination in 1976 has not been realized with subsequent influenza vaccines. In a study by Baxter and colleagues, GBS cases from Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 1995 to 2006 were reviewed.⁴ They looked at whether patients had received influenza vaccine in the 6 weeks prior to GBS, compared with vaccination within the prior 9 months.

The odds ratio for influenza vaccination in the 6 weeks prior to GBS was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-3.1). The odds ratio for receiving tetanus diphtheria vaccine in the 6 weeks prior to GBS was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.3-4.5); pneumococcal 23 vaccine, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1-2.9); and all vaccines combined, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.8-2.3).

Shahed Iqbal, MBBS, et al. looked at the relationship between influenza illness, pneumonia, influenza vaccination, and GBS.⁵ They found that although influenza vaccine coverage increased from 20% to 36% over the study period, there was not an increase in GBS hospitalizations over the same period. There was a significant correlation between hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza and GBS hospitalizations in the same month.

In a simulation study, Steven Hawken, PhD, and his colleagues concluded that under typical conditions (influenza incidence greater than 5% and vaccine effectiveness greater than 60%), influenza vaccination reduced GBS risk.⁶

There are fewer data on vaccination in patients who have previously had GBS, but there is enough evidence to help guide us.

Roger Baxter, MD, and colleagues, using the database in reference 4, looked at outcome of patients with GBS who received vaccinations subsequent to recovery from GBS.⁷ A total of 279 patient with previous GBS received a total of 989 vaccinations, including 405 trivalent influenza vaccinations. None of the patients with GBS who received vaccinations had a recurrence of GBS.

Krista Kuitwaard, MD, et al. reported identical findings in a survey of patients with a history of GBS or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP).⁸ A total of 245 patients with GBS responded to the survey. A total of 106 GBS patients had received influenza vaccine following their GBS diagnosis (a total of 775 vaccinations in those patients). None of the patients with a history of GBS who received influenza vaccination had a recurrence of their GBS.

The current position of the GBS/CIDP Foundation on vaccination for patients with GBS is as follows: The GBS/CIDP Foundation recommends avoiding immunizations that a GBS patient had received within 6 weeks of developing their initial symptoms.⁹

I think the current evidence is enough to guide us in this issue. Vaccinations, including influenza vaccine, are likely safe for patients with a history of GBS. The recommendation of the GBS/CIDP foundation is reasonable – to avoid immunizations that appeared to have potentially triggered the initial GBS (ones that had been received within 6 weeks of onset of symptoms).

In the case presented above, I think that choice A – receiving all the recommended immunizations – would be appropriate.

References

1. Neuroepidemiology 2011; 36(2):123-33.

2. Am J Epidemiol. 1979 Aug;110(2):105-23.

3. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Apr;58(8):1149-55.

4. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;57(2):197-204.

5. Vaccine. 2015 Apr 21;33(17):2045-9.

6. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Feb;21(2):224-31.

7. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;54(6):800-4.

8. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2009 Dec;14(4):310-5.

9. GBS/CIDP Foundation International, Position on Flu Shots and Vaccinations.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

Perhaps it’s the northern climate. Perhaps it’s that people at my office work a lot in the absence of office windows. But there are a lot of seasonal affective disorder lamps around me.

The one in my office turns on automatically (frequently in my absence), and the eerie blue light from my office floods the cubicles outside my door.

At a social gathering the other day, I related the story of my “moody blues office,” and somebody asked if the blue light for seasonal affective disorder was better than the white light. I did not know, so I did some reading.

It turns out that there is a retinal photoreceptor in the ganglion cells with a maximum sensitivity of 470-490 nm to blue light. These non-image–forming photoreceptors play a role in regulating the biological clock. Experiments have been conducted evaluating the impact of different wavelengths of light on symptoms of SAD.

In a study of people with subsyndromal SAD, investigators randomized 48 participants to bright white fluorescent light or narrow-band blue light (peak LED wavelength, 470 nm). Patients were exposed to the light for 20 minutes on 5 consecutive days. Standard scales measuring mood and fatigue were administered (BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 18;16:27).

Investigators did not detect differences between the groups, and the authors concluded they had comparable efficacy.

Although the sample size is small, the data suggest that blue light is comparable to white light. I will start needing to pay attention if the folks in the cubicles outside my office are less depressed.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. Dr. Ebbert has no relevant financial disclosures about this article.

Perhaps it’s the northern climate. Perhaps it’s that people at my office work a lot in the absence of office windows. But there are a lot of seasonal affective disorder lamps around me.

The one in my office turns on automatically (frequently in my absence), and the eerie blue light from my office floods the cubicles outside my door.

At a social gathering the other day, I related the story of my “moody blues office,” and somebody asked if the blue light for seasonal affective disorder was better than the white light. I did not know, so I did some reading.

It turns out that there is a retinal photoreceptor in the ganglion cells with a maximum sensitivity of 470-490 nm to blue light. These non-image–forming photoreceptors play a role in regulating the biological clock. Experiments have been conducted evaluating the impact of different wavelengths of light on symptoms of SAD.

In a study of people with subsyndromal SAD, investigators randomized 48 participants to bright white fluorescent light or narrow-band blue light (peak LED wavelength, 470 nm). Patients were exposed to the light for 20 minutes on 5 consecutive days. Standard scales measuring mood and fatigue were administered (BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 18;16:27).

Investigators did not detect differences between the groups, and the authors concluded they had comparable efficacy.

Although the sample size is small, the data suggest that blue light is comparable to white light. I will start needing to pay attention if the folks in the cubicles outside my office are less depressed.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. Dr. Ebbert has no relevant financial disclosures about this article.

Perhaps it’s the northern climate. Perhaps it’s that people at my office work a lot in the absence of office windows. But there are a lot of seasonal affective disorder lamps around me.

The one in my office turns on automatically (frequently in my absence), and the eerie blue light from my office floods the cubicles outside my door.

At a social gathering the other day, I related the story of my “moody blues office,” and somebody asked if the blue light for seasonal affective disorder was better than the white light. I did not know, so I did some reading.

It turns out that there is a retinal photoreceptor in the ganglion cells with a maximum sensitivity of 470-490 nm to blue light. These non-image–forming photoreceptors play a role in regulating the biological clock. Experiments have been conducted evaluating the impact of different wavelengths of light on symptoms of SAD.

In a study of people with subsyndromal SAD, investigators randomized 48 participants to bright white fluorescent light or narrow-band blue light (peak LED wavelength, 470 nm). Patients were exposed to the light for 20 minutes on 5 consecutive days. Standard scales measuring mood and fatigue were administered (BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 18;16:27).

Investigators did not detect differences between the groups, and the authors concluded they had comparable efficacy.

Although the sample size is small, the data suggest that blue light is comparable to white light. I will start needing to pay attention if the folks in the cubicles outside my office are less depressed.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. Dr. Ebbert has no relevant financial disclosures about this article.

I’ve written quite a lot over the past few years about the trend toward soloists and small groups selling their practices to hospitals, multispecialty groups, or larger practices. And I’ve made it fairly clear that I don’t think it’s a particularly good thing that the medical profession is going the way of the corner gas station and the mom-and-pop grocery store; it’s not good for physicians, patients, or private practice.

That said, if retirement looms with no individual buyers in sight, or your overhead is getting out of hand, selling to a larger entity is an option that you may need to consider. Too often, though, sellers are not receiving a fair return on the equity they have worked so hard to build over several decades, either because they have waited too long and must accept what is offered, or because they simply take the buyer’s word for their practice’s value. Don’t put yourself in either of those positions; and don’t entertain any offers until you obtain an objective appraisal from a neutral party.

Of course, a medical practice is trickier to value than is an ordinary business and usually requires the services of an experienced professional appraiser. Entire books have been written about the process, so I can’t hope to cover it completely in 850 words; but three basic yardsticks are essential for determining the equity, or book value, of a practice:

• Tangible Assets: equipment, cash, accounts receivable, and other property owned by the practice.

• Liabilities: accounts payable, outstanding loans, and anything else owed to others.

• Intangible Assets: sometimes called “good will” – the reputation of the physicians, the location and name recognition of the practice, the loyalty and volume of patients, and other, well, intangibles.

Valuing tangible assets is comparatively straightforward, but there are several ways to do it, and when reviewing a practice appraisal, you should ask which of them was used. Depreciated value is the book value of equipment and supplies as determined by their purchase price, less the amount their value has decreased since purchase. Remaining useful life value estimates how long the equipment can be expected to last. Market (or replacement) value is the amount it would cost on the open market to replace all equipment and supplies.

Intangible assets are more difficult to value. Many components are analyzed, including location, interior and exterior decor, accessibility to patients, age and functional status of equipment, systems in place to promote efficiency, reasons why patients come back (if in fact they do), and the overall reputation of the practice in the community. Other important factors include the “payer mix” (what percentage pays cash, how many third-party contracts are in place, and how well they pay, etc.), the extent and strength of the referral base, and the presence of supplemental income streams, such as clinical research.

It is also important to determine to what extent intangible assets are transferable. For example, unique skills with a laser, neurotoxins, or filler substances, or extraordinary personal charisma, may increase your practice’s value to you, but they are worthless to the next owner, and he or she will be unwilling to pay for them unless your services become part of the deal.

Once again, there are many ways to estimate intangible asset value, and once again, you should ask which were used. Cash Flow Analysis works on the assumption that cash flow is a measure of intangible value. Capitalization of Earnings puts a value, or capitalization, on the practice’s income streams using a variety of assumptions. Guideline Comparison uses various databases to compare your practice with other, similar ones that have changed hands in the past.

Two newer techniques that some consider a better estimate of intangible assets are the replacement method, which estimates the costs of starting the practice over again in the current market; and the excess earnings method, which measures how far above average your practice’s earnings (and thus its overall value) are.

Asset-based valuation is the most popular – but by no means the only – method available. Income-based valuation looks at the source and strength of a practice’s income stream as a creator of value, as well as whether or not its income stream under a different owner would mirror its present one. This in turn becomes the basis for an understanding of the fair market value of both tangible and intangible assets. Market valuation combines the asset-based and income-based approaches, along with an analysis of sales and mergers of comparable practices in the community, to determine the value of a practice in its local market.

Whatever methods are used, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and independent financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation is supplied to support the conclusions reached. This is especially important if the appraisal will be relied upon in the sale or merger of the practice.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I’ve written quite a lot over the past few years about the trend toward soloists and small groups selling their practices to hospitals, multispecialty groups, or larger practices. And I’ve made it fairly clear that I don’t think it’s a particularly good thing that the medical profession is going the way of the corner gas station and the mom-and-pop grocery store; it’s not good for physicians, patients, or private practice.

That said, if retirement looms with no individual buyers in sight, or your overhead is getting out of hand, selling to a larger entity is an option that you may need to consider. Too often, though, sellers are not receiving a fair return on the equity they have worked so hard to build over several decades, either because they have waited too long and must accept what is offered, or because they simply take the buyer’s word for their practice’s value. Don’t put yourself in either of those positions; and don’t entertain any offers until you obtain an objective appraisal from a neutral party.

Of course, a medical practice is trickier to value than is an ordinary business and usually requires the services of an experienced professional appraiser. Entire books have been written about the process, so I can’t hope to cover it completely in 850 words; but three basic yardsticks are essential for determining the equity, or book value, of a practice:

• Tangible Assets: equipment, cash, accounts receivable, and other property owned by the practice.

• Liabilities: accounts payable, outstanding loans, and anything else owed to others.

• Intangible Assets: sometimes called “good will” – the reputation of the physicians, the location and name recognition of the practice, the loyalty and volume of patients, and other, well, intangibles.

Valuing tangible assets is comparatively straightforward, but there are several ways to do it, and when reviewing a practice appraisal, you should ask which of them was used. Depreciated value is the book value of equipment and supplies as determined by their purchase price, less the amount their value has decreased since purchase. Remaining useful life value estimates how long the equipment can be expected to last. Market (or replacement) value is the amount it would cost on the open market to replace all equipment and supplies.

Intangible assets are more difficult to value. Many components are analyzed, including location, interior and exterior decor, accessibility to patients, age and functional status of equipment, systems in place to promote efficiency, reasons why patients come back (if in fact they do), and the overall reputation of the practice in the community. Other important factors include the “payer mix” (what percentage pays cash, how many third-party contracts are in place, and how well they pay, etc.), the extent and strength of the referral base, and the presence of supplemental income streams, such as clinical research.

It is also important to determine to what extent intangible assets are transferable. For example, unique skills with a laser, neurotoxins, or filler substances, or extraordinary personal charisma, may increase your practice’s value to you, but they are worthless to the next owner, and he or she will be unwilling to pay for them unless your services become part of the deal.

Once again, there are many ways to estimate intangible asset value, and once again, you should ask which were used. Cash Flow Analysis works on the assumption that cash flow is a measure of intangible value. Capitalization of Earnings puts a value, or capitalization, on the practice’s income streams using a variety of assumptions. Guideline Comparison uses various databases to compare your practice with other, similar ones that have changed hands in the past.

Two newer techniques that some consider a better estimate of intangible assets are the replacement method, which estimates the costs of starting the practice over again in the current market; and the excess earnings method, which measures how far above average your practice’s earnings (and thus its overall value) are.

Asset-based valuation is the most popular – but by no means the only – method available. Income-based valuation looks at the source and strength of a practice’s income stream as a creator of value, as well as whether or not its income stream under a different owner would mirror its present one. This in turn becomes the basis for an understanding of the fair market value of both tangible and intangible assets. Market valuation combines the asset-based and income-based approaches, along with an analysis of sales and mergers of comparable practices in the community, to determine the value of a practice in its local market.

Whatever methods are used, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and independent financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation is supplied to support the conclusions reached. This is especially important if the appraisal will be relied upon in the sale or merger of the practice.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I’ve written quite a lot over the past few years about the trend toward soloists and small groups selling their practices to hospitals, multispecialty groups, or larger practices. And I’ve made it fairly clear that I don’t think it’s a particularly good thing that the medical profession is going the way of the corner gas station and the mom-and-pop grocery store; it’s not good for physicians, patients, or private practice.

That said, if retirement looms with no individual buyers in sight, or your overhead is getting out of hand, selling to a larger entity is an option that you may need to consider. Too often, though, sellers are not receiving a fair return on the equity they have worked so hard to build over several decades, either because they have waited too long and must accept what is offered, or because they simply take the buyer’s word for their practice’s value. Don’t put yourself in either of those positions; and don’t entertain any offers until you obtain an objective appraisal from a neutral party.

Of course, a medical practice is trickier to value than is an ordinary business and usually requires the services of an experienced professional appraiser. Entire books have been written about the process, so I can’t hope to cover it completely in 850 words; but three basic yardsticks are essential for determining the equity, or book value, of a practice:

• Tangible Assets: equipment, cash, accounts receivable, and other property owned by the practice.

• Liabilities: accounts payable, outstanding loans, and anything else owed to others.

• Intangible Assets: sometimes called “good will” – the reputation of the physicians, the location and name recognition of the practice, the loyalty and volume of patients, and other, well, intangibles.

Valuing tangible assets is comparatively straightforward, but there are several ways to do it, and when reviewing a practice appraisal, you should ask which of them was used. Depreciated value is the book value of equipment and supplies as determined by their purchase price, less the amount their value has decreased since purchase. Remaining useful life value estimates how long the equipment can be expected to last. Market (or replacement) value is the amount it would cost on the open market to replace all equipment and supplies.

Intangible assets are more difficult to value. Many components are analyzed, including location, interior and exterior decor, accessibility to patients, age and functional status of equipment, systems in place to promote efficiency, reasons why patients come back (if in fact they do), and the overall reputation of the practice in the community. Other important factors include the “payer mix” (what percentage pays cash, how many third-party contracts are in place, and how well they pay, etc.), the extent and strength of the referral base, and the presence of supplemental income streams, such as clinical research.

It is also important to determine to what extent intangible assets are transferable. For example, unique skills with a laser, neurotoxins, or filler substances, or extraordinary personal charisma, may increase your practice’s value to you, but they are worthless to the next owner, and he or she will be unwilling to pay for them unless your services become part of the deal.

Once again, there are many ways to estimate intangible asset value, and once again, you should ask which were used. Cash Flow Analysis works on the assumption that cash flow is a measure of intangible value. Capitalization of Earnings puts a value, or capitalization, on the practice’s income streams using a variety of assumptions. Guideline Comparison uses various databases to compare your practice with other, similar ones that have changed hands in the past.

Two newer techniques that some consider a better estimate of intangible assets are the replacement method, which estimates the costs of starting the practice over again in the current market; and the excess earnings method, which measures how far above average your practice’s earnings (and thus its overall value) are.

Asset-based valuation is the most popular – but by no means the only – method available. Income-based valuation looks at the source and strength of a practice’s income stream as a creator of value, as well as whether or not its income stream under a different owner would mirror its present one. This in turn becomes the basis for an understanding of the fair market value of both tangible and intangible assets. Market valuation combines the asset-based and income-based approaches, along with an analysis of sales and mergers of comparable practices in the community, to determine the value of a practice in its local market.

Whatever methods are used, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and independent financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation is supplied to support the conclusions reached. This is especially important if the appraisal will be relied upon in the sale or merger of the practice.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].