Commentary

I freely admit I am obsessed with research articles about eating habits. I hold out hope that this will eventually unlock the magic bullet to cure us of the modern plague of obesity. At a certain level, our patients need us to be captivated by such literature. We should feel fairly comfortable with the common knowledge that diets are effective if you stay on them and reducing the caloric density of foods can result in meaningful weight loss.

But what about how quickly we eat? In our fast-paced, heavily caffeinated society, we seem to shovel rather than chew. Ever since I was a medical resident, I have practically inhaled my food. Perchance I am operating under the erroneous and illogical assumption that if I don’t taste the food it won’t register as calories. True science has now enlightened me to the error in my thinking.

Dr. Eric Robinson and his colleagues conducted a brilliant systematic review of the impact of eating rate on energy intake and hunger (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014;100:123-51). They included studies for which there was at least one study arm in which participants ate a meal at a statistically significant slower rate than that of a different arm. Twenty-two studies met the criteria for inclusion.

Available evidence suggests that a slower eating rate is associated with lower intake, compared with faster eating. The effect on caloric intake was observed regardless of the intervention used to modify the eating rate, such as modifying food from soft (fast rate) to hard (slow rate) or verbal instruction. No relationship was observed between eating rate and hunger at the end of the meal or several hours later.

Intriguing to me is the hypothesis that eating rate likely affects intake through the duration and intensity of oral exposure to taste. Previous studies have shown that, when eating rate is held constant, increasing sensory exposure leads to a lower energy intake. This seems to relate to our innate wiring that gives us a “sensory specific satiety.” In my understanding, sensory specific satiety turns off appetitive drive when you have had too much chocolate or too many potato chips and you feel slightly ill. Unfortunately, the food industry is on to this game and they have designed foods to be perfectly balanced to not render satiety. These foods can tragically be eaten ceaselessly.

Take-home message: If your patients cannot control the bad foods they eat, they should try to eat them more slowly.

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. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

I freely admit I am obsessed with research articles about eating habits. I hold out hope that this will eventually unlock the magic bullet to cure us of the modern plague of obesity. At a certain level, our patients need us to be captivated by such literature. We should feel fairly comfortable with the common knowledge that diets are effective if you stay on them and reducing the caloric density of foods can result in meaningful weight loss.

But what about how quickly we eat? In our fast-paced, heavily caffeinated society, we seem to shovel rather than chew. Ever since I was a medical resident, I have practically inhaled my food. Perchance I am operating under the erroneous and illogical assumption that if I don’t taste the food it won’t register as calories. True science has now enlightened me to the error in my thinking.

Dr. Eric Robinson and his colleagues conducted a brilliant systematic review of the impact of eating rate on energy intake and hunger (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014;100:123-51). They included studies for which there was at least one study arm in which participants ate a meal at a statistically significant slower rate than that of a different arm. Twenty-two studies met the criteria for inclusion.

Available evidence suggests that a slower eating rate is associated with lower intake, compared with faster eating. The effect on caloric intake was observed regardless of the intervention used to modify the eating rate, such as modifying food from soft (fast rate) to hard (slow rate) or verbal instruction. No relationship was observed between eating rate and hunger at the end of the meal or several hours later.

Intriguing to me is the hypothesis that eating rate likely affects intake through the duration and intensity of oral exposure to taste. Previous studies have shown that, when eating rate is held constant, increasing sensory exposure leads to a lower energy intake. This seems to relate to our innate wiring that gives us a “sensory specific satiety.” In my understanding, sensory specific satiety turns off appetitive drive when you have had too much chocolate or too many potato chips and you feel slightly ill. Unfortunately, the food industry is on to this game and they have designed foods to be perfectly balanced to not render satiety. These foods can tragically be eaten ceaselessly.

Take-home message: If your patients cannot control the bad foods they eat, they should try to eat them more slowly.

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. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

I freely admit I am obsessed with research articles about eating habits. I hold out hope that this will eventually unlock the magic bullet to cure us of the modern plague of obesity. At a certain level, our patients need us to be captivated by such literature. We should feel fairly comfortable with the common knowledge that diets are effective if you stay on them and reducing the caloric density of foods can result in meaningful weight loss.

But what about how quickly we eat? In our fast-paced, heavily caffeinated society, we seem to shovel rather than chew. Ever since I was a medical resident, I have practically inhaled my food. Perchance I am operating under the erroneous and illogical assumption that if I don’t taste the food it won’t register as calories. True science has now enlightened me to the error in my thinking.

Dr. Eric Robinson and his colleagues conducted a brilliant systematic review of the impact of eating rate on energy intake and hunger (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014;100:123-51). They included studies for which there was at least one study arm in which participants ate a meal at a statistically significant slower rate than that of a different arm. Twenty-two studies met the criteria for inclusion.

Available evidence suggests that a slower eating rate is associated with lower intake, compared with faster eating. The effect on caloric intake was observed regardless of the intervention used to modify the eating rate, such as modifying food from soft (fast rate) to hard (slow rate) or verbal instruction. No relationship was observed between eating rate and hunger at the end of the meal or several hours later.

Intriguing to me is the hypothesis that eating rate likely affects intake through the duration and intensity of oral exposure to taste. Previous studies have shown that, when eating rate is held constant, increasing sensory exposure leads to a lower energy intake. This seems to relate to our innate wiring that gives us a “sensory specific satiety.” In my understanding, sensory specific satiety turns off appetitive drive when you have had too much chocolate or too many potato chips and you feel slightly ill. Unfortunately, the food industry is on to this game and they have designed foods to be perfectly balanced to not render satiety. These foods can tragically be eaten ceaselessly.

Take-home message: If your patients cannot control the bad foods they eat, they should try to eat them more slowly.

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. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician.

Despite the many changes in medicine over the past century, traumatic injury remains a surgical disease.

Trauma injury is a major public health concern in rural areas, where death rates from unintentional injuries are higher than in metropolitan areas (Am. J. Public Health 2004;10:1689-93). The rural surgeon sees more than his or her fair share of victims of automobile accidents, falls, unintentional firearms injuries, and occupational accidents (think tractor accidents and injuries involving machinery and animals).

Another reality of the rural areas of the United States is that the number of broadly trained general surgeons who can treat a wide variety of trauma injuries is shrinking. Aging and retirements of the “old school rural surgeons” are accelerating and precipitating a lack of surgical coverage crisis, including trauma, in rural areas (Arch. Surg. 2005;140:74-9).

These well-documented developments have combined to reduce the availability of rural surgeons to manage injured patients in planned and consistent ways. Because of the current training paradigm of increasing subspecialization, injured rural patients may be cared for at rural hospitals with reduced capabilities and by rural surgeons with limited trauma training and experience.

What is the action plan to help counteract these developments and to provide the highest-quality patient care at facilities staffed by surgeons who have sworn to “serve all with skill and fidelity”?

The most straightforward and well-established action plan to achieve those goals is the verification process developed by the ACS Verification, Review, and Consultation Program (VRC) in 1987 to help hospitals improve trauma care. The process involves a pre-review questionnaire, a site visit, and report of findings. Verification as a trauma center guarantees that the facility has the required resources listed in the current, evidence-based guide, Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient (2014). If successful, the trauma center receives a certificate of verification that is valid for 3 years.

Most rural hospitals are designated as Level III and IV verified trauma centers on the basis of their available resources. ACS verification confirms that these centers have the commitments and capabilities to manage the initial care of injured patients by providing stabilization and instituting life-saving maneuvers. In addition, verification confirms that protocols and agreements with higher-level trauma centers within a system enable the safe and efficient transfer of injured patients.

During many years of practice in the rural hospitals verified as trauma centers, including being the medical director of a Level II and Level III facility, I provided care to injured patients who presented to the emergency departments (EDs). My experiences confirmed the unequivocal value of practicing in those facilities, and I can attest to the benefits of verification within a system, like Iowa’s state program.

The following case report validates such assertions. A helicopter, unable to complete the transfer to a Level I center for a deteriorating patient with a left chest gunshot wound, landed at my Level III hospital. There was a “Hot Off Load,” which was followed by a full trauma alert for the patient in profound shock. After placing a chest tube during a 20-minute ED stay, the patient transferred to the OR for further resuscitation, and stabilization with required operative treatment. With the patient stabilized and fully resuscitated, according to established agreements, I contacted the Level I center from the OR. After 3 hours, the patient returned to the helicopter and completed the transfer to the Level I trauma center. The patient survived because of the local trauma team’s commitment, organization, and skill brought about by the trauma center verification.

Most research to date has focused on higher-level trauma centers, but recent studies have shown that ACS verification was an independent predictor of survival of trauma patients at Level II centers (J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75:44-9; J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2010;69:1362-6).

I have firsthand experience with the verification process. Following my involvement with the ACS Committee on Trauma, I became a national site surveyor for the ACSVRC. I became an Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) instructor and then worked as a course director. ATLS is an essential component for trauma center verification. It supports the rural surgeon by giving the local trauma team a format for consistent, life-saving care for the most severely injured patients. I subsequently completed the ACS Advanced Trauma Operative Management course and elected to become an instructor.

I have made site visits to many rural hospitals as a part of the ACSVRC process and have met with a wide range of reactions from “Let’s show off how good we are” to “We really don’t know why we’re doing this” to “Just give us the merit badge and then get out of our hair.” I am gratified to note that ACS Fellows are uniformly supportive. They understand the need for organization, standards, and performance improvement.

Opposition to the ACSVRC process by hospitals and staff is no doubt rooted in cost concerns and general resistance to change. But, as most of us know, demonstrated benefits for patient care can be highly persuasive to most medical professionals.

It is also worth noting that in an effort to decrease stress, the ACSVRC takes significant steps to support facilities that seek verification by eliminating ambiguity from application to on-site visit, by defining criteria deficiencies, and by providing evidence for the entire verification process. The complete VRC program along with an FAQ is available on the ACS website (facs.org/quality-programs/trauma/vrc).

For me, trauma care has always been about what is best for the injured patient. I often ask colleagues this question: “What care do you want for an injured member of your family?” I then answer my own question: “I want the best care possible. That means organized, efficient, and life-saving [care] if needed.” Fortunately, I experienced these benefits at my verified trauma center hospital when my second son was in a rollover motor vehicle crash. He survived.

Verified rural trauma centers do indeed offer the best opportunities for high-quality patient care and for support of the rural surgeons who render that care to “serve all with skill and fidelity.” I know. I have been there.

Dr. Caropreso is a general surgeon at Keokuk (Iowa) Area Hospital and clinical professor of surgery at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City. He has practiced surgery in the rural communities of Mason City, Iowa; Keokuk, Iowa; and Carthage, Ill., for 37 years.

Despite the many changes in medicine over the past century, traumatic injury remains a surgical disease.

Trauma injury is a major public health concern in rural areas, where death rates from unintentional injuries are higher than in metropolitan areas (Am. J. Public Health 2004;10:1689-93). The rural surgeon sees more than his or her fair share of victims of automobile accidents, falls, unintentional firearms injuries, and occupational accidents (think tractor accidents and injuries involving machinery and animals).

Another reality of the rural areas of the United States is that the number of broadly trained general surgeons who can treat a wide variety of trauma injuries is shrinking. Aging and retirements of the “old school rural surgeons” are accelerating and precipitating a lack of surgical coverage crisis, including trauma, in rural areas (Arch. Surg. 2005;140:74-9).

These well-documented developments have combined to reduce the availability of rural surgeons to manage injured patients in planned and consistent ways. Because of the current training paradigm of increasing subspecialization, injured rural patients may be cared for at rural hospitals with reduced capabilities and by rural surgeons with limited trauma training and experience.

What is the action plan to help counteract these developments and to provide the highest-quality patient care at facilities staffed by surgeons who have sworn to “serve all with skill and fidelity”?

The most straightforward and well-established action plan to achieve those goals is the verification process developed by the ACS Verification, Review, and Consultation Program (VRC) in 1987 to help hospitals improve trauma care. The process involves a pre-review questionnaire, a site visit, and report of findings. Verification as a trauma center guarantees that the facility has the required resources listed in the current, evidence-based guide, Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient (2014). If successful, the trauma center receives a certificate of verification that is valid for 3 years.

Most rural hospitals are designated as Level III and IV verified trauma centers on the basis of their available resources. ACS verification confirms that these centers have the commitments and capabilities to manage the initial care of injured patients by providing stabilization and instituting life-saving maneuvers. In addition, verification confirms that protocols and agreements with higher-level trauma centers within a system enable the safe and efficient transfer of injured patients.

During many years of practice in the rural hospitals verified as trauma centers, including being the medical director of a Level II and Level III facility, I provided care to injured patients who presented to the emergency departments (EDs). My experiences confirmed the unequivocal value of practicing in those facilities, and I can attest to the benefits of verification within a system, like Iowa’s state program.

The following case report validates such assertions. A helicopter, unable to complete the transfer to a Level I center for a deteriorating patient with a left chest gunshot wound, landed at my Level III hospital. There was a “Hot Off Load,” which was followed by a full trauma alert for the patient in profound shock. After placing a chest tube during a 20-minute ED stay, the patient transferred to the OR for further resuscitation, and stabilization with required operative treatment. With the patient stabilized and fully resuscitated, according to established agreements, I contacted the Level I center from the OR. After 3 hours, the patient returned to the helicopter and completed the transfer to the Level I trauma center. The patient survived because of the local trauma team’s commitment, organization, and skill brought about by the trauma center verification.

Most research to date has focused on higher-level trauma centers, but recent studies have shown that ACS verification was an independent predictor of survival of trauma patients at Level II centers (J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75:44-9; J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2010;69:1362-6).

I have firsthand experience with the verification process. Following my involvement with the ACS Committee on Trauma, I became a national site surveyor for the ACSVRC. I became an Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) instructor and then worked as a course director. ATLS is an essential component for trauma center verification. It supports the rural surgeon by giving the local trauma team a format for consistent, life-saving care for the most severely injured patients. I subsequently completed the ACS Advanced Trauma Operative Management course and elected to become an instructor.

I have made site visits to many rural hospitals as a part of the ACSVRC process and have met with a wide range of reactions from “Let’s show off how good we are” to “We really don’t know why we’re doing this” to “Just give us the merit badge and then get out of our hair.” I am gratified to note that ACS Fellows are uniformly supportive. They understand the need for organization, standards, and performance improvement.

Opposition to the ACSVRC process by hospitals and staff is no doubt rooted in cost concerns and general resistance to change. But, as most of us know, demonstrated benefits for patient care can be highly persuasive to most medical professionals.

It is also worth noting that in an effort to decrease stress, the ACSVRC takes significant steps to support facilities that seek verification by eliminating ambiguity from application to on-site visit, by defining criteria deficiencies, and by providing evidence for the entire verification process. The complete VRC program along with an FAQ is available on the ACS website (facs.org/quality-programs/trauma/vrc).

For me, trauma care has always been about what is best for the injured patient. I often ask colleagues this question: “What care do you want for an injured member of your family?” I then answer my own question: “I want the best care possible. That means organized, efficient, and life-saving [care] if needed.” Fortunately, I experienced these benefits at my verified trauma center hospital when my second son was in a rollover motor vehicle crash. He survived.

Verified rural trauma centers do indeed offer the best opportunities for high-quality patient care and for support of the rural surgeons who render that care to “serve all with skill and fidelity.” I know. I have been there.

Dr. Caropreso is a general surgeon at Keokuk (Iowa) Area Hospital and clinical professor of surgery at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City. He has practiced surgery in the rural communities of Mason City, Iowa; Keokuk, Iowa; and Carthage, Ill., for 37 years.

Despite the many changes in medicine over the past century, traumatic injury remains a surgical disease.

Trauma injury is a major public health concern in rural areas, where death rates from unintentional injuries are higher than in metropolitan areas (Am. J. Public Health 2004;10:1689-93). The rural surgeon sees more than his or her fair share of victims of automobile accidents, falls, unintentional firearms injuries, and occupational accidents (think tractor accidents and injuries involving machinery and animals).

Another reality of the rural areas of the United States is that the number of broadly trained general surgeons who can treat a wide variety of trauma injuries is shrinking. Aging and retirements of the “old school rural surgeons” are accelerating and precipitating a lack of surgical coverage crisis, including trauma, in rural areas (Arch. Surg. 2005;140:74-9).

These well-documented developments have combined to reduce the availability of rural surgeons to manage injured patients in planned and consistent ways. Because of the current training paradigm of increasing subspecialization, injured rural patients may be cared for at rural hospitals with reduced capabilities and by rural surgeons with limited trauma training and experience.

What is the action plan to help counteract these developments and to provide the highest-quality patient care at facilities staffed by surgeons who have sworn to “serve all with skill and fidelity”?

The most straightforward and well-established action plan to achieve those goals is the verification process developed by the ACS Verification, Review, and Consultation Program (VRC) in 1987 to help hospitals improve trauma care. The process involves a pre-review questionnaire, a site visit, and report of findings. Verification as a trauma center guarantees that the facility has the required resources listed in the current, evidence-based guide, Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient (2014). If successful, the trauma center receives a certificate of verification that is valid for 3 years.

Most rural hospitals are designated as Level III and IV verified trauma centers on the basis of their available resources. ACS verification confirms that these centers have the commitments and capabilities to manage the initial care of injured patients by providing stabilization and instituting life-saving maneuvers. In addition, verification confirms that protocols and agreements with higher-level trauma centers within a system enable the safe and efficient transfer of injured patients.

During many years of practice in the rural hospitals verified as trauma centers, including being the medical director of a Level II and Level III facility, I provided care to injured patients who presented to the emergency departments (EDs). My experiences confirmed the unequivocal value of practicing in those facilities, and I can attest to the benefits of verification within a system, like Iowa’s state program.

The following case report validates such assertions. A helicopter, unable to complete the transfer to a Level I center for a deteriorating patient with a left chest gunshot wound, landed at my Level III hospital. There was a “Hot Off Load,” which was followed by a full trauma alert for the patient in profound shock. After placing a chest tube during a 20-minute ED stay, the patient transferred to the OR for further resuscitation, and stabilization with required operative treatment. With the patient stabilized and fully resuscitated, according to established agreements, I contacted the Level I center from the OR. After 3 hours, the patient returned to the helicopter and completed the transfer to the Level I trauma center. The patient survived because of the local trauma team’s commitment, organization, and skill brought about by the trauma center verification.

Most research to date has focused on higher-level trauma centers, but recent studies have shown that ACS verification was an independent predictor of survival of trauma patients at Level II centers (J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75:44-9; J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2010;69:1362-6).

I have firsthand experience with the verification process. Following my involvement with the ACS Committee on Trauma, I became a national site surveyor for the ACSVRC. I became an Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) instructor and then worked as a course director. ATLS is an essential component for trauma center verification. It supports the rural surgeon by giving the local trauma team a format for consistent, life-saving care for the most severely injured patients. I subsequently completed the ACS Advanced Trauma Operative Management course and elected to become an instructor.

I have made site visits to many rural hospitals as a part of the ACSVRC process and have met with a wide range of reactions from “Let’s show off how good we are” to “We really don’t know why we’re doing this” to “Just give us the merit badge and then get out of our hair.” I am gratified to note that ACS Fellows are uniformly supportive. They understand the need for organization, standards, and performance improvement.

Opposition to the ACSVRC process by hospitals and staff is no doubt rooted in cost concerns and general resistance to change. But, as most of us know, demonstrated benefits for patient care can be highly persuasive to most medical professionals.

It is also worth noting that in an effort to decrease stress, the ACSVRC takes significant steps to support facilities that seek verification by eliminating ambiguity from application to on-site visit, by defining criteria deficiencies, and by providing evidence for the entire verification process. The complete VRC program along with an FAQ is available on the ACS website (facs.org/quality-programs/trauma/vrc).

For me, trauma care has always been about what is best for the injured patient. I often ask colleagues this question: “What care do you want for an injured member of your family?” I then answer my own question: “I want the best care possible. That means organized, efficient, and life-saving [care] if needed.” Fortunately, I experienced these benefits at my verified trauma center hospital when my second son was in a rollover motor vehicle crash. He survived.

Verified rural trauma centers do indeed offer the best opportunities for high-quality patient care and for support of the rural surgeons who render that care to “serve all with skill and fidelity.” I know. I have been there.

Dr. Caropreso is a general surgeon at Keokuk (Iowa) Area Hospital and clinical professor of surgery at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City. He has practiced surgery in the rural communities of Mason City, Iowa; Keokuk, Iowa; and Carthage, Ill., for 37 years.

S…G…R (continued) – It is much to all of our collective delight and relief that the SGR has finally been relegated to the ash heap of history.

In the late evening of April 14, in an act of historic bipartisanship, the Senate voted 92-8 in favor of H.R. 2 thus completing legislative action about which I wrote last month. President Obama signed the bill into law on April 16. As I write, Dave Hoyt, ACS Executive Director, is attending an event at the White House, along with other leaders of the physician community, to celebrate the full and permanent repeal of the SGR.

In the coming months, I will use this column to inform surgeons about various components of the legislation and its attendant policy. To start this process, I would first like to cover the key provisions of what is now known as MACRA – the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.

For starters, MACRA fully and permanently repeals the sustainable growth rate (SGR), thus providing stability to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Such repeal averts a 21% SGR-induced cut scheduled for April 1, 2015. MACRA also provides modest but stable positive updates of 0.5%/year for 5 years. When the legislative template that ultimately became MACRA was negotiated in late 2013 and early 2014, no provision was initially made for a positive update to physician payment. However, as a direct result of objections made by the leadership of the ACS, the legislation was subsequently revised to include the 0.5%/year update.

In addition, MACRA provides for the elimination, in 2018, of the current-law penalties associated with the existing quality programs, namely the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the Value-Based Modifier (VBM) program, and the Electronic Health Record-Meaningful Use (EHR-MU) program. The monies expected from those penalties will be returned to the pool, thus increasing the amount of funds available for incentive updates.

Beginning in 2019, these three programs will be combined into a single program known as the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The MIPS makes it possible for all surgeons to receive an annual positive update based on their individual performance in four categories of Quality, Resource Use, Meaningful use of the electronic health record, and Clinical practice improvement activities. Surgeons will receive an annual, individual, single composite score based on their performance in these four categories. This score will be compared to a threshold score, defined as either the mean or median of composite scores from a prior performance period. Those with a score above the threshold will receive a positive adjustment and those with a score below the threshold will receive a negative adjustment.The legislation also provides the opportunity to receive a 5% bonus beginning in 2019 for participation in an Alternative Payment Model (APM). Surgeons who meet the full APM criteria will also be excluded from the MIPS assessment and most EHR-MU requirements. Those who participate in an APM at lower levels will receive credit toward their MIPS score. The bonus payment encourages the development of, testing of, and participation in an alternative payment model.

The passage of MACRA also represents a major victory relative to the College’s efforts to rescind the CMS policy transitioning 10- and 90-day global codes to zero-day global codes. ACS leadership and staff of the D.C. office had direct input into the specific language included in the legislation through multiple exchanges with congressional committee staff. In short, MACRA prohibits CMS from implementing its flawed plan relative to the transitioning of the global codes. Instead, beginning no later than 2017, CMS will collect samples of data on the number and level of postoperative visits furnished during the global period. Beginning in 2019, CMS will use this data to improve the accuracy of the valuation of surgical services. CMS is allowed to withhold 5% of the surgical payment until the sample information is reported at the end of the global period.

While MACRA does not implement broad medical liability reforms, it does include a provision which assures that MIPS participation cannot be used in a medical liability action. Specifically, the legislation specifies that the development, recognition or implementation of any guideline or other standard under any federal health care provision, including Medicare, cannot be construed as to establish the standard of care or duty of care owed by a surgeon to a patient in any medical malpractice claim.

Finally, and of particular interest to pediatric surgeons and other surgeons who care for children, MACRA includes two years of additional funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) at the level provided under the Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately, surgeons will need to become familiar with an entire new lexicon of acronyms associated with this new law and its policy. While this may initially seem daunting and confusing, it can be mastered with relative ease. It is my hope to continue to facilitate such with the content provided herein with the June edition of this column.

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, DC.

S…G…R (continued) – It is much to all of our collective delight and relief that the SGR has finally been relegated to the ash heap of history.

In the late evening of April 14, in an act of historic bipartisanship, the Senate voted 92-8 in favor of H.R. 2 thus completing legislative action about which I wrote last month. President Obama signed the bill into law on April 16. As I write, Dave Hoyt, ACS Executive Director, is attending an event at the White House, along with other leaders of the physician community, to celebrate the full and permanent repeal of the SGR.

In the coming months, I will use this column to inform surgeons about various components of the legislation and its attendant policy. To start this process, I would first like to cover the key provisions of what is now known as MACRA – the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.

For starters, MACRA fully and permanently repeals the sustainable growth rate (SGR), thus providing stability to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Such repeal averts a 21% SGR-induced cut scheduled for April 1, 2015. MACRA also provides modest but stable positive updates of 0.5%/year for 5 years. When the legislative template that ultimately became MACRA was negotiated in late 2013 and early 2014, no provision was initially made for a positive update to physician payment. However, as a direct result of objections made by the leadership of the ACS, the legislation was subsequently revised to include the 0.5%/year update.

In addition, MACRA provides for the elimination, in 2018, of the current-law penalties associated with the existing quality programs, namely the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the Value-Based Modifier (VBM) program, and the Electronic Health Record-Meaningful Use (EHR-MU) program. The monies expected from those penalties will be returned to the pool, thus increasing the amount of funds available for incentive updates.

Beginning in 2019, these three programs will be combined into a single program known as the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The MIPS makes it possible for all surgeons to receive an annual positive update based on their individual performance in four categories of Quality, Resource Use, Meaningful use of the electronic health record, and Clinical practice improvement activities. Surgeons will receive an annual, individual, single composite score based on their performance in these four categories. This score will be compared to a threshold score, defined as either the mean or median of composite scores from a prior performance period. Those with a score above the threshold will receive a positive adjustment and those with a score below the threshold will receive a negative adjustment.The legislation also provides the opportunity to receive a 5% bonus beginning in 2019 for participation in an Alternative Payment Model (APM). Surgeons who meet the full APM criteria will also be excluded from the MIPS assessment and most EHR-MU requirements. Those who participate in an APM at lower levels will receive credit toward their MIPS score. The bonus payment encourages the development of, testing of, and participation in an alternative payment model.

The passage of MACRA also represents a major victory relative to the College’s efforts to rescind the CMS policy transitioning 10- and 90-day global codes to zero-day global codes. ACS leadership and staff of the D.C. office had direct input into the specific language included in the legislation through multiple exchanges with congressional committee staff. In short, MACRA prohibits CMS from implementing its flawed plan relative to the transitioning of the global codes. Instead, beginning no later than 2017, CMS will collect samples of data on the number and level of postoperative visits furnished during the global period. Beginning in 2019, CMS will use this data to improve the accuracy of the valuation of surgical services. CMS is allowed to withhold 5% of the surgical payment until the sample information is reported at the end of the global period.

While MACRA does not implement broad medical liability reforms, it does include a provision which assures that MIPS participation cannot be used in a medical liability action. Specifically, the legislation specifies that the development, recognition or implementation of any guideline or other standard under any federal health care provision, including Medicare, cannot be construed as to establish the standard of care or duty of care owed by a surgeon to a patient in any medical malpractice claim.

Finally, and of particular interest to pediatric surgeons and other surgeons who care for children, MACRA includes two years of additional funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) at the level provided under the Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately, surgeons will need to become familiar with an entire new lexicon of acronyms associated with this new law and its policy. While this may initially seem daunting and confusing, it can be mastered with relative ease. It is my hope to continue to facilitate such with the content provided herein with the June edition of this column.

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, DC.

S…G…R (continued) – It is much to all of our collective delight and relief that the SGR has finally been relegated to the ash heap of history.

In the late evening of April 14, in an act of historic bipartisanship, the Senate voted 92-8 in favor of H.R. 2 thus completing legislative action about which I wrote last month. President Obama signed the bill into law on April 16. As I write, Dave Hoyt, ACS Executive Director, is attending an event at the White House, along with other leaders of the physician community, to celebrate the full and permanent repeal of the SGR.

In the coming months, I will use this column to inform surgeons about various components of the legislation and its attendant policy. To start this process, I would first like to cover the key provisions of what is now known as MACRA – the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.

For starters, MACRA fully and permanently repeals the sustainable growth rate (SGR), thus providing stability to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Such repeal averts a 21% SGR-induced cut scheduled for April 1, 2015. MACRA also provides modest but stable positive updates of 0.5%/year for 5 years. When the legislative template that ultimately became MACRA was negotiated in late 2013 and early 2014, no provision was initially made for a positive update to physician payment. However, as a direct result of objections made by the leadership of the ACS, the legislation was subsequently revised to include the 0.5%/year update.

In addition, MACRA provides for the elimination, in 2018, of the current-law penalties associated with the existing quality programs, namely the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the Value-Based Modifier (VBM) program, and the Electronic Health Record-Meaningful Use (EHR-MU) program. The monies expected from those penalties will be returned to the pool, thus increasing the amount of funds available for incentive updates.

Beginning in 2019, these three programs will be combined into a single program known as the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The MIPS makes it possible for all surgeons to receive an annual positive update based on their individual performance in four categories of Quality, Resource Use, Meaningful use of the electronic health record, and Clinical practice improvement activities. Surgeons will receive an annual, individual, single composite score based on their performance in these four categories. This score will be compared to a threshold score, defined as either the mean or median of composite scores from a prior performance period. Those with a score above the threshold will receive a positive adjustment and those with a score below the threshold will receive a negative adjustment.The legislation also provides the opportunity to receive a 5% bonus beginning in 2019 for participation in an Alternative Payment Model (APM). Surgeons who meet the full APM criteria will also be excluded from the MIPS assessment and most EHR-MU requirements. Those who participate in an APM at lower levels will receive credit toward their MIPS score. The bonus payment encourages the development of, testing of, and participation in an alternative payment model.

The passage of MACRA also represents a major victory relative to the College’s efforts to rescind the CMS policy transitioning 10- and 90-day global codes to zero-day global codes. ACS leadership and staff of the D.C. office had direct input into the specific language included in the legislation through multiple exchanges with congressional committee staff. In short, MACRA prohibits CMS from implementing its flawed plan relative to the transitioning of the global codes. Instead, beginning no later than 2017, CMS will collect samples of data on the number and level of postoperative visits furnished during the global period. Beginning in 2019, CMS will use this data to improve the accuracy of the valuation of surgical services. CMS is allowed to withhold 5% of the surgical payment until the sample information is reported at the end of the global period.

While MACRA does not implement broad medical liability reforms, it does include a provision which assures that MIPS participation cannot be used in a medical liability action. Specifically, the legislation specifies that the development, recognition or implementation of any guideline or other standard under any federal health care provision, including Medicare, cannot be construed as to establish the standard of care or duty of care owed by a surgeon to a patient in any medical malpractice claim.

Finally, and of particular interest to pediatric surgeons and other surgeons who care for children, MACRA includes two years of additional funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) at the level provided under the Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately, surgeons will need to become familiar with an entire new lexicon of acronyms associated with this new law and its policy. While this may initially seem daunting and confusing, it can be mastered with relative ease. It is my hope to continue to facilitate such with the content provided herein with the June edition of this column.

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, DC.

Dying patients teach us to think more carefully about whether or not our surgical interventions will be beneficial.

I work in palliative care, and my surgical colleagues, especially the residents, are often surprised when I call them and ask them to consult on my patients who are very ill and have a “Do Not Resuscitate” order in their charts. I’m also an anesthesiologist working in interventional pain management, and I regularly do procedures on patients who have prognoses that are extremely limited. For other patients, I recommend against any interventions at all.

How do we know when to intervene on patients who are dying? Perhaps more importantly, how do we know when NOT to intervene? Two recent
cases of almost identical fractures illustrated for me the need to think beyond the anatomic problem when evaluating options for care.

Last year, I admitted a woman, “Donna,” with widely metastatic breast cancer to our inpatient palliative care service. She had fallen at home and hurt her arm about 2 months prior to admission. She had been confined to her bed for about 6 weeks. She was brought to the hospital because she was becoming delirious. She had many sources of pain that were relatively well controlled when she was lying down, but her worst pain was in her left arm. We found a fracture of her humerus. When her family learned that the fracture would not heal on its own because of the large metastasis there, they demanded surgery to fix it. Shortly thereafter, I re-admitted a patient, “Cindy,” with a very similar story. She also had widely metastatic breast cancer, and her pain had been very difficult to control. We had found a pain regimen that worked well for her on her previous admission, but she had fallen over her walker and broke her humerus after we had discharged her to a rehab facility. When I saw her back in the hospital, I told her that I thought she would need surgery to fix her arm. She was depressed by this setback, she was in pain again, and she told me that she would prefer not to have any intervention because she feared the additional pain that it would cause.

With Donna, we sat down with her and her family to hear what their hopes were for her care. They understood that she did not have further chemotherapy or radiation options for her cancer, but they thought if she got the surgery that at least she would be able to get out of bed and walk again. My colleague carefully explained that yes, he could fix the fracture and that this could mean that the pain in her left arm would improve. He went on to say, however, that he did not think that the surgery would allow her to walk again as she had not been able to walk for a few weeks after the injury. When the family heard that the surgery probably wouldn’t restore her mobility, they decided against the procedure. With Cindy, we had a very different conversation. She was not inclined to have the procedure, but I expressed my concern that she wouldn’t be able to walk again unless she had the procedure because she needed her arms to use her walker. Although she did not have any further chemotherapy or radiation options, her oncologist had told us that her prognosis could be several months. In this case, my surgical colleague explained that he could perform surgery for the fracture and that he thought that it would both help her pain and allow her to use her walker again. We recommended that she have the surgery given her hope to continue to live independently, as she had been, for as long as possible. She ultimately agreed to do so and was able to return home.

These two patients reminded me again of how important it is for us to understand what our patients’ hopes and expectations are for a procedure. It is very distressing for clinicians when desperate families want treatments that likely have little benefit. When patients have limited prognoses, aligning patient goals and procedure goals is especially important as the outcome of the procedure can define the patient’s remaining days.

Donna’s family demanded a surgery expecting a result that was very unlikely, and Cindy initially declined the same surgery that ultimately benefitted her greatly. Our job is to make and execute the medical recommendations that best fit with our patients’ goals and understanding. Sometimes this will mean performing procedures on patients who are extremely ill and have “Do Not Resuscitate” orders, and at other times, it will mean not doing procedures, even if a patient and family want them to be done.

Dr. Rickerson is an anesthesiologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.


Dying patients teach us to think more carefully about whether or not our surgical interventions will be beneficial.

I work in palliative care, and my surgical colleagues, especially the residents, are often surprised when I call them and ask them to consult on my patients who are very ill and have a “Do Not Resuscitate” order in their charts. I’m also an anesthesiologist working in interventional pain management, and I regularly do procedures on patients who have prognoses that are extremely limited. For other patients, I recommend against any interventions at all.

How do we know when to intervene on patients who are dying? Perhaps more importantly, how do we know when NOT to intervene? Two recent
cases of almost identical fractures illustrated for me the need to think beyond the anatomic problem when evaluating options for care.

Last year, I admitted a woman, “Donna,” with widely metastatic breast cancer to our inpatient palliative care service. She had fallen at home and hurt her arm about 2 months prior to admission. She had been confined to her bed for about 6 weeks. She was brought to the hospital because she was becoming delirious. She had many sources of pain that were relatively well controlled when she was lying down, but her worst pain was in her left arm. We found a fracture of her humerus. When her family learned that the fracture would not heal on its own because of the large metastasis there, they demanded surgery to fix it. Shortly thereafter, I re-admitted a patient, “Cindy,” with a very similar story. She also had widely metastatic breast cancer, and her pain had been very difficult to control. We had found a pain regimen that worked well for her on her previous admission, but she had fallen over her walker and broke her humerus after we had discharged her to a rehab facility. When I saw her back in the hospital, I told her that I thought she would need surgery to fix her arm. She was depressed by this setback, she was in pain again, and she told me that she would prefer not to have any intervention because she feared the additional pain that it would cause.

With Donna, we sat down with her and her family to hear what their hopes were for her care. They understood that she did not have further chemotherapy or radiation options for her cancer, but they thought if she got the surgery that at least she would be able to get out of bed and walk again. My colleague carefully explained that yes, he could fix the fracture and that this could mean that the pain in her left arm would improve. He went on to say, however, that he did not think that the surgery would allow her to walk again as she had not been able to walk for a few weeks after the injury. When the family heard that the surgery probably wouldn’t restore her mobility, they decided against the procedure. With Cindy, we had a very different conversation. She was not inclined to have the procedure, but I expressed my concern that she wouldn’t be able to walk again unless she had the procedure because she needed her arms to use her walker. Although she did not have any further chemotherapy or radiation options, her oncologist had told us that her prognosis could be several months. In this case, my surgical colleague explained that he could perform surgery for the fracture and that he thought that it would both help her pain and allow her to use her walker again. We recommended that she have the surgery given her hope to continue to live independently, as she had been, for as long as possible. She ultimately agreed to do so and was able to return home.

These two patients reminded me again of how important it is for us to understand what our patients’ hopes and expectations are for a procedure. It is very distressing for clinicians when desperate families want treatments that likely have little benefit. When patients have limited prognoses, aligning patient goals and procedure goals is especially important as the outcome of the procedure can define the patient’s remaining days.

Donna’s family demanded a surgery expecting a result that was very unlikely, and Cindy initially declined the same surgery that ultimately benefitted her greatly. Our job is to make and execute the medical recommendations that best fit with our patients’ goals and understanding. Sometimes this will mean performing procedures on patients who are extremely ill and have “Do Not Resuscitate” orders, and at other times, it will mean not doing procedures, even if a patient and family want them to be done.

Dr. Rickerson is an anesthesiologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.


Dying patients teach us to think more carefully about whether or not our surgical interventions will be beneficial.

I work in palliative care, and my surgical colleagues, especially the residents, are often surprised when I call them and ask them to consult on my patients who are very ill and have a “Do Not Resuscitate” order in their charts. I’m also an anesthesiologist working in interventional pain management, and I regularly do procedures on patients who have prognoses that are extremely limited. For other patients, I recommend against any interventions at all.

How do we know when to intervene on patients who are dying? Perhaps more importantly, how do we know when NOT to intervene? Two recent
cases of almost identical fractures illustrated for me the need to think beyond the anatomic problem when evaluating options for care.

Last year, I admitted a woman, “Donna,” with widely metastatic breast cancer to our inpatient palliative care service. She had fallen at home and hurt her arm about 2 months prior to admission. She had been confined to her bed for about 6 weeks. She was brought to the hospital because she was becoming delirious. She had many sources of pain that were relatively well controlled when she was lying down, but her worst pain was in her left arm. We found a fracture of her humerus. When her family learned that the fracture would not heal on its own because of the large metastasis there, they demanded surgery to fix it. Shortly thereafter, I re-admitted a patient, “Cindy,” with a very similar story. She also had widely metastatic breast cancer, and her pain had been very difficult to control. We had found a pain regimen that worked well for her on her previous admission, but she had fallen over her walker and broke her humerus after we had discharged her to a rehab facility. When I saw her back in the hospital, I told her that I thought she would need surgery to fix her arm. She was depressed by this setback, she was in pain again, and she told me that she would prefer not to have any intervention because she feared the additional pain that it would cause.

With Donna, we sat down with her and her family to hear what their hopes were for her care. They understood that she did not have further chemotherapy or radiation options for her cancer, but they thought if she got the surgery that at least she would be able to get out of bed and walk again. My colleague carefully explained that yes, he could fix the fracture and that this could mean that the pain in her left arm would improve. He went on to say, however, that he did not think that the surgery would allow her to walk again as she had not been able to walk for a few weeks after the injury. When the family heard that the surgery probably wouldn’t restore her mobility, they decided against the procedure. With Cindy, we had a very different conversation. She was not inclined to have the procedure, but I expressed my concern that she wouldn’t be able to walk again unless she had the procedure because she needed her arms to use her walker. Although she did not have any further chemotherapy or radiation options, her oncologist had told us that her prognosis could be several months. In this case, my surgical colleague explained that he could perform surgery for the fracture and that he thought that it would both help her pain and allow her to use her walker again. We recommended that she have the surgery given her hope to continue to live independently, as she had been, for as long as possible. She ultimately agreed to do so and was able to return home.

These two patients reminded me again of how important it is for us to understand what our patients’ hopes and expectations are for a procedure. It is very distressing for clinicians when desperate families want treatments that likely have little benefit. When patients have limited prognoses, aligning patient goals and procedure goals is especially important as the outcome of the procedure can define the patient’s remaining days.

Donna’s family demanded a surgery expecting a result that was very unlikely, and Cindy initially declined the same surgery that ultimately benefitted her greatly. Our job is to make and execute the medical recommendations that best fit with our patients’ goals and understanding. Sometimes this will mean performing procedures on patients who are extremely ill and have “Do Not Resuscitate” orders, and at other times, it will mean not doing procedures, even if a patient and family want them to be done.

Dr. Rickerson is an anesthesiologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.


 A dense broth of tedium, a sprinkle of annoyance, and a dash of trepidation – these are the ingredients of the mental soup that simmers in my head when I answer a middle-of-the-night parent phone call.

At least they were until the task of solving the community’s nighttime phone “crises” fell upon the able, eager shoulders of our new interns.

Every now and then, the universe throws up a surprise. One night, my intern was placating a very angry man who was upset with his inconsolable baby. He was the foster father of a baby with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) who had been discharged earlier that day.

“I feel like this baby’s been thrown at us! He wasn’t ready to go home!” he cried. Having never met the baby (foster mom had taken the baby home), this man had returned from a long work shift to find a screaming baby at home. He was aggressive and rude as he ranted at my intern. She empathized and explained that other symptoms might include rapid breathing, irritability, sleep problems, etc.

Although she handled the call with consummate grace and professionalism, afterward an uneasy feeling crept over us. An angry, tired man pushed to his limits, and a very difficult, strange new baby at home was a setup for the perfect storm. Our duty in this situation was clear – we were the protectors of this baby’s best interest. That was all that mattered.

With a rising sense of dread, we juggled frantic phone calls between Child Protective Services, the attending physician, the foster family, and the nearest emergency department. All I could think of was how badly we had failed this baby. Something somewhere had gone horribly wrong for this innocent child to be in danger now.

An hour later, when I finally got through to the foster father, he sounded calmer. “We can’t do this,” he stated simply. He informed me he had called Child Protective Services himself. The baby would come back to us temporarily, while we found him a safe home. Relief swept over us.

Perhaps the baby should never have gone home with this family. Perhaps we had no way of knowing this would happen. Perhaps the family did not realize the responsibility they were assuming. We are all only human. We make mistakes. But we pick up the pieces and we try again, guided by the best interest of the children we swear to protect. This desire to keep trying is what makes all the difference in the world. By making the call himself, this man reaffirmed my faith in the process in which we all play a part. May the quest for the best interest of our children endure forever.

Dr. Behere is a third-year resident in pediatrics at Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Lebanon, N.H. E-mail him at [email protected].

 A dense broth of tedium, a sprinkle of annoyance, and a dash of trepidation – these are the ingredients of the mental soup that simmers in my head when I answer a middle-of-the-night parent phone call.

At least they were until the task of solving the community’s nighttime phone “crises” fell upon the able, eager shoulders of our new interns.

Every now and then, the universe throws up a surprise. One night, my intern was placating a very angry man who was upset with his inconsolable baby. He was the foster father of a baby with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) who had been discharged earlier that day.

“I feel like this baby’s been thrown at us! He wasn’t ready to go home!” he cried. Having never met the baby (foster mom had taken the baby home), this man had returned from a long work shift to find a screaming baby at home. He was aggressive and rude as he ranted at my intern. She empathized and explained that other symptoms might include rapid breathing, irritability, sleep problems, etc.

Although she handled the call with consummate grace and professionalism, afterward an uneasy feeling crept over us. An angry, tired man pushed to his limits, and a very difficult, strange new baby at home was a setup for the perfect storm. Our duty in this situation was clear – we were the protectors of this baby’s best interest. That was all that mattered.

With a rising sense of dread, we juggled frantic phone calls between Child Protective Services, the attending physician, the foster family, and the nearest emergency department. All I could think of was how badly we had failed this baby. Something somewhere had gone horribly wrong for this innocent child to be in danger now.

An hour later, when I finally got through to the foster father, he sounded calmer. “We can’t do this,” he stated simply. He informed me he had called Child Protective Services himself. The baby would come back to us temporarily, while we found him a safe home. Relief swept over us.

Perhaps the baby should never have gone home with this family. Perhaps we had no way of knowing this would happen. Perhaps the family did not realize the responsibility they were assuming. We are all only human. We make mistakes. But we pick up the pieces and we try again, guided by the best interest of the children we swear to protect. This desire to keep trying is what makes all the difference in the world. By making the call himself, this man reaffirmed my faith in the process in which we all play a part. May the quest for the best interest of our children endure forever.

Dr. Behere is a third-year resident in pediatrics at Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Lebanon, N.H. E-mail him at [email protected].

 A dense broth of tedium, a sprinkle of annoyance, and a dash of trepidation – these are the ingredients of the mental soup that simmers in my head when I answer a middle-of-the-night parent phone call.

At least they were until the task of solving the community’s nighttime phone “crises” fell upon the able, eager shoulders of our new interns.

Every now and then, the universe throws up a surprise. One night, my intern was placating a very angry man who was upset with his inconsolable baby. He was the foster father of a baby with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) who had been discharged earlier that day.

“I feel like this baby’s been thrown at us! He wasn’t ready to go home!” he cried. Having never met the baby (foster mom had taken the baby home), this man had returned from a long work shift to find a screaming baby at home. He was aggressive and rude as he ranted at my intern. She empathized and explained that other symptoms might include rapid breathing, irritability, sleep problems, etc.

Although she handled the call with consummate grace and professionalism, afterward an uneasy feeling crept over us. An angry, tired man pushed to his limits, and a very difficult, strange new baby at home was a setup for the perfect storm. Our duty in this situation was clear – we were the protectors of this baby’s best interest. That was all that mattered.

With a rising sense of dread, we juggled frantic phone calls between Child Protective Services, the attending physician, the foster family, and the nearest emergency department. All I could think of was how badly we had failed this baby. Something somewhere had gone horribly wrong for this innocent child to be in danger now.

An hour later, when I finally got through to the foster father, he sounded calmer. “We can’t do this,” he stated simply. He informed me he had called Child Protective Services himself. The baby would come back to us temporarily, while we found him a safe home. Relief swept over us.

Perhaps the baby should never have gone home with this family. Perhaps we had no way of knowing this would happen. Perhaps the family did not realize the responsibility they were assuming. We are all only human. We make mistakes. But we pick up the pieces and we try again, guided by the best interest of the children we swear to protect. This desire to keep trying is what makes all the difference in the world. By making the call himself, this man reaffirmed my faith in the process in which we all play a part. May the quest for the best interest of our children endure forever.

Dr. Behere is a third-year resident in pediatrics at Children’s Hospital at Dartmouth-Hitchcock, Lebanon, N.H. E-mail him at [email protected].

Few of my readers were around when Medicare was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson. Mr. Johnson was into his first elected term as president, having first taken the oath of office with the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963.

Hardly a darling of the liberal left, he was maligned as the perpetrator, if not for the expansion, of the Vietnam War. He was elected with the largest presidential plurality in history, receiving 61% of the votes, and he carried with him a solid Democratic Congress bolstered by a large block of solid Southern Democrats, a firmament from which he had emerged. He can be credited for the most far-reaching social legislation of the 20th century, second only to Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the 1930s. Johnson was able to move the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act and Medicare Act through Congress in 1965, the latter of which we celebrate this year.

At the time of passage of Medicare, 35% of Americans over 65 had no health insurance, either because they found insurance unaffordable or because of preexisting illness. Health insurance premiums for the elderly cost roughly three times more than did those for younger individuals. With many of the elderly living on Social Security alone, health insurance was an impossibility. If they needed care, they might find it at the emergency department of their local hospitals.

The battle for the passage of Medicare was formidable. In contrast to the passive role of the American Medical Association in the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare was, to put it mildly, vigorously opposed by most doctors and by the AMA, which viewed it as the harbinger of long-anticipated socialized medicine. It ended up being far from it.

Medicare provided a pathway to an economic bonanza for the practicing physician and to hospitals that they could never have imagined. It immediately expanded the patient population and allowed enterprising and not-so-enterprising doctors and hospitals to run up the costs of health care by strengthening the fee-for-service style of medical care. Doctors, hospitals, and patients had no concern for cost: Medicare paid for everything.

Hospitals found Medicare a ready source of income. Doctor and hospital bills were based on the usual cost to each in their respective communities. Medical educators as well as house staff also saw their income lifted as a result of the federal government’s paying for a large part if not all of the cost of house staff education. Even the small number of physicians who opted out of Medicare, because of the red tape or to preserve their independence from the federal government, benefited. Their fees increased as the payment schedules of Medicare increased in their communities.

One of the by-products of Medicare was the end of hospital segregation. For those of you who were not around then, you can imagine what an impact that had on hospitals and doctors in both the North and the South.

Over time, Medicare expanded its footprint to include treatment of chronic kidney disease at any age, as well as drug coverage. I would guess that most Americans over 65 (this writer included) love Medicare. And doctors? Well, they still grumble about it.

With the recent readjustment of physicians’ Medicare reimbursement rates, the door has been opened to new initiatives based on quality of care. No matter what your political persuasion, it is clear that Americans cannot afford Medicare as we know it. Physicians undoubtedly will find their fee-for-service style of reimbursement curtailed as we learn the definition of “quality care standards.” Quality standards will not only define clinical performance, but will also include cost of rendering that care. So long to the world of fee-for-service reimbursement.

Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.

Few of my readers were around when Medicare was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson. Mr. Johnson was into his first elected term as president, having first taken the oath of office with the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963.

Hardly a darling of the liberal left, he was maligned as the perpetrator, if not for the expansion, of the Vietnam War. He was elected with the largest presidential plurality in history, receiving 61% of the votes, and he carried with him a solid Democratic Congress bolstered by a large block of solid Southern Democrats, a firmament from which he had emerged. He can be credited for the most far-reaching social legislation of the 20th century, second only to Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the 1930s. Johnson was able to move the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act and Medicare Act through Congress in 1965, the latter of which we celebrate this year.

At the time of passage of Medicare, 35% of Americans over 65 had no health insurance, either because they found insurance unaffordable or because of preexisting illness. Health insurance premiums for the elderly cost roughly three times more than did those for younger individuals. With many of the elderly living on Social Security alone, health insurance was an impossibility. If they needed care, they might find it at the emergency department of their local hospitals.

The battle for the passage of Medicare was formidable. In contrast to the passive role of the American Medical Association in the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare was, to put it mildly, vigorously opposed by most doctors and by the AMA, which viewed it as the harbinger of long-anticipated socialized medicine. It ended up being far from it.

Medicare provided a pathway to an economic bonanza for the practicing physician and to hospitals that they could never have imagined. It immediately expanded the patient population and allowed enterprising and not-so-enterprising doctors and hospitals to run up the costs of health care by strengthening the fee-for-service style of medical care. Doctors, hospitals, and patients had no concern for cost: Medicare paid for everything.

Hospitals found Medicare a ready source of income. Doctor and hospital bills were based on the usual cost to each in their respective communities. Medical educators as well as house staff also saw their income lifted as a result of the federal government’s paying for a large part if not all of the cost of house staff education. Even the small number of physicians who opted out of Medicare, because of the red tape or to preserve their independence from the federal government, benefited. Their fees increased as the payment schedules of Medicare increased in their communities.

One of the by-products of Medicare was the end of hospital segregation. For those of you who were not around then, you can imagine what an impact that had on hospitals and doctors in both the North and the South.

Over time, Medicare expanded its footprint to include treatment of chronic kidney disease at any age, as well as drug coverage. I would guess that most Americans over 65 (this writer included) love Medicare. And doctors? Well, they still grumble about it.

With the recent readjustment of physicians’ Medicare reimbursement rates, the door has been opened to new initiatives based on quality of care. No matter what your political persuasion, it is clear that Americans cannot afford Medicare as we know it. Physicians undoubtedly will find their fee-for-service style of reimbursement curtailed as we learn the definition of “quality care standards.” Quality standards will not only define clinical performance, but will also include cost of rendering that care. So long to the world of fee-for-service reimbursement.

Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.

Few of my readers were around when Medicare was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson. Mr. Johnson was into his first elected term as president, having first taken the oath of office with the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963.

Hardly a darling of the liberal left, he was maligned as the perpetrator, if not for the expansion, of the Vietnam War. He was elected with the largest presidential plurality in history, receiving 61% of the votes, and he carried with him a solid Democratic Congress bolstered by a large block of solid Southern Democrats, a firmament from which he had emerged. He can be credited for the most far-reaching social legislation of the 20th century, second only to Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the 1930s. Johnson was able to move the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act and Medicare Act through Congress in 1965, the latter of which we celebrate this year.

At the time of passage of Medicare, 35% of Americans over 65 had no health insurance, either because they found insurance unaffordable or because of preexisting illness. Health insurance premiums for the elderly cost roughly three times more than did those for younger individuals. With many of the elderly living on Social Security alone, health insurance was an impossibility. If they needed care, they might find it at the emergency department of their local hospitals.

The battle for the passage of Medicare was formidable. In contrast to the passive role of the American Medical Association in the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare was, to put it mildly, vigorously opposed by most doctors and by the AMA, which viewed it as the harbinger of long-anticipated socialized medicine. It ended up being far from it.

Medicare provided a pathway to an economic bonanza for the practicing physician and to hospitals that they could never have imagined. It immediately expanded the patient population and allowed enterprising and not-so-enterprising doctors and hospitals to run up the costs of health care by strengthening the fee-for-service style of medical care. Doctors, hospitals, and patients had no concern for cost: Medicare paid for everything.

Hospitals found Medicare a ready source of income. Doctor and hospital bills were based on the usual cost to each in their respective communities. Medical educators as well as house staff also saw their income lifted as a result of the federal government’s paying for a large part if not all of the cost of house staff education. Even the small number of physicians who opted out of Medicare, because of the red tape or to preserve their independence from the federal government, benefited. Their fees increased as the payment schedules of Medicare increased in their communities.

One of the by-products of Medicare was the end of hospital segregation. For those of you who were not around then, you can imagine what an impact that had on hospitals and doctors in both the North and the South.

Over time, Medicare expanded its footprint to include treatment of chronic kidney disease at any age, as well as drug coverage. I would guess that most Americans over 65 (this writer included) love Medicare. And doctors? Well, they still grumble about it.

With the recent readjustment of physicians’ Medicare reimbursement rates, the door has been opened to new initiatives based on quality of care. No matter what your political persuasion, it is clear that Americans cannot afford Medicare as we know it. Physicians undoubtedly will find their fee-for-service style of reimbursement curtailed as we learn the definition of “quality care standards.” Quality standards will not only define clinical performance, but will also include cost of rendering that care. So long to the world of fee-for-service reimbursement.

Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.

The results of the 2015 National Residency Match Program were announced on March 20. For family medicine, the glass was either half empty or half full, depending on your point of view.

On the plus side, 84 more family medicine positions were offered compared to 2014 (3216 vs 3132) and 60 more positions were filled, for a total of 3060 new family medicine residents in 2015.¹ This was far more than matched in gloomy 2009, when only 2555 residents chose family medicine. On the negative side of the balance sheet, there will be 233 fewer family medicine residents this year than matched at the peak of medical student interest in family medicine in 1998.

I’m a glass half full kind of guy, so I am delighted that the trend of increased medical student interest in family medicine continues. According to Merritt Hawkins, a national recruitment firm, family medicine has been the top recruited specialty for several years. The firm reports that starting salaries for family physicians increased by nearly 12% from 2010/11 to 2013/14, which was a higher rate than that of most other specialties.² So there is reason to be optimistic about the future of our specialty.

Our monthly 5-question online quiz can help residents study for their certification exam.

However, to be card-carrying family physicians, our new residents must take the American Board of Family Medicine certification exam, and not all pass on their first attempt. A 2013 study of family medicine residency graduates found that only 86% of graduates passed the board exam on their first try.³

We can help. In addition to the evidence-based reviews published in The Journal of Family Practice (JFP), we have launched a new feature called Residents’ Rapid Review (RRR) to provide an additional resource for residents.

RRR is a monthly 5-question evidence-based quiz prepared by primary care faculty, including current and former residency program directors. After residents click on their answer, the system lets them know whether they’re right and provides the correct answer with an explanation and references. Monthly notifications are sent out to all jfponline.com registered users alerting them that a new quiz is available. (Not a registered user on the site? Sign up at jfponline.com/residents_reg.)

Getting ready for the recertification exam? The RRR quizzes can help you, too. Check out the latest quiz, today!

The results of the 2015 National Residency Match Program were announced on March 20. For family medicine, the glass was either half empty or half full, depending on your point of view.

On the plus side, 84 more family medicine positions were offered compared to 2014 (3216 vs 3132) and 60 more positions were filled, for a total of 3060 new family medicine residents in 2015.¹ This was far more than matched in gloomy 2009, when only 2555 residents chose family medicine. On the negative side of the balance sheet, there will be 233 fewer family medicine residents this year than matched at the peak of medical student interest in family medicine in 1998.

I’m a glass half full kind of guy, so I am delighted that the trend of increased medical student interest in family medicine continues. According to Merritt Hawkins, a national recruitment firm, family medicine has been the top recruited specialty for several years. The firm reports that starting salaries for family physicians increased by nearly 12% from 2010/11 to 2013/14, which was a higher rate than that of most other specialties.² So there is reason to be optimistic about the future of our specialty.

Our monthly 5-question online quiz can help residents study for their certification exam.

However, to be card-carrying family physicians, our new residents must take the American Board of Family Medicine certification exam, and not all pass on their first attempt. A 2013 study of family medicine residency graduates found that only 86% of graduates passed the board exam on their first try.³

We can help. In addition to the evidence-based reviews published in The Journal of Family Practice (JFP), we have launched a new feature called Residents’ Rapid Review (RRR) to provide an additional resource for residents.

RRR is a monthly 5-question evidence-based quiz prepared by primary care faculty, including current and former residency program directors. After residents click on their answer, the system lets them know whether they’re right and provides the correct answer with an explanation and references. Monthly notifications are sent out to all jfponline.com registered users alerting them that a new quiz is available. (Not a registered user on the site? Sign up at jfponline.com/residents_reg.)

Getting ready for the recertification exam? The RRR quizzes can help you, too. Check out the latest quiz, today!

The results of the 2015 National Residency Match Program were announced on March 20. For family medicine, the glass was either half empty or half full, depending on your point of view.

On the plus side, 84 more family medicine positions were offered compared to 2014 (3216 vs 3132) and 60 more positions were filled, for a total of 3060 new family medicine residents in 2015.¹ This was far more than matched in gloomy 2009, when only 2555 residents chose family medicine. On the negative side of the balance sheet, there will be 233 fewer family medicine residents this year than matched at the peak of medical student interest in family medicine in 1998.

I’m a glass half full kind of guy, so I am delighted that the trend of increased medical student interest in family medicine continues. According to Merritt Hawkins, a national recruitment firm, family medicine has been the top recruited specialty for several years. The firm reports that starting salaries for family physicians increased by nearly 12% from 2010/11 to 2013/14, which was a higher rate than that of most other specialties.² So there is reason to be optimistic about the future of our specialty.

Our monthly 5-question online quiz can help residents study for their certification exam.

However, to be card-carrying family physicians, our new residents must take the American Board of Family Medicine certification exam, and not all pass on their first attempt. A 2013 study of family medicine residency graduates found that only 86% of graduates passed the board exam on their first try.³

We can help. In addition to the evidence-based reviews published in The Journal of Family Practice (JFP), we have launched a new feature called Residents’ Rapid Review (RRR) to provide an additional resource for residents.

RRR is a monthly 5-question evidence-based quiz prepared by primary care faculty, including current and former residency program directors. After residents click on their answer, the system lets them know whether they’re right and provides the correct answer with an explanation and references. Monthly notifications are sent out to all jfponline.com registered users alerting them that a new quiz is available. (Not a registered user on the site? Sign up at jfponline.com/residents_reg.)

Getting ready for the recertification exam? The RRR quizzes can help you, too. Check out the latest quiz, today!