Commentary

Time for my periodic reminder about your Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obligations. The health care field still has the most work-related illness and injury reports of any industry in the United States, and OSHA standards are in place to minimize potential workplace incidents.

Now might be a good time to get out your OSHA logs, walk through your office, and confirm that you remain in compliance with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.

For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain sight, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s website or order one at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.

The poster discusses the “general standards” that all workplaces must comply with to avoid work-related illnesses and injuries. The standards most applicable to medical offices are those dealing with personal protective equipment (PPE), bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, and – increasingly, of late – ionizing radiation.

Physicians have become all too familiar with the PPE standard as a result of the COVID pandemic. Ironically, OSHA considers PPE a less acceptable means of employee protection than the other standards, as safe work practices should always supersede safety equipment. Nevertheless, employers must have a PPE program in place to train employees on what equipment is necessary, and under which conditions.

You also need a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology. You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.

You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at that decision, and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.

The hazard communication (or right-to-know) standard involves compiling a list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

If your office has x-ray equipment, or you are considering one of the new image-guided superficial radiotherapy machines, you must be in compliance with the ionizing radiation standard, which entails shielding, radiation monitors, and clear labeling of equipment.

Other, more general regulations include the physical setup of your office. Everyone must be able to evacuate quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the office building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.

Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it, and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars. How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.

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

Time for my periodic reminder about your Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obligations. The health care field still has the most work-related illness and injury reports of any industry in the United States, and OSHA standards are in place to minimize potential workplace incidents.

Now might be a good time to get out your OSHA logs, walk through your office, and confirm that you remain in compliance with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.

For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain sight, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s website or order one at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.

The poster discusses the “general standards” that all workplaces must comply with to avoid work-related illnesses and injuries. The standards most applicable to medical offices are those dealing with personal protective equipment (PPE), bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, and – increasingly, of late – ionizing radiation.

Physicians have become all too familiar with the PPE standard as a result of the COVID pandemic. Ironically, OSHA considers PPE a less acceptable means of employee protection than the other standards, as safe work practices should always supersede safety equipment. Nevertheless, employers must have a PPE program in place to train employees on what equipment is necessary, and under which conditions.

You also need a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology. You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.

You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at that decision, and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.

The hazard communication (or right-to-know) standard involves compiling a list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

If your office has x-ray equipment, or you are considering one of the new image-guided superficial radiotherapy machines, you must be in compliance with the ionizing radiation standard, which entails shielding, radiation monitors, and clear labeling of equipment.

Other, more general regulations include the physical setup of your office. Everyone must be able to evacuate quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the office building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.

Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it, and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars. How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.

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

Time for my periodic reminder about your Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obligations. The health care field still has the most work-related illness and injury reports of any industry in the United States, and OSHA standards are in place to minimize potential workplace incidents.

Now might be a good time to get out your OSHA logs, walk through your office, and confirm that you remain in compliance with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.

For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain sight, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s website or order one at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.

The poster discusses the “general standards” that all workplaces must comply with to avoid work-related illnesses and injuries. The standards most applicable to medical offices are those dealing with personal protective equipment (PPE), bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, and – increasingly, of late – ionizing radiation.

Physicians have become all too familiar with the PPE standard as a result of the COVID pandemic. Ironically, OSHA considers PPE a less acceptable means of employee protection than the other standards, as safe work practices should always supersede safety equipment. Nevertheless, employers must have a PPE program in place to train employees on what equipment is necessary, and under which conditions.

You also need a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology. You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.

You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at that decision, and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.

The hazard communication (or right-to-know) standard involves compiling a list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

If your office has x-ray equipment, or you are considering one of the new image-guided superficial radiotherapy machines, you must be in compliance with the ionizing radiation standard, which entails shielding, radiation monitors, and clear labeling of equipment.

Other, more general regulations include the physical setup of your office. Everyone must be able to evacuate quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the office building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.

Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it, and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars. How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.

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

Citrus bergamia (bergamot) is a fruit tree thought to originate in the Mediterranean area; its fruit has been a part of the diet in that region since the early 18th century.¹ Bergamot is known to confer antioxidant as well as anti-inflammatory activity, and yields proapoptotic effects in the sebaceous gland.^2,3 The plant contains the natural furocoumarin bergapten, which is also known as 5-methoxypsoralen.⁴

Antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, hypolipemic, and anticancer properties have been associated with bergapten, which is primarily found in bergamot essential oil and used effectively as a photosensitizing agent.⁵ In this capacity, bergamot oil has been used for photodynamic therapy of cutaneous conditions such as vitiligo.⁶ In fact, for several years 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen have been used to achieve acceptable clearance rates of psoriasis and vitiligo.⁷ This column focuses on bergapten, as well as the cutaneous conditions for which bergamot has been shown to have some benefits warranting application or further investigation.
 

Bergapten

In a 2021 literature review, Liang et al. cited the anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, and other salutary effects associated with bergapten. Based on numerous citations, they also cautioned about the phototoxicity of the compound combined with ultraviolet (UV) light while noting the photoactivation of bergapten for anticancer uses.⁴

The following year, Quetglas-Llabrés et al. acknowledged, in another literature review, the numerous preclinical and in vitro studies demonstrating the therapeutic activity of bergapten and highlighted clinical trials revealing notable lesion clearance rates of psoriasis or vitiligo imparted by oral or topical bergapten along with UV irradiation. Bergapten was also found to be effective as hypolipemic therapy.⁵

Anti-inflammatory topical uses

In a 2017 study by Han et al. of 10 essential oils, bergamot was among the investigated oils, all of which exhibited significant anti-proliferative activity in a preinflamed human dermal fibroblast system simulating chronic inflammation. Bergamot was among three essential oils that also suppressed protein molecules involved with inflammation, immune responses, and tissue remodeling, indicating anti-inflammatory and wound healing characteristics.⁸

More recently, Cristiano et al. reported that ultradeformable nanocarriers containing bergamot essential oil and ammonium glycyrrhizinate were demonstrated in healthy human volunteers to be characterized by the appropriate mean size, size distribution, surface charge, and long-term stability for topical administration. Topical administration on human volunteers also revealed greater activity of the combined agents as compared with a nanosystem loaded only with ammonium glycyrrhizinate. The researchers concluded that this combination of ingredients in ultradeformable vesicles shows potential as topical anti-inflammatory treatment.³

Acne

In a 2020 study using golden hamsters, Sun et al. assessed the effects of the juice and essential oils of bergamot and sweet orange on acne vulgaris engendered by excessive androgen secretion. Among 80 male hamsters randomly divided into 10 groups ranging from low to high doses, all results demonstrated improvement with treatment as seen by decreased growth rates of sebaceous glands, suppressed triglyceride accumulation, lowered inflammatory cytokine release, and apoptosis promotion in sebaceous glands. The authors noted that the essential oils yielded better dose-dependent effects than the juices.²

Psoriasis

In 2019, Perna et al. conducted a literature review on the effects of bergamot essential oil, extract, juice, and polyphenolic fraction on various health metrics. Thirty-one studies (20 involving humans with 1,709 subjects and 11 in rats and mice) were identified. Animal models indicated that bergamot essential oil (10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg daily for 20 weeks) reduced psoriatic plaques, increased skin collagen content, and fostered hair growth and that bergamot juice (20 mg/kg) diminished proinflammatory cytokines. Human studies showed that bergamot extract and essential oil may reduce blood pressure and improve mental conditions.⁹

Vitiligo

In 2019, Shaaban et al. prepared elastic nanocarriers (spanlastics) to deliver psoralen-containing bergamot oil along with PUVB with the intention of harnessing melanogenic activity to treat vitiligo. Histopathologic assessment on rat skin was conducted before clinical treatment in patients with vitiligo. The spanlastics were deemed to be of suitable nanosize and deformable, yielding consistent bergamot oil release. The bergamot oil included in the nanocarrier was found to enhance photostability and photodynamic activity, with the researchers concluding that bergamot oil nanospanlastics with psoralen-UVB therapy shows potential as a vitiligo therapy.¹⁰

Two years later, Shaaban evaluated bergamot oil formulated in nanostructured lipid carriers as a photosensitizer for photodynamic treatment of vitiligo. The botanical oil was effectively used in the nanostructured lipid carriers with a gel consistency that delivered sustained release of the oil for 24 hours. Preclinical and clinical results in patients were encouraging for the topical photodynamic treatment of vitiligo, with the nanostructured lipid carriers improving the photostability and photodynamic activity of bergamot oil.⁶

Photoaging, photoprotection, and safety concerns

Three decades ago, an international cooperative study of the photophysical, photomutagenic, and photocarcinogenic characteristics of bergamot oil and the effect of UVA and UVB sunscreens found that UVB and UVA sunscreens at low concentration (0.5%-1%) in perfumes could not inhibit the phototoxicity of bergamot oil on human skin.¹¹

In a 2015 study assessing the impact of 38% bergamot polyphenolic fraction (a highly concentrated Citrus bergamia fruit extract) on UVB-generated photoaging, Nisticò et al. found that the bergamot compound dose-dependently protected HaCaT cells against UVB-caused oxidative stress and photoaging markers. Suggesting that the high-antioxidant bergamot polyphenolic fraction has potential for use in skin care formulations, the researchers added that the extract seems to induce antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and antiaging activity.¹²In 2022, Alexa et al. performed in vitro tests and found that natural preparations containing bergamot, orange, and clove essential oils do not significantly alter physiological skin parameters and were deemed safe for topical use. An emulsion with bergamot essential oil was also found to reduce the viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.¹³

Conclusion

As a photosensitizing agent, bergamot has an established role in skin care. Beyond its niche role in treatments for vitiligo and psoriasis, this botanical product appears to show potential as an anti-inflammatory agent as well as an ingredient to combat photoaging and skin cancer. Much more research is needed to elucidate the possible wider benefits of this Mediterranean staple.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Juber M. Health benefits of bergamot. WebMD. November 29, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023.

2. Sun P et al. Mediators Inflamm. 2020 Oct 6;2020:8868107.

3. Cristiano MC et al. Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 30;10(5):1039.

4. Liang Y et al. Phytother Res. 2021 Nov;35(11):6131-47.

5. Quetglas-Llabrés MM et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 25;2022:8615242.

6. Shaaban M et al. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Jan;18(1):139-50.

7. McNeely W, Goa KL. Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):667-90.

8. Han X, Beaumont C, Stevens N. Biochim Open. 2017 Apr 26;5:1-7.

9. Perna S et al. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jan 25;7(2):369-84.

10. Shaaban M et al. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019 Dec;9(6):1106-16.

11. Dubertret L et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Nov;7(2-4):251-9.

12. Nisticò S et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):723-8.

13. Alexa VT et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 1;27(3):990.

Citrus bergamia (bergamot) is a fruit tree thought to originate in the Mediterranean area; its fruit has been a part of the diet in that region since the early 18th century.¹ Bergamot is known to confer antioxidant as well as anti-inflammatory activity, and yields proapoptotic effects in the sebaceous gland.^2,3 The plant contains the natural furocoumarin bergapten, which is also known as 5-methoxypsoralen.⁴

Antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, hypolipemic, and anticancer properties have been associated with bergapten, which is primarily found in bergamot essential oil and used effectively as a photosensitizing agent.⁵ In this capacity, bergamot oil has been used for photodynamic therapy of cutaneous conditions such as vitiligo.⁶ In fact, for several years 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen have been used to achieve acceptable clearance rates of psoriasis and vitiligo.⁷ This column focuses on bergapten, as well as the cutaneous conditions for which bergamot has been shown to have some benefits warranting application or further investigation.
 

Bergapten

In a 2021 literature review, Liang et al. cited the anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, and other salutary effects associated with bergapten. Based on numerous citations, they also cautioned about the phototoxicity of the compound combined with ultraviolet (UV) light while noting the photoactivation of bergapten for anticancer uses.⁴

The following year, Quetglas-Llabrés et al. acknowledged, in another literature review, the numerous preclinical and in vitro studies demonstrating the therapeutic activity of bergapten and highlighted clinical trials revealing notable lesion clearance rates of psoriasis or vitiligo imparted by oral or topical bergapten along with UV irradiation. Bergapten was also found to be effective as hypolipemic therapy.⁵

Anti-inflammatory topical uses

In a 2017 study by Han et al. of 10 essential oils, bergamot was among the investigated oils, all of which exhibited significant anti-proliferative activity in a preinflamed human dermal fibroblast system simulating chronic inflammation. Bergamot was among three essential oils that also suppressed protein molecules involved with inflammation, immune responses, and tissue remodeling, indicating anti-inflammatory and wound healing characteristics.⁸

More recently, Cristiano et al. reported that ultradeformable nanocarriers containing bergamot essential oil and ammonium glycyrrhizinate were demonstrated in healthy human volunteers to be characterized by the appropriate mean size, size distribution, surface charge, and long-term stability for topical administration. Topical administration on human volunteers also revealed greater activity of the combined agents as compared with a nanosystem loaded only with ammonium glycyrrhizinate. The researchers concluded that this combination of ingredients in ultradeformable vesicles shows potential as topical anti-inflammatory treatment.³

Acne

In a 2020 study using golden hamsters, Sun et al. assessed the effects of the juice and essential oils of bergamot and sweet orange on acne vulgaris engendered by excessive androgen secretion. Among 80 male hamsters randomly divided into 10 groups ranging from low to high doses, all results demonstrated improvement with treatment as seen by decreased growth rates of sebaceous glands, suppressed triglyceride accumulation, lowered inflammatory cytokine release, and apoptosis promotion in sebaceous glands. The authors noted that the essential oils yielded better dose-dependent effects than the juices.²

Psoriasis

In 2019, Perna et al. conducted a literature review on the effects of bergamot essential oil, extract, juice, and polyphenolic fraction on various health metrics. Thirty-one studies (20 involving humans with 1,709 subjects and 11 in rats and mice) were identified. Animal models indicated that bergamot essential oil (10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg daily for 20 weeks) reduced psoriatic plaques, increased skin collagen content, and fostered hair growth and that bergamot juice (20 mg/kg) diminished proinflammatory cytokines. Human studies showed that bergamot extract and essential oil may reduce blood pressure and improve mental conditions.⁹

Vitiligo

In 2019, Shaaban et al. prepared elastic nanocarriers (spanlastics) to deliver psoralen-containing bergamot oil along with PUVB with the intention of harnessing melanogenic activity to treat vitiligo. Histopathologic assessment on rat skin was conducted before clinical treatment in patients with vitiligo. The spanlastics were deemed to be of suitable nanosize and deformable, yielding consistent bergamot oil release. The bergamot oil included in the nanocarrier was found to enhance photostability and photodynamic activity, with the researchers concluding that bergamot oil nanospanlastics with psoralen-UVB therapy shows potential as a vitiligo therapy.¹⁰

Two years later, Shaaban evaluated bergamot oil formulated in nanostructured lipid carriers as a photosensitizer for photodynamic treatment of vitiligo. The botanical oil was effectively used in the nanostructured lipid carriers with a gel consistency that delivered sustained release of the oil for 24 hours. Preclinical and clinical results in patients were encouraging for the topical photodynamic treatment of vitiligo, with the nanostructured lipid carriers improving the photostability and photodynamic activity of bergamot oil.⁶

Photoaging, photoprotection, and safety concerns

Three decades ago, an international cooperative study of the photophysical, photomutagenic, and photocarcinogenic characteristics of bergamot oil and the effect of UVA and UVB sunscreens found that UVB and UVA sunscreens at low concentration (0.5%-1%) in perfumes could not inhibit the phototoxicity of bergamot oil on human skin.¹¹

In a 2015 study assessing the impact of 38% bergamot polyphenolic fraction (a highly concentrated Citrus bergamia fruit extract) on UVB-generated photoaging, Nisticò et al. found that the bergamot compound dose-dependently protected HaCaT cells against UVB-caused oxidative stress and photoaging markers. Suggesting that the high-antioxidant bergamot polyphenolic fraction has potential for use in skin care formulations, the researchers added that the extract seems to induce antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and antiaging activity.¹²In 2022, Alexa et al. performed in vitro tests and found that natural preparations containing bergamot, orange, and clove essential oils do not significantly alter physiological skin parameters and were deemed safe for topical use. An emulsion with bergamot essential oil was also found to reduce the viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.¹³

Conclusion

As a photosensitizing agent, bergamot has an established role in skin care. Beyond its niche role in treatments for vitiligo and psoriasis, this botanical product appears to show potential as an anti-inflammatory agent as well as an ingredient to combat photoaging and skin cancer. Much more research is needed to elucidate the possible wider benefits of this Mediterranean staple.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Juber M. Health benefits of bergamot. WebMD. November 29, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023.

2. Sun P et al. Mediators Inflamm. 2020 Oct 6;2020:8868107.

3. Cristiano MC et al. Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 30;10(5):1039.

4. Liang Y et al. Phytother Res. 2021 Nov;35(11):6131-47.

5. Quetglas-Llabrés MM et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 25;2022:8615242.

6. Shaaban M et al. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Jan;18(1):139-50.

7. McNeely W, Goa KL. Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):667-90.

8. Han X, Beaumont C, Stevens N. Biochim Open. 2017 Apr 26;5:1-7.

9. Perna S et al. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jan 25;7(2):369-84.

10. Shaaban M et al. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019 Dec;9(6):1106-16.

11. Dubertret L et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Nov;7(2-4):251-9.

12. Nisticò S et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):723-8.

13. Alexa VT et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 1;27(3):990.

Citrus bergamia (bergamot) is a fruit tree thought to originate in the Mediterranean area; its fruit has been a part of the diet in that region since the early 18th century.¹ Bergamot is known to confer antioxidant as well as anti-inflammatory activity, and yields proapoptotic effects in the sebaceous gland.^2,3 The plant contains the natural furocoumarin bergapten, which is also known as 5-methoxypsoralen.⁴

Antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, hypolipemic, and anticancer properties have been associated with bergapten, which is primarily found in bergamot essential oil and used effectively as a photosensitizing agent.⁵ In this capacity, bergamot oil has been used for photodynamic therapy of cutaneous conditions such as vitiligo.⁶ In fact, for several years 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen have been used to achieve acceptable clearance rates of psoriasis and vitiligo.⁷ This column focuses on bergapten, as well as the cutaneous conditions for which bergamot has been shown to have some benefits warranting application or further investigation.
 

Bergapten

In a 2021 literature review, Liang et al. cited the anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, and other salutary effects associated with bergapten. Based on numerous citations, they also cautioned about the phototoxicity of the compound combined with ultraviolet (UV) light while noting the photoactivation of bergapten for anticancer uses.⁴

The following year, Quetglas-Llabrés et al. acknowledged, in another literature review, the numerous preclinical and in vitro studies demonstrating the therapeutic activity of bergapten and highlighted clinical trials revealing notable lesion clearance rates of psoriasis or vitiligo imparted by oral or topical bergapten along with UV irradiation. Bergapten was also found to be effective as hypolipemic therapy.⁵

Anti-inflammatory topical uses

In a 2017 study by Han et al. of 10 essential oils, bergamot was among the investigated oils, all of which exhibited significant anti-proliferative activity in a preinflamed human dermal fibroblast system simulating chronic inflammation. Bergamot was among three essential oils that also suppressed protein molecules involved with inflammation, immune responses, and tissue remodeling, indicating anti-inflammatory and wound healing characteristics.⁸

More recently, Cristiano et al. reported that ultradeformable nanocarriers containing bergamot essential oil and ammonium glycyrrhizinate were demonstrated in healthy human volunteers to be characterized by the appropriate mean size, size distribution, surface charge, and long-term stability for topical administration. Topical administration on human volunteers also revealed greater activity of the combined agents as compared with a nanosystem loaded only with ammonium glycyrrhizinate. The researchers concluded that this combination of ingredients in ultradeformable vesicles shows potential as topical anti-inflammatory treatment.³

Acne

In a 2020 study using golden hamsters, Sun et al. assessed the effects of the juice and essential oils of bergamot and sweet orange on acne vulgaris engendered by excessive androgen secretion. Among 80 male hamsters randomly divided into 10 groups ranging from low to high doses, all results demonstrated improvement with treatment as seen by decreased growth rates of sebaceous glands, suppressed triglyceride accumulation, lowered inflammatory cytokine release, and apoptosis promotion in sebaceous glands. The authors noted that the essential oils yielded better dose-dependent effects than the juices.²

Psoriasis

In 2019, Perna et al. conducted a literature review on the effects of bergamot essential oil, extract, juice, and polyphenolic fraction on various health metrics. Thirty-one studies (20 involving humans with 1,709 subjects and 11 in rats and mice) were identified. Animal models indicated that bergamot essential oil (10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg daily for 20 weeks) reduced psoriatic plaques, increased skin collagen content, and fostered hair growth and that bergamot juice (20 mg/kg) diminished proinflammatory cytokines. Human studies showed that bergamot extract and essential oil may reduce blood pressure and improve mental conditions.⁹

Vitiligo

In 2019, Shaaban et al. prepared elastic nanocarriers (spanlastics) to deliver psoralen-containing bergamot oil along with PUVB with the intention of harnessing melanogenic activity to treat vitiligo. Histopathologic assessment on rat skin was conducted before clinical treatment in patients with vitiligo. The spanlastics were deemed to be of suitable nanosize and deformable, yielding consistent bergamot oil release. The bergamot oil included in the nanocarrier was found to enhance photostability and photodynamic activity, with the researchers concluding that bergamot oil nanospanlastics with psoralen-UVB therapy shows potential as a vitiligo therapy.¹⁰

Two years later, Shaaban evaluated bergamot oil formulated in nanostructured lipid carriers as a photosensitizer for photodynamic treatment of vitiligo. The botanical oil was effectively used in the nanostructured lipid carriers with a gel consistency that delivered sustained release of the oil for 24 hours. Preclinical and clinical results in patients were encouraging for the topical photodynamic treatment of vitiligo, with the nanostructured lipid carriers improving the photostability and photodynamic activity of bergamot oil.⁶

Photoaging, photoprotection, and safety concerns

Three decades ago, an international cooperative study of the photophysical, photomutagenic, and photocarcinogenic characteristics of bergamot oil and the effect of UVA and UVB sunscreens found that UVB and UVA sunscreens at low concentration (0.5%-1%) in perfumes could not inhibit the phototoxicity of bergamot oil on human skin.¹¹

In a 2015 study assessing the impact of 38% bergamot polyphenolic fraction (a highly concentrated Citrus bergamia fruit extract) on UVB-generated photoaging, Nisticò et al. found that the bergamot compound dose-dependently protected HaCaT cells against UVB-caused oxidative stress and photoaging markers. Suggesting that the high-antioxidant bergamot polyphenolic fraction has potential for use in skin care formulations, the researchers added that the extract seems to induce antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and antiaging activity.¹²In 2022, Alexa et al. performed in vitro tests and found that natural preparations containing bergamot, orange, and clove essential oils do not significantly alter physiological skin parameters and were deemed safe for topical use. An emulsion with bergamot essential oil was also found to reduce the viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.¹³

Conclusion

As a photosensitizing agent, bergamot has an established role in skin care. Beyond its niche role in treatments for vitiligo and psoriasis, this botanical product appears to show potential as an anti-inflammatory agent as well as an ingredient to combat photoaging and skin cancer. Much more research is needed to elucidate the possible wider benefits of this Mediterranean staple.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Juber M. Health benefits of bergamot. WebMD. November 29, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023.

2. Sun P et al. Mediators Inflamm. 2020 Oct 6;2020:8868107.

3. Cristiano MC et al. Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 30;10(5):1039.

4. Liang Y et al. Phytother Res. 2021 Nov;35(11):6131-47.

5. Quetglas-Llabrés MM et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 25;2022:8615242.

6. Shaaban M et al. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Jan;18(1):139-50.

7. McNeely W, Goa KL. Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):667-90.

8. Han X, Beaumont C, Stevens N. Biochim Open. 2017 Apr 26;5:1-7.

9. Perna S et al. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jan 25;7(2):369-84.

10. Shaaban M et al. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019 Dec;9(6):1106-16.

11. Dubertret L et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Nov;7(2-4):251-9.

12. Nisticò S et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):723-8.

13. Alexa VT et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 1;27(3):990.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

I imagine I am not alone when I tell you that my blood pressure rises every time I receive an email from CoverMyMeds, or worse, a phone call from a patient to tell me the pharmacist says I need to call their insurance company to get a medication authorized. Prior authorizations (PAs) are the bane of every physician’s existence.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers determine what treatment patients may have without regulation, accountability, liability, or transparency. They ask providers to jump through hoops, and no one oversees the placement of these hoops. The process puts patients at risk and sucks the joy from the practice of medicine.

In fall 2021, the legislative committee of the Maryland Psychiatric Society, with the help of Kathy Orellana and Tim Clement from the American Psychiatric Association, drafted a bill to modify the use of PAs. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Robert Herman, MD, who helped draft the initial legislation, was delighted when he learned that MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, had taken the proposed legislation and expanded it. “It was everything we wished for and more,” Dr. Herman said.

During this year’s legislative session, House Bill 305/Senate Bill 308, Health Insurance – Utilization Review – Revisions, was sponsored by 19 delegates and two senators. Fifty medical associations, including dentists and physical therapists, endorsed the bill. Many people, including Dr. Herman, testified before the Health and Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16.

Delegate Kenneth Kerr introduced the legislation to the committee.

“Before I begin, let me make two points. First, the bill does not do away with prior authorization or other utilization review techniques; rather, it tries to make a more balanced approach for both patients and physicians by attempting to reduce the volume that’s subject to prior authorization, by increasing transparency and communication, and by studying how the process can be improved overall. Second, we have over 50 organizations representing health care providers and patient advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. This is a systemic issue across the entire spectrum of healthcare,” said Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kerr went on to say there were 81,143 denials for treatment in 2021. The three areas with the highest rate of denials were pharmacy, dental, and the combination of labs and radiology.

He further noted that, when consumers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration, 72.4% of denials were reversed in 2022.

“This resulted in more benefits that could have, and should have, been given to the patient at the first request. These reversals indicate there is a problem,” Mr. Kerr said. He discussed increased administrative costs, the enormous workload burden this incurs, and the problem of burnout among medical providers.

The proposed legislation includes a ban on PA requirements for generic medications, for dose changes of previously authorized medication, and ends the requirement for yearly authorizations. It requires that a physician of the same specialty be on the panel that denies care and shortens the time periods allowed for responses and appeals.

Testimony began with those supporting the legislation. Doctors highlighted the harm inflicted on their patients by the PA process. An oncologist spoke of how it took weeks to get approval for chemotherapy for a patient with an aggressive cancer, a gastroenterologist discussed a patient who became ill and lost her job when successful treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was stopped while she waited for the yearly medication reapproval, and another physician told of a patient who died of an exacerbation of obstructive lung disease, also while awaiting a yearly reapproval for an effective medication.

A dentist spoke about how he was not authorized to place a crown on a patient’s tooth. Instead, he was instructed to try a filling first, and when the filling failed, he was told he would not be authorized to work on the same tooth twice in one year.

A physical therapist testified that PA was required every two to four sessions, and each request took up half of a session – a significant portion of time that was not used for treatment.

Three people testified in opposition to the bill. Matthew Celantano, executive director of the League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland, called the legislation “drastic” and testified that the cost would be prohibitive.

“From our end, it’s important for you to hear that prior authorization is care coordination. It’s protection that keeps [patients] safe, but helps control skyrocketing health care costs,” said Mr. Celantano.

Deb Rivkin, vice president of government affairs for CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, testified in favor of using better technology. She cited legislation under consideration in Virginia that would give clinicians more information about the specific medications that require PAs, price information, and real-time authorizations.

Finally, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Heather Cascone testified about PAs for generic medications. Her testimony focused on prior authorization for generic medications. She claimed that “... by allowing unrestricted dispensing of generic drugs, or an override based on the subjective opinion of the prescriber, prior authorization can protect patients from drugs with a safety risk; they can catch things like drug-disease contraindications, dosage errors, pregnancy-related contraindications, and a variety of cost-savings protections.”

I found this testimony particularly difficult because the “protector” is generally not a physician and has neither seen, nor examined, the patient. The implication that patients need protection from their doctors who would be unaware aware that they are pregnant, or are ill, was offensive. It also implies that PBMs are lax by not requiring PA on all medications, ignoring the fact that patients often bypass such denials by paying out of pocket for treatment.

If this had been a high school debate, there would be no doubt the enthusiasm for the bill for HB305 was strong, the committee chair was eager, and the arguments in favor of the legislation robust. There are no public minutes for the subsequent meetings with stakeholders, and I was somewhat heartbroken to learn that once again, the bill died in committee.

Annette Hanson, MD, chair of the MPS legislative committee, remains optimistic for the future. “Since then, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] has taken our bill and used it as model legislation now being offered to other district branches. MPS has created something that is going to spread across the country. Change may be slow, but it is not inevitable. And when it happens, I want you to remember that it started here,” she said.

However, the pressure is on. A recent ProPublica article documented how Cigna rejects claims by the batch without ever reviewing them. Soon after that piece was published, it was announced that several of the large insurers, including Cigna, would be cutting back on PA demands. It remains to be seen whether this is a token move to placate legislators, and whether it will provide meaningful relief to physicians and patients. I remain skeptical.

In the meantime, physicians’ ability to help their patients remains compromised and administrative tasks consume valuable time. I have started to wonder whether there may be some other way to push this issue to action. PA is about cost containment, but perhaps there are other ways to economize.

Why do medications cost less in other countries? Why does a medication cost hundreds of dollars more at one pharmacy versus another? Why do medicines sometimes have a copay that is two or three times higher than the cash price? Why do some covered medications have copays of thousands of dollars a year? I wonder if physicians shouldn’t come together and collectively agree not to comply and refuse to complete PAs in organized rebellion.

The fear, of course, is that such an endeavor would hurt patients, but if we all agreed in concert, then for better or for worse, something would have to give. The existing system is already hurting everyone, and physicians, by agreeing to play this awful game, are complicit in letting insurers dictate the care our patients receive.

Dinah Miller, MD, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I imagine I am not alone when I tell you that my blood pressure rises every time I receive an email from CoverMyMeds, or worse, a phone call from a patient to tell me the pharmacist says I need to call their insurance company to get a medication authorized. Prior authorizations (PAs) are the bane of every physician’s existence.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers determine what treatment patients may have without regulation, accountability, liability, or transparency. They ask providers to jump through hoops, and no one oversees the placement of these hoops. The process puts patients at risk and sucks the joy from the practice of medicine.

In fall 2021, the legislative committee of the Maryland Psychiatric Society, with the help of Kathy Orellana and Tim Clement from the American Psychiatric Association, drafted a bill to modify the use of PAs. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Robert Herman, MD, who helped draft the initial legislation, was delighted when he learned that MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, had taken the proposed legislation and expanded it. “It was everything we wished for and more,” Dr. Herman said.

During this year’s legislative session, House Bill 305/Senate Bill 308, Health Insurance – Utilization Review – Revisions, was sponsored by 19 delegates and two senators. Fifty medical associations, including dentists and physical therapists, endorsed the bill. Many people, including Dr. Herman, testified before the Health and Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16.

Delegate Kenneth Kerr introduced the legislation to the committee.

“Before I begin, let me make two points. First, the bill does not do away with prior authorization or other utilization review techniques; rather, it tries to make a more balanced approach for both patients and physicians by attempting to reduce the volume that’s subject to prior authorization, by increasing transparency and communication, and by studying how the process can be improved overall. Second, we have over 50 organizations representing health care providers and patient advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. This is a systemic issue across the entire spectrum of healthcare,” said Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kerr went on to say there were 81,143 denials for treatment in 2021. The three areas with the highest rate of denials were pharmacy, dental, and the combination of labs and radiology.

He further noted that, when consumers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration, 72.4% of denials were reversed in 2022.

“This resulted in more benefits that could have, and should have, been given to the patient at the first request. These reversals indicate there is a problem,” Mr. Kerr said. He discussed increased administrative costs, the enormous workload burden this incurs, and the problem of burnout among medical providers.

The proposed legislation includes a ban on PA requirements for generic medications, for dose changes of previously authorized medication, and ends the requirement for yearly authorizations. It requires that a physician of the same specialty be on the panel that denies care and shortens the time periods allowed for responses and appeals.

Testimony began with those supporting the legislation. Doctors highlighted the harm inflicted on their patients by the PA process. An oncologist spoke of how it took weeks to get approval for chemotherapy for a patient with an aggressive cancer, a gastroenterologist discussed a patient who became ill and lost her job when successful treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was stopped while she waited for the yearly medication reapproval, and another physician told of a patient who died of an exacerbation of obstructive lung disease, also while awaiting a yearly reapproval for an effective medication.

A dentist spoke about how he was not authorized to place a crown on a patient’s tooth. Instead, he was instructed to try a filling first, and when the filling failed, he was told he would not be authorized to work on the same tooth twice in one year.

A physical therapist testified that PA was required every two to four sessions, and each request took up half of a session – a significant portion of time that was not used for treatment.

Three people testified in opposition to the bill. Matthew Celantano, executive director of the League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland, called the legislation “drastic” and testified that the cost would be prohibitive.

“From our end, it’s important for you to hear that prior authorization is care coordination. It’s protection that keeps [patients] safe, but helps control skyrocketing health care costs,” said Mr. Celantano.

Deb Rivkin, vice president of government affairs for CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, testified in favor of using better technology. She cited legislation under consideration in Virginia that would give clinicians more information about the specific medications that require PAs, price information, and real-time authorizations.

Finally, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Heather Cascone testified about PAs for generic medications. Her testimony focused on prior authorization for generic medications. She claimed that “... by allowing unrestricted dispensing of generic drugs, or an override based on the subjective opinion of the prescriber, prior authorization can protect patients from drugs with a safety risk; they can catch things like drug-disease contraindications, dosage errors, pregnancy-related contraindications, and a variety of cost-savings protections.”

I found this testimony particularly difficult because the “protector” is generally not a physician and has neither seen, nor examined, the patient. The implication that patients need protection from their doctors who would be unaware aware that they are pregnant, or are ill, was offensive. It also implies that PBMs are lax by not requiring PA on all medications, ignoring the fact that patients often bypass such denials by paying out of pocket for treatment.

If this had been a high school debate, there would be no doubt the enthusiasm for the bill for HB305 was strong, the committee chair was eager, and the arguments in favor of the legislation robust. There are no public minutes for the subsequent meetings with stakeholders, and I was somewhat heartbroken to learn that once again, the bill died in committee.

Annette Hanson, MD, chair of the MPS legislative committee, remains optimistic for the future. “Since then, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] has taken our bill and used it as model legislation now being offered to other district branches. MPS has created something that is going to spread across the country. Change may be slow, but it is not inevitable. And when it happens, I want you to remember that it started here,” she said.

However, the pressure is on. A recent ProPublica article documented how Cigna rejects claims by the batch without ever reviewing them. Soon after that piece was published, it was announced that several of the large insurers, including Cigna, would be cutting back on PA demands. It remains to be seen whether this is a token move to placate legislators, and whether it will provide meaningful relief to physicians and patients. I remain skeptical.

In the meantime, physicians’ ability to help their patients remains compromised and administrative tasks consume valuable time. I have started to wonder whether there may be some other way to push this issue to action. PA is about cost containment, but perhaps there are other ways to economize.

Why do medications cost less in other countries? Why does a medication cost hundreds of dollars more at one pharmacy versus another? Why do medicines sometimes have a copay that is two or three times higher than the cash price? Why do some covered medications have copays of thousands of dollars a year? I wonder if physicians shouldn’t come together and collectively agree not to comply and refuse to complete PAs in organized rebellion.

The fear, of course, is that such an endeavor would hurt patients, but if we all agreed in concert, then for better or for worse, something would have to give. The existing system is already hurting everyone, and physicians, by agreeing to play this awful game, are complicit in letting insurers dictate the care our patients receive.

Dinah Miller, MD, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I imagine I am not alone when I tell you that my blood pressure rises every time I receive an email from CoverMyMeds, or worse, a phone call from a patient to tell me the pharmacist says I need to call their insurance company to get a medication authorized. Prior authorizations (PAs) are the bane of every physician’s existence.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers determine what treatment patients may have without regulation, accountability, liability, or transparency. They ask providers to jump through hoops, and no one oversees the placement of these hoops. The process puts patients at risk and sucks the joy from the practice of medicine.

In fall 2021, the legislative committee of the Maryland Psychiatric Society, with the help of Kathy Orellana and Tim Clement from the American Psychiatric Association, drafted a bill to modify the use of PAs. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Robert Herman, MD, who helped draft the initial legislation, was delighted when he learned that MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, had taken the proposed legislation and expanded it. “It was everything we wished for and more,” Dr. Herman said.

During this year’s legislative session, House Bill 305/Senate Bill 308, Health Insurance – Utilization Review – Revisions, was sponsored by 19 delegates and two senators. Fifty medical associations, including dentists and physical therapists, endorsed the bill. Many people, including Dr. Herman, testified before the Health and Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16.

Delegate Kenneth Kerr introduced the legislation to the committee.

“Before I begin, let me make two points. First, the bill does not do away with prior authorization or other utilization review techniques; rather, it tries to make a more balanced approach for both patients and physicians by attempting to reduce the volume that’s subject to prior authorization, by increasing transparency and communication, and by studying how the process can be improved overall. Second, we have over 50 organizations representing health care providers and patient advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. This is a systemic issue across the entire spectrum of healthcare,” said Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kerr went on to say there were 81,143 denials for treatment in 2021. The three areas with the highest rate of denials were pharmacy, dental, and the combination of labs and radiology.

He further noted that, when consumers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration, 72.4% of denials were reversed in 2022.

“This resulted in more benefits that could have, and should have, been given to the patient at the first request. These reversals indicate there is a problem,” Mr. Kerr said. He discussed increased administrative costs, the enormous workload burden this incurs, and the problem of burnout among medical providers.

The proposed legislation includes a ban on PA requirements for generic medications, for dose changes of previously authorized medication, and ends the requirement for yearly authorizations. It requires that a physician of the same specialty be on the panel that denies care and shortens the time periods allowed for responses and appeals.

Testimony began with those supporting the legislation. Doctors highlighted the harm inflicted on their patients by the PA process. An oncologist spoke of how it took weeks to get approval for chemotherapy for a patient with an aggressive cancer, a gastroenterologist discussed a patient who became ill and lost her job when successful treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was stopped while she waited for the yearly medication reapproval, and another physician told of a patient who died of an exacerbation of obstructive lung disease, also while awaiting a yearly reapproval for an effective medication.

A dentist spoke about how he was not authorized to place a crown on a patient’s tooth. Instead, he was instructed to try a filling first, and when the filling failed, he was told he would not be authorized to work on the same tooth twice in one year.

A physical therapist testified that PA was required every two to four sessions, and each request took up half of a session – a significant portion of time that was not used for treatment.

Three people testified in opposition to the bill. Matthew Celantano, executive director of the League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland, called the legislation “drastic” and testified that the cost would be prohibitive.

“From our end, it’s important for you to hear that prior authorization is care coordination. It’s protection that keeps [patients] safe, but helps control skyrocketing health care costs,” said Mr. Celantano.

Deb Rivkin, vice president of government affairs for CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, testified in favor of using better technology. She cited legislation under consideration in Virginia that would give clinicians more information about the specific medications that require PAs, price information, and real-time authorizations.

Finally, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Heather Cascone testified about PAs for generic medications. Her testimony focused on prior authorization for generic medications. She claimed that “... by allowing unrestricted dispensing of generic drugs, or an override based on the subjective opinion of the prescriber, prior authorization can protect patients from drugs with a safety risk; they can catch things like drug-disease contraindications, dosage errors, pregnancy-related contraindications, and a variety of cost-savings protections.”

I found this testimony particularly difficult because the “protector” is generally not a physician and has neither seen, nor examined, the patient. The implication that patients need protection from their doctors who would be unaware aware that they are pregnant, or are ill, was offensive. It also implies that PBMs are lax by not requiring PA on all medications, ignoring the fact that patients often bypass such denials by paying out of pocket for treatment.

If this had been a high school debate, there would be no doubt the enthusiasm for the bill for HB305 was strong, the committee chair was eager, and the arguments in favor of the legislation robust. There are no public minutes for the subsequent meetings with stakeholders, and I was somewhat heartbroken to learn that once again, the bill died in committee.

Annette Hanson, MD, chair of the MPS legislative committee, remains optimistic for the future. “Since then, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] has taken our bill and used it as model legislation now being offered to other district branches. MPS has created something that is going to spread across the country. Change may be slow, but it is not inevitable. And when it happens, I want you to remember that it started here,” she said.

However, the pressure is on. A recent ProPublica article documented how Cigna rejects claims by the batch without ever reviewing them. Soon after that piece was published, it was announced that several of the large insurers, including Cigna, would be cutting back on PA demands. It remains to be seen whether this is a token move to placate legislators, and whether it will provide meaningful relief to physicians and patients. I remain skeptical.

In the meantime, physicians’ ability to help their patients remains compromised and administrative tasks consume valuable time. I have started to wonder whether there may be some other way to push this issue to action. PA is about cost containment, but perhaps there are other ways to economize.

Why do medications cost less in other countries? Why does a medication cost hundreds of dollars more at one pharmacy versus another? Why do medicines sometimes have a copay that is two or three times higher than the cash price? Why do some covered medications have copays of thousands of dollars a year? I wonder if physicians shouldn’t come together and collectively agree not to comply and refuse to complete PAs in organized rebellion.

The fear, of course, is that such an endeavor would hurt patients, but if we all agreed in concert, then for better or for worse, something would have to give. The existing system is already hurting everyone, and physicians, by agreeing to play this awful game, are complicit in letting insurers dictate the care our patients receive.

Dinah Miller, MD, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?”

“Bone Health: Puberty Blockers Not Fully Reversible.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Headlines such as these from major national news outlets have begun to cast doubt on one of the medications used in treating gender-diverse adolescents and young adults. GnRH agonists, such as leuprorelin and triptorelin, were first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1980s and have been used since then for a variety of medical indications. In the decades since, these medications have been successfully used with a generally favorable side effect profile.

GnRH agonists and puberty

In the treatment of precocious puberty, GnRH agonists are often started prior to the age of 7, depending on the age at which the affected patient begins showing signs of central puberty. These include breast development, scrotal enlargement, and so on. GnRH agonists typically are continued until age 10-12, depending on the patient and an informed discussion with the patient’s parents about optimal outcomes.¹ Therefore, it is not uncommon to see these medications used for anywhere from 1 to 4 years, depending on the age at which precocious puberty started.

GnRH agonists are used in two populations of transgender individuals. The first group is those youths who have just started their natal, or biological, puberty. The medication is not started until the patient has biochemical or physical exam evidence that puberty has started. The medication is then continued until hormones are started. This is usually 2-3 years on average, depending on the age at which the medication was started. This is essentially comparable with cisgender youths who have taken these medications for precocious puberty. The second population of individuals who use GnRH agonists is transgender women who are also on estrogen therapy. In these women, the GnRH agonist is used for androgen (testosterone) suppression.
 

Concerns over bone health

One of the main concerns recently expressed about long-term use of GnRH agonists is their effect on bone density. Adolescence is a critical time for bone mineral density (BMD) accrual and this is driven by sex hormones. When GnRH agonists are used to delay puberty in transgender adolescents, this then delays the maturation of the adult skeleton until the GnRH agonist is stopped (and natal puberty resumes) or cross-sex hormones are started. In a recent multicenter study² looking at baseline BMD of transgender youth at the time of GnRH agonist initiation, 30% of those assigned male at birth and 13% of those assigned female at birth had low bone mineral density for age (defined as a BMD z score of <–2). For those with low BMD, their physical activity scores were significantly lower than those with normal BMD. Thus, these adolescents require close follow-up, just like their cisgender peers.

There are currently no long-term data on the risk of developing fractures or osteoporosis in those individuals who were treated with GnRH agonists and then went on to start cross-sex hormone therapy. Some studies suggest that there is a risk that BMD does not recover after being on cross-sex hormones,³ while another study suggested that transgender men recover their BMD after being on testosterone.⁴ It is still unclear in that study why transgender women did not recover their BMD or why they were low at baseline. Interestingly, a 2012 study⁵ from Brazil showed that there was no difference in BMD for cisgender girls who had been off their GnRH agonist therapy for at least 3 years, as compared with their age-matched controls who had never been on GnRH agonist therapy. These conflicting data highlight the importance of long-term follow-up, as well as the need to include age-matched, cisgender control subjects, to better understand if there is truly a difference in transgender individuals or if today’s adolescents, in general, have low BMD.
 

Lingering questions

In summary, the use of GnRH agonists in transgender adolescents remains controversial because of the potential long-term effects on bone mineral density. However, this risk must be balanced against the risks of allowing natal puberty to progress in certain transgender individuals with the development of undesired secondary sex characteristics. More longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the long-term risks of osteoporosis and fractures in those who have undergone GnRH agonist therapy as part of their gender-affirming medical care, as well as any clinical interventions that might help mitigate this risk.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Harrington J et al. Treatment of precocious puberty. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-precocious-puberty.

2. Lee JY et al. J Endocr Soc. 2020;4(9):bvaa065. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa065.

3. Klink D et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):E270-5. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.

4. Schagen SEE et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(12):e4252-e4263. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa604.

5. Alessandri SB et al. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(6):591-6. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(06)08.
 

“They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?”

“Bone Health: Puberty Blockers Not Fully Reversible.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Headlines such as these from major national news outlets have begun to cast doubt on one of the medications used in treating gender-diverse adolescents and young adults. GnRH agonists, such as leuprorelin and triptorelin, were first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1980s and have been used since then for a variety of medical indications. In the decades since, these medications have been successfully used with a generally favorable side effect profile.

GnRH agonists and puberty

In the treatment of precocious puberty, GnRH agonists are often started prior to the age of 7, depending on the age at which the affected patient begins showing signs of central puberty. These include breast development, scrotal enlargement, and so on. GnRH agonists typically are continued until age 10-12, depending on the patient and an informed discussion with the patient’s parents about optimal outcomes.¹ Therefore, it is not uncommon to see these medications used for anywhere from 1 to 4 years, depending on the age at which precocious puberty started.

GnRH agonists are used in two populations of transgender individuals. The first group is those youths who have just started their natal, or biological, puberty. The medication is not started until the patient has biochemical or physical exam evidence that puberty has started. The medication is then continued until hormones are started. This is usually 2-3 years on average, depending on the age at which the medication was started. This is essentially comparable with cisgender youths who have taken these medications for precocious puberty. The second population of individuals who use GnRH agonists is transgender women who are also on estrogen therapy. In these women, the GnRH agonist is used for androgen (testosterone) suppression.
 

Concerns over bone health

One of the main concerns recently expressed about long-term use of GnRH agonists is their effect on bone density. Adolescence is a critical time for bone mineral density (BMD) accrual and this is driven by sex hormones. When GnRH agonists are used to delay puberty in transgender adolescents, this then delays the maturation of the adult skeleton until the GnRH agonist is stopped (and natal puberty resumes) or cross-sex hormones are started. In a recent multicenter study² looking at baseline BMD of transgender youth at the time of GnRH agonist initiation, 30% of those assigned male at birth and 13% of those assigned female at birth had low bone mineral density for age (defined as a BMD z score of <–2). For those with low BMD, their physical activity scores were significantly lower than those with normal BMD. Thus, these adolescents require close follow-up, just like their cisgender peers.

There are currently no long-term data on the risk of developing fractures or osteoporosis in those individuals who were treated with GnRH agonists and then went on to start cross-sex hormone therapy. Some studies suggest that there is a risk that BMD does not recover after being on cross-sex hormones,³ while another study suggested that transgender men recover their BMD after being on testosterone.⁴ It is still unclear in that study why transgender women did not recover their BMD or why they were low at baseline. Interestingly, a 2012 study⁵ from Brazil showed that there was no difference in BMD for cisgender girls who had been off their GnRH agonist therapy for at least 3 years, as compared with their age-matched controls who had never been on GnRH agonist therapy. These conflicting data highlight the importance of long-term follow-up, as well as the need to include age-matched, cisgender control subjects, to better understand if there is truly a difference in transgender individuals or if today’s adolescents, in general, have low BMD.
 

Lingering questions

In summary, the use of GnRH agonists in transgender adolescents remains controversial because of the potential long-term effects on bone mineral density. However, this risk must be balanced against the risks of allowing natal puberty to progress in certain transgender individuals with the development of undesired secondary sex characteristics. More longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the long-term risks of osteoporosis and fractures in those who have undergone GnRH agonist therapy as part of their gender-affirming medical care, as well as any clinical interventions that might help mitigate this risk.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Harrington J et al. Treatment of precocious puberty. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-precocious-puberty.

2. Lee JY et al. J Endocr Soc. 2020;4(9):bvaa065. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa065.

3. Klink D et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):E270-5. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.

4. Schagen SEE et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(12):e4252-e4263. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa604.

5. Alessandri SB et al. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(6):591-6. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(06)08.
 

“They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?”

“Bone Health: Puberty Blockers Not Fully Reversible.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Headlines such as these from major national news outlets have begun to cast doubt on one of the medications used in treating gender-diverse adolescents and young adults. GnRH agonists, such as leuprorelin and triptorelin, were first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1980s and have been used since then for a variety of medical indications. In the decades since, these medications have been successfully used with a generally favorable side effect profile.

GnRH agonists and puberty

In the treatment of precocious puberty, GnRH agonists are often started prior to the age of 7, depending on the age at which the affected patient begins showing signs of central puberty. These include breast development, scrotal enlargement, and so on. GnRH agonists typically are continued until age 10-12, depending on the patient and an informed discussion with the patient’s parents about optimal outcomes.¹ Therefore, it is not uncommon to see these medications used for anywhere from 1 to 4 years, depending on the age at which precocious puberty started.

GnRH agonists are used in two populations of transgender individuals. The first group is those youths who have just started their natal, or biological, puberty. The medication is not started until the patient has biochemical or physical exam evidence that puberty has started. The medication is then continued until hormones are started. This is usually 2-3 years on average, depending on the age at which the medication was started. This is essentially comparable with cisgender youths who have taken these medications for precocious puberty. The second population of individuals who use GnRH agonists is transgender women who are also on estrogen therapy. In these women, the GnRH agonist is used for androgen (testosterone) suppression.
 

Concerns over bone health

One of the main concerns recently expressed about long-term use of GnRH agonists is their effect on bone density. Adolescence is a critical time for bone mineral density (BMD) accrual and this is driven by sex hormones. When GnRH agonists are used to delay puberty in transgender adolescents, this then delays the maturation of the adult skeleton until the GnRH agonist is stopped (and natal puberty resumes) or cross-sex hormones are started. In a recent multicenter study² looking at baseline BMD of transgender youth at the time of GnRH agonist initiation, 30% of those assigned male at birth and 13% of those assigned female at birth had low bone mineral density for age (defined as a BMD z score of <–2). For those with low BMD, their physical activity scores were significantly lower than those with normal BMD. Thus, these adolescents require close follow-up, just like their cisgender peers.

There are currently no long-term data on the risk of developing fractures or osteoporosis in those individuals who were treated with GnRH agonists and then went on to start cross-sex hormone therapy. Some studies suggest that there is a risk that BMD does not recover after being on cross-sex hormones,³ while another study suggested that transgender men recover their BMD after being on testosterone.⁴ It is still unclear in that study why transgender women did not recover their BMD or why they were low at baseline. Interestingly, a 2012 study⁵ from Brazil showed that there was no difference in BMD for cisgender girls who had been off their GnRH agonist therapy for at least 3 years, as compared with their age-matched controls who had never been on GnRH agonist therapy. These conflicting data highlight the importance of long-term follow-up, as well as the need to include age-matched, cisgender control subjects, to better understand if there is truly a difference in transgender individuals or if today’s adolescents, in general, have low BMD.
 

Lingering questions

In summary, the use of GnRH agonists in transgender adolescents remains controversial because of the potential long-term effects on bone mineral density. However, this risk must be balanced against the risks of allowing natal puberty to progress in certain transgender individuals with the development of undesired secondary sex characteristics. More longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the long-term risks of osteoporosis and fractures in those who have undergone GnRH agonist therapy as part of their gender-affirming medical care, as well as any clinical interventions that might help mitigate this risk.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Harrington J et al. Treatment of precocious puberty. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-precocious-puberty.

2. Lee JY et al. J Endocr Soc. 2020;4(9):bvaa065. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa065.

3. Klink D et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):E270-5. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.

4. Schagen SEE et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(12):e4252-e4263. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa604.

5. Alessandri SB et al. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(6):591-6. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(06)08.
 

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type (PCDLBCL-LT) is a specific categorization of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (CBCL) demonstrating a predominance of immunoblasts and centroblasts with scarce T-cells, classically presenting as rapidly progressive, plum-colored lesions on the lower extremities.^1,2 CBCLs, with PCDLBCL-LT accounting for 4%, make up the minority of cutaneous lymphomas in the Western world.^1-3 The leg type variant, typically demonstrating a female predominance and median age of onset in the 70s, is clinically aggressive and associated with a poorer prognosis, increased recurrence rate, and 40%-60% 5-year survival rate.^1-5

Histologically, this variant demonstrates a diffuse sheet-like growth of enlarged atypical B-cells distinctively separated from the epidermis by a prominent grenz zone. Classic PCDLBCL-LT immunophenotype includes B-cell markers CD20 and IgM; triple expressor phenotype indicating c-MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 positivity; as well as CD10 negativity, lack of BCL-2 rearrangement, and presence of a positive MYD-88 molecular result.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

Other characteristic histopathological findings include positivity for post-germinal markers IRF4/MUM-1 and FOXP-1, positivity for additional B-cell markers, including CD79 and PAX5, and negativity of t(14;18) (q32;21).^1,3-5

This case is of significant interest as it falls within the approximately 10% of PCDLBCL-LT cases demonstrating weak to negative MUM-1 staining, in addition to its presentation in a younger male individual.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

While MUM-1 positivity is common in this subtype, its presence, or lack thereof, should not be looked at in isolation when evaluating diagnostic criteria, nor has it been shown to have a statistically significant effect on survival rate – in contrast to factors like lesion location on the leg versus non-leg lesions, multiple lesions at diagnosis, and dissemination to other sites.2,6

PCDLBCL-LT can uncommonly present in non-leg locations and only 10% depict associated B-symptoms, such as fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, or lymphadenopathy.^2,6 First-line treatment is with the R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen – consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – although radiotherapy is sometimes considered in patients with a single small lesion.^1,2

Because of possible cutaneous involvement beyond the legs, common lack of systemic symptoms, and variable immunophenotypes, this case of MUM-1 negative PCDLBCL-LT highlights the importance of a clinicopathological approach to differentiate the subtypes of CBCLs, allowing for proper and individualized stratification of risk, prognosis, and treatment.
 

This case was submitted and written by Marlee Hill, BS, Michael Franzetti, MD, Jeffrey McBride, MD, and Allison Hood, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. They also provided the photos. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2019;133(16):1703-14.

2. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2005;105(10):3768-85.

3. Sukswai N et al. Pathology. 2020;52(1):53-67.

4. Hristov AC. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(8):876-81.

5. Sokol L et al. Cancer Control. 2012;19(3):236-44.

6. Grange F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1144-50.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type (PCDLBCL-LT) is a specific categorization of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (CBCL) demonstrating a predominance of immunoblasts and centroblasts with scarce T-cells, classically presenting as rapidly progressive, plum-colored lesions on the lower extremities.^1,2 CBCLs, with PCDLBCL-LT accounting for 4%, make up the minority of cutaneous lymphomas in the Western world.^1-3 The leg type variant, typically demonstrating a female predominance and median age of onset in the 70s, is clinically aggressive and associated with a poorer prognosis, increased recurrence rate, and 40%-60% 5-year survival rate.^1-5

Histologically, this variant demonstrates a diffuse sheet-like growth of enlarged atypical B-cells distinctively separated from the epidermis by a prominent grenz zone. Classic PCDLBCL-LT immunophenotype includes B-cell markers CD20 and IgM; triple expressor phenotype indicating c-MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 positivity; as well as CD10 negativity, lack of BCL-2 rearrangement, and presence of a positive MYD-88 molecular result.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

Other characteristic histopathological findings include positivity for post-germinal markers IRF4/MUM-1 and FOXP-1, positivity for additional B-cell markers, including CD79 and PAX5, and negativity of t(14;18) (q32;21).^1,3-5

This case is of significant interest as it falls within the approximately 10% of PCDLBCL-LT cases demonstrating weak to negative MUM-1 staining, in addition to its presentation in a younger male individual.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

While MUM-1 positivity is common in this subtype, its presence, or lack thereof, should not be looked at in isolation when evaluating diagnostic criteria, nor has it been shown to have a statistically significant effect on survival rate – in contrast to factors like lesion location on the leg versus non-leg lesions, multiple lesions at diagnosis, and dissemination to other sites.2,6

PCDLBCL-LT can uncommonly present in non-leg locations and only 10% depict associated B-symptoms, such as fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, or lymphadenopathy.^2,6 First-line treatment is with the R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen – consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – although radiotherapy is sometimes considered in patients with a single small lesion.^1,2

Because of possible cutaneous involvement beyond the legs, common lack of systemic symptoms, and variable immunophenotypes, this case of MUM-1 negative PCDLBCL-LT highlights the importance of a clinicopathological approach to differentiate the subtypes of CBCLs, allowing for proper and individualized stratification of risk, prognosis, and treatment.
 

This case was submitted and written by Marlee Hill, BS, Michael Franzetti, MD, Jeffrey McBride, MD, and Allison Hood, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. They also provided the photos. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2019;133(16):1703-14.

2. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2005;105(10):3768-85.

3. Sukswai N et al. Pathology. 2020;52(1):53-67.

4. Hristov AC. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(8):876-81.

5. Sokol L et al. Cancer Control. 2012;19(3):236-44.

6. Grange F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1144-50.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type (PCDLBCL-LT) is a specific categorization of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (CBCL) demonstrating a predominance of immunoblasts and centroblasts with scarce T-cells, classically presenting as rapidly progressive, plum-colored lesions on the lower extremities.^1,2 CBCLs, with PCDLBCL-LT accounting for 4%, make up the minority of cutaneous lymphomas in the Western world.^1-3 The leg type variant, typically demonstrating a female predominance and median age of onset in the 70s, is clinically aggressive and associated with a poorer prognosis, increased recurrence rate, and 40%-60% 5-year survival rate.^1-5

Histologically, this variant demonstrates a diffuse sheet-like growth of enlarged atypical B-cells distinctively separated from the epidermis by a prominent grenz zone. Classic PCDLBCL-LT immunophenotype includes B-cell markers CD20 and IgM; triple expressor phenotype indicating c-MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 positivity; as well as CD10 negativity, lack of BCL-2 rearrangement, and presence of a positive MYD-88 molecular result.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

Other characteristic histopathological findings include positivity for post-germinal markers IRF4/MUM-1 and FOXP-1, positivity for additional B-cell markers, including CD79 and PAX5, and negativity of t(14;18) (q32;21).^1,3-5

This case is of significant interest as it falls within the approximately 10% of PCDLBCL-LT cases demonstrating weak to negative MUM-1 staining, in addition to its presentation in a younger male individual.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

While MUM-1 positivity is common in this subtype, its presence, or lack thereof, should not be looked at in isolation when evaluating diagnostic criteria, nor has it been shown to have a statistically significant effect on survival rate – in contrast to factors like lesion location on the leg versus non-leg lesions, multiple lesions at diagnosis, and dissemination to other sites.2,6

PCDLBCL-LT can uncommonly present in non-leg locations and only 10% depict associated B-symptoms, such as fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, or lymphadenopathy.^2,6 First-line treatment is with the R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen – consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – although radiotherapy is sometimes considered in patients with a single small lesion.^1,2

Because of possible cutaneous involvement beyond the legs, common lack of systemic symptoms, and variable immunophenotypes, this case of MUM-1 negative PCDLBCL-LT highlights the importance of a clinicopathological approach to differentiate the subtypes of CBCLs, allowing for proper and individualized stratification of risk, prognosis, and treatment.
 

This case was submitted and written by Marlee Hill, BS, Michael Franzetti, MD, Jeffrey McBride, MD, and Allison Hood, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. They also provided the photos. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2019;133(16):1703-14.

2. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2005;105(10):3768-85.

3. Sukswai N et al. Pathology. 2020;52(1):53-67.

4. Hristov AC. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(8):876-81.

5. Sokol L et al. Cancer Control. 2012;19(3):236-44.

6. Grange F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1144-50.

For Sonja O’Leary, MD, higher rates of vaccination against human papillomavirus came with the flip of a switch.

Dr. O’Leary, the interim director of service for outpatient pediatric services at Denver Health and Hospital Authority, and her colleagues saw rates of HPV and other childhood immunizations drop during the COVID-19 pandemic and decided to act. Their health system, which includes 28 federally qualified health centers, offers vaccines at any inpatient or outpatient visit based on alerts from their electronic health record.

“It was actually really simple; it was really just changing our best-practice alert,” Dr. O’Leary said. Beginning in May 2021, and after notifying clinic staff of the impending change, DHHA dropped the alert for first dose of HPV from age 11 to 9.

The approach worked. Compared with the first 5 months of 2021, the percentage of children aged 9-13 years with an in-person visit who received at least one dose of HPV vaccine between June 2021 and August 2022 rose from 30.3% to 42.8% – a 41% increase. The share who received two doses by age 13 years more than doubled, from 19.3% to 42.7%, Dr. O’Leary said.
 

Frustrated efforts

Although those figures might seem to make an iron-clad case for earlier vaccinations against HPV – which is responsible for nearly 35,000 cases of cancer annually – factors beyond statistics have frustrated efforts to increase acceptance of the shots.

Data published in 2022 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 89.6% of teens aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, and 89% got one or more doses of meningococcal conjugate vaccine. However, only 76.9% had received one or more doses of HPV vaccine. The rate of receiving both doses needed for full protection was much lower (61.7%).

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society now endorse the strategy of offering HPV vaccine as early as age 9, which avoids the need for multiple shots at a single visit and results in more kids getting both doses. In a recent study that surveyed primary care professionals who see pediatric patients, 21% were already offering HPV vaccine at age 9, and another 48% were willing to try the approach.

What was the most common objection to the earlier age? Nearly three-quarters of clinicians said they felt that parents weren’t ready to talk about HPV vaccination yet.

Noel Brewer, PhD, one of the authors of the survey study, wondered why clinicians feel the need to bring up sex at all. “Providers should never be talking about sex when they are talking about vaccine, because that’s not the point,” said Dr. Brewer, the distinguished professor in public health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He pointed out that providers don’t talk about the route of transmission for any other vaccine.

Dr. Brewer led a randomized controlled trial that trained pediatric clinicians in the “announcement” strategy, in which the clinician announces the vaccines that are due at that visit. If the parent hesitates, the clinician then probes further to identify and address their concerns and provides more information. If the parent is still not convinced, the clinician notes the discussion in the chart and tries again at the next visit.

The strategy was effective: Intervention clinics had a 5.4% higher rate of HPV vaccination coverage than control clinics after six months. Dr. Brewer and his colleagues have trained over 1,700 providers in the technique since 2020.
 

A cancer – not STI – vaccine

Although DHHA hasn’t participated in Dr. Brewer’s training, Dr. O’Leary and her colleagues take a similar approach of simply stating which vaccines the child should receive that day. And they talk about HPV as a cancer vaccine instead of one to prevent a sexually transmitted infection. 

In her experience, this emphasis changes the conversation. Dr. O’Leary described a typical comment from parents as, “Oh, of course I would give my child a vaccine that could prevent cancer.”

Ana Rodriguez, MD, MPH, an obstetrician, became interested in raising rates of vaccination against HPV after watching too many women battle a preventable cancer. She worked for several years in the Rio Grande Valley along the U.S. border with Mexico, an impoverished rural area with poor access to health care and high rates of HPV infection.

“I would treat women very young – not even 30 years of age – already fighting advanced precancerous lesions secondary to HPV,” said Dr. Rodriguez, an associate professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

In 2016, when Texas ranked 47th in the nation for rates of up-to-date HPV vaccination, Dr. Rodriguez helped launch a community-based educational campaign in four rural counties in the Rio Grande Valley using social media, radio, and in-person meetings with school PTA members and members of school boards to educate staff and parents about the need for vaccination against the infection.

In 2019, the team began offering the vaccine to children ages 9-12 years at back-to-school events, progress report nights, and other school events, pivoting to outdoor events using a mobile vaccine van after COVID-19 struck. They recently published a study showing that 73.6% of students who received their first dose of vaccine at age 11 or younger completed the series, compared with only 45.1% of children who got their first dose at age 12 or older.

Dr. Rodriguez encountered parents who felt 9 or 10 years old was too young because their children were not going to be sexually active anytime soon. Her response was to describe HPV as a tool to prevent cancer, telling parents, “If you vaccinate your kids young enough, they will be protected for life.”

Lifetime protection is another point in favor of giving HPV vaccine prior to Tdap and MenACWY. The response to the two-dose series of HPV in preadolescents is robust and long-lasting, with no downside to giving it a few years earlier. In contrast, immunity to MenACWY wanes after a few years, so the immunization must be given before children enter high school, when their risk for meningitis increases.

The annual toll of deaths in the United States from meningococcus, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis typically totals less than 100, whereas cancer deaths attributable to HPV infection number in the thousands each year. And that may be the best reason for attempting new strategies to help HPV vaccination rates catch up to the rest of the preteen vaccines.

Dr. Brewer’s work was supported by the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina, and from training grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brewer has received research funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GSK and served as a paid advisor for Merck. Dr. O’Leary reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rodriguez received a grant from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the study was supported by the Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For Sonja O’Leary, MD, higher rates of vaccination against human papillomavirus came with the flip of a switch.

Dr. O’Leary, the interim director of service for outpatient pediatric services at Denver Health and Hospital Authority, and her colleagues saw rates of HPV and other childhood immunizations drop during the COVID-19 pandemic and decided to act. Their health system, which includes 28 federally qualified health centers, offers vaccines at any inpatient or outpatient visit based on alerts from their electronic health record.

“It was actually really simple; it was really just changing our best-practice alert,” Dr. O’Leary said. Beginning in May 2021, and after notifying clinic staff of the impending change, DHHA dropped the alert for first dose of HPV from age 11 to 9.

The approach worked. Compared with the first 5 months of 2021, the percentage of children aged 9-13 years with an in-person visit who received at least one dose of HPV vaccine between June 2021 and August 2022 rose from 30.3% to 42.8% – a 41% increase. The share who received two doses by age 13 years more than doubled, from 19.3% to 42.7%, Dr. O’Leary said.
 

Frustrated efforts

Although those figures might seem to make an iron-clad case for earlier vaccinations against HPV – which is responsible for nearly 35,000 cases of cancer annually – factors beyond statistics have frustrated efforts to increase acceptance of the shots.

Data published in 2022 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 89.6% of teens aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, and 89% got one or more doses of meningococcal conjugate vaccine. However, only 76.9% had received one or more doses of HPV vaccine. The rate of receiving both doses needed for full protection was much lower (61.7%).

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society now endorse the strategy of offering HPV vaccine as early as age 9, which avoids the need for multiple shots at a single visit and results in more kids getting both doses. In a recent study that surveyed primary care professionals who see pediatric patients, 21% were already offering HPV vaccine at age 9, and another 48% were willing to try the approach.

What was the most common objection to the earlier age? Nearly three-quarters of clinicians said they felt that parents weren’t ready to talk about HPV vaccination yet.

Noel Brewer, PhD, one of the authors of the survey study, wondered why clinicians feel the need to bring up sex at all. “Providers should never be talking about sex when they are talking about vaccine, because that’s not the point,” said Dr. Brewer, the distinguished professor in public health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He pointed out that providers don’t talk about the route of transmission for any other vaccine.

Dr. Brewer led a randomized controlled trial that trained pediatric clinicians in the “announcement” strategy, in which the clinician announces the vaccines that are due at that visit. If the parent hesitates, the clinician then probes further to identify and address their concerns and provides more information. If the parent is still not convinced, the clinician notes the discussion in the chart and tries again at the next visit.

The strategy was effective: Intervention clinics had a 5.4% higher rate of HPV vaccination coverage than control clinics after six months. Dr. Brewer and his colleagues have trained over 1,700 providers in the technique since 2020.
 

A cancer – not STI – vaccine

Although DHHA hasn’t participated in Dr. Brewer’s training, Dr. O’Leary and her colleagues take a similar approach of simply stating which vaccines the child should receive that day. And they talk about HPV as a cancer vaccine instead of one to prevent a sexually transmitted infection. 

In her experience, this emphasis changes the conversation. Dr. O’Leary described a typical comment from parents as, “Oh, of course I would give my child a vaccine that could prevent cancer.”

Ana Rodriguez, MD, MPH, an obstetrician, became interested in raising rates of vaccination against HPV after watching too many women battle a preventable cancer. She worked for several years in the Rio Grande Valley along the U.S. border with Mexico, an impoverished rural area with poor access to health care and high rates of HPV infection.

“I would treat women very young – not even 30 years of age – already fighting advanced precancerous lesions secondary to HPV,” said Dr. Rodriguez, an associate professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

In 2016, when Texas ranked 47th in the nation for rates of up-to-date HPV vaccination, Dr. Rodriguez helped launch a community-based educational campaign in four rural counties in the Rio Grande Valley using social media, radio, and in-person meetings with school PTA members and members of school boards to educate staff and parents about the need for vaccination against the infection.

In 2019, the team began offering the vaccine to children ages 9-12 years at back-to-school events, progress report nights, and other school events, pivoting to outdoor events using a mobile vaccine van after COVID-19 struck. They recently published a study showing that 73.6% of students who received their first dose of vaccine at age 11 or younger completed the series, compared with only 45.1% of children who got their first dose at age 12 or older.

Dr. Rodriguez encountered parents who felt 9 or 10 years old was too young because their children were not going to be sexually active anytime soon. Her response was to describe HPV as a tool to prevent cancer, telling parents, “If you vaccinate your kids young enough, they will be protected for life.”

Lifetime protection is another point in favor of giving HPV vaccine prior to Tdap and MenACWY. The response to the two-dose series of HPV in preadolescents is robust and long-lasting, with no downside to giving it a few years earlier. In contrast, immunity to MenACWY wanes after a few years, so the immunization must be given before children enter high school, when their risk for meningitis increases.

The annual toll of deaths in the United States from meningococcus, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis typically totals less than 100, whereas cancer deaths attributable to HPV infection number in the thousands each year. And that may be the best reason for attempting new strategies to help HPV vaccination rates catch up to the rest of the preteen vaccines.

Dr. Brewer’s work was supported by the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina, and from training grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brewer has received research funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GSK and served as a paid advisor for Merck. Dr. O’Leary reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rodriguez received a grant from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the study was supported by the Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For Sonja O’Leary, MD, higher rates of vaccination against human papillomavirus came with the flip of a switch.

Dr. O’Leary, the interim director of service for outpatient pediatric services at Denver Health and Hospital Authority, and her colleagues saw rates of HPV and other childhood immunizations drop during the COVID-19 pandemic and decided to act. Their health system, which includes 28 federally qualified health centers, offers vaccines at any inpatient or outpatient visit based on alerts from their electronic health record.

“It was actually really simple; it was really just changing our best-practice alert,” Dr. O’Leary said. Beginning in May 2021, and after notifying clinic staff of the impending change, DHHA dropped the alert for first dose of HPV from age 11 to 9.

The approach worked. Compared with the first 5 months of 2021, the percentage of children aged 9-13 years with an in-person visit who received at least one dose of HPV vaccine between June 2021 and August 2022 rose from 30.3% to 42.8% – a 41% increase. The share who received two doses by age 13 years more than doubled, from 19.3% to 42.7%, Dr. O’Leary said.
 

Frustrated efforts

Although those figures might seem to make an iron-clad case for earlier vaccinations against HPV – which is responsible for nearly 35,000 cases of cancer annually – factors beyond statistics have frustrated efforts to increase acceptance of the shots.

Data published in 2022 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 89.6% of teens aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, and 89% got one or more doses of meningococcal conjugate vaccine. However, only 76.9% had received one or more doses of HPV vaccine. The rate of receiving both doses needed for full protection was much lower (61.7%).

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society now endorse the strategy of offering HPV vaccine as early as age 9, which avoids the need for multiple shots at a single visit and results in more kids getting both doses. In a recent study that surveyed primary care professionals who see pediatric patients, 21% were already offering HPV vaccine at age 9, and another 48% were willing to try the approach.

What was the most common objection to the earlier age? Nearly three-quarters of clinicians said they felt that parents weren’t ready to talk about HPV vaccination yet.

Noel Brewer, PhD, one of the authors of the survey study, wondered why clinicians feel the need to bring up sex at all. “Providers should never be talking about sex when they are talking about vaccine, because that’s not the point,” said Dr. Brewer, the distinguished professor in public health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He pointed out that providers don’t talk about the route of transmission for any other vaccine.

Dr. Brewer led a randomized controlled trial that trained pediatric clinicians in the “announcement” strategy, in which the clinician announces the vaccines that are due at that visit. If the parent hesitates, the clinician then probes further to identify and address their concerns and provides more information. If the parent is still not convinced, the clinician notes the discussion in the chart and tries again at the next visit.

The strategy was effective: Intervention clinics had a 5.4% higher rate of HPV vaccination coverage than control clinics after six months. Dr. Brewer and his colleagues have trained over 1,700 providers in the technique since 2020.
 

A cancer – not STI – vaccine

Although DHHA hasn’t participated in Dr. Brewer’s training, Dr. O’Leary and her colleagues take a similar approach of simply stating which vaccines the child should receive that day. And they talk about HPV as a cancer vaccine instead of one to prevent a sexually transmitted infection. 

In her experience, this emphasis changes the conversation. Dr. O’Leary described a typical comment from parents as, “Oh, of course I would give my child a vaccine that could prevent cancer.”

Ana Rodriguez, MD, MPH, an obstetrician, became interested in raising rates of vaccination against HPV after watching too many women battle a preventable cancer. She worked for several years in the Rio Grande Valley along the U.S. border with Mexico, an impoverished rural area with poor access to health care and high rates of HPV infection.

“I would treat women very young – not even 30 years of age – already fighting advanced precancerous lesions secondary to HPV,” said Dr. Rodriguez, an associate professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

In 2016, when Texas ranked 47th in the nation for rates of up-to-date HPV vaccination, Dr. Rodriguez helped launch a community-based educational campaign in four rural counties in the Rio Grande Valley using social media, radio, and in-person meetings with school PTA members and members of school boards to educate staff and parents about the need for vaccination against the infection.

In 2019, the team began offering the vaccine to children ages 9-12 years at back-to-school events, progress report nights, and other school events, pivoting to outdoor events using a mobile vaccine van after COVID-19 struck. They recently published a study showing that 73.6% of students who received their first dose of vaccine at age 11 or younger completed the series, compared with only 45.1% of children who got their first dose at age 12 or older.

Dr. Rodriguez encountered parents who felt 9 or 10 years old was too young because their children were not going to be sexually active anytime soon. Her response was to describe HPV as a tool to prevent cancer, telling parents, “If you vaccinate your kids young enough, they will be protected for life.”

Lifetime protection is another point in favor of giving HPV vaccine prior to Tdap and MenACWY. The response to the two-dose series of HPV in preadolescents is robust and long-lasting, with no downside to giving it a few years earlier. In contrast, immunity to MenACWY wanes after a few years, so the immunization must be given before children enter high school, when their risk for meningitis increases.

The annual toll of deaths in the United States from meningococcus, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis typically totals less than 100, whereas cancer deaths attributable to HPV infection number in the thousands each year. And that may be the best reason for attempting new strategies to help HPV vaccination rates catch up to the rest of the preteen vaccines.

Dr. Brewer’s work was supported by the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina, and from training grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brewer has received research funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GSK and served as a paid advisor for Merck. Dr. O’Leary reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rodriguez received a grant from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the study was supported by the Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although the past several decades have seen significantly greater emphasis on screening and disease prevention for CRC, it has also become increasingly apparent that the age profile and associated risks for this cancer are rapidly changing.

Evidence of this can be found in recently released CRC statistics from the American Cancer Society, which are updated every 3 years using population-based cancer registries.

The incidence in CRC has shown a progressive decline over the past 4 decades. However, whereas in the 2000s there was an average decline of approximately 3%-4% annually, it slowed to 1% per year between 2011 and 2019. This effect is in part because of the trends among younger individuals (< 55 years), in whom the incidence of CRC has increased by 9% over the past 25 years.

The incidence of regional-stage disease also increased by 2%-3% per year for those younger than 65 years, with an additional increase in the incidence of more advanced/distant disease by 0.5%-3% per year. The latter finding represents a reversal of earlier trends observed for staged disease in the decade from 1995 to 2005.

These recent statistics reveal other notable changes that occurred in parallel with the increased incidence of younger-onset CRC. There was a significant shift to left-sided tumors, with a 4% increase in rectal cancers in the decades spanning 1995–2019.

Although the overall mortality declined 2% from 2011 to 2020, the reverse was seen in patients younger than 50 years, in whom there was an increase by 0.5%-3% annually.

Available incidence and mortality data for the current year are understandably lacking, as there is a 2- to 4-year lag for data collection and assimilation, and there have also been methodological changes for tracking and projections. Nonetheless, 2023 projections estimate that there will be 153,020 new cases in the United States, with 19,550 (13%) to occur in those younger than 50 years and 33% in those aged 50-64 years. Overall, 43% of cases are projected to occur in those aged 45-49 years, which is noteworthy given that these ages are now included in the most current CRC screening recommendations.

Further underscoring the risks posed by earlier-onset trends is the projection of 52,550 CRC-related deaths in 2023, with 7% estimated to occur in those younger than 50 years.
 

What’s behind the trend toward younger onset?

The specific factors contributing to increasing rates of CRC in younger individuals are not well known, but there are several plausible explanations. Notable possible contributing factors reported in the literature include obesity, smoking, alcohol, diet, and microbial changes, among other demographic variables. Exposure to high-fructose corn syrup, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats has also recently received attention as contributing dietary risk factors.

The shifting trends toward the onset of CRC among younger patients are now clearly established, with approximately 20% of new cases occurring in those in their early 50s or younger and a higher rate of left-sided tumor development. Unfortunately, these shifts are also associated with a more advanced stage of disease.

There are unique clinical challenges when it comes to identifying younger-onset CRC. A low level of suspicion among primary care providers that their younger patients may have CRC can result in delays in their receiving clinically appropriate diagnostic testing (particularly for overt or occult bleeding/iron deficiency). Younger patients may also be less likely to know about or adhere to new recommendations that they undergo screening.

The landscape for age-related CRC is changing. Although there are many obstacles for implementing new practices, these recent findings from the ACS also highlight a clear path for improvement.

David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although the past several decades have seen significantly greater emphasis on screening and disease prevention for CRC, it has also become increasingly apparent that the age profile and associated risks for this cancer are rapidly changing.

Evidence of this can be found in recently released CRC statistics from the American Cancer Society, which are updated every 3 years using population-based cancer registries.

The incidence in CRC has shown a progressive decline over the past 4 decades. However, whereas in the 2000s there was an average decline of approximately 3%-4% annually, it slowed to 1% per year between 2011 and 2019. This effect is in part because of the trends among younger individuals (< 55 years), in whom the incidence of CRC has increased by 9% over the past 25 years.

The incidence of regional-stage disease also increased by 2%-3% per year for those younger than 65 years, with an additional increase in the incidence of more advanced/distant disease by 0.5%-3% per year. The latter finding represents a reversal of earlier trends observed for staged disease in the decade from 1995 to 2005.

These recent statistics reveal other notable changes that occurred in parallel with the increased incidence of younger-onset CRC. There was a significant shift to left-sided tumors, with a 4% increase in rectal cancers in the decades spanning 1995–2019.

Although the overall mortality declined 2% from 2011 to 2020, the reverse was seen in patients younger than 50 years, in whom there was an increase by 0.5%-3% annually.

Available incidence and mortality data for the current year are understandably lacking, as there is a 2- to 4-year lag for data collection and assimilation, and there have also been methodological changes for tracking and projections. Nonetheless, 2023 projections estimate that there will be 153,020 new cases in the United States, with 19,550 (13%) to occur in those younger than 50 years and 33% in those aged 50-64 years. Overall, 43% of cases are projected to occur in those aged 45-49 years, which is noteworthy given that these ages are now included in the most current CRC screening recommendations.

Further underscoring the risks posed by earlier-onset trends is the projection of 52,550 CRC-related deaths in 2023, with 7% estimated to occur in those younger than 50 years.
 

What’s behind the trend toward younger onset?

The specific factors contributing to increasing rates of CRC in younger individuals are not well known, but there are several plausible explanations. Notable possible contributing factors reported in the literature include obesity, smoking, alcohol, diet, and microbial changes, among other demographic variables. Exposure to high-fructose corn syrup, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats has also recently received attention as contributing dietary risk factors.

The shifting trends toward the onset of CRC among younger patients are now clearly established, with approximately 20% of new cases occurring in those in their early 50s or younger and a higher rate of left-sided tumor development. Unfortunately, these shifts are also associated with a more advanced stage of disease.

There are unique clinical challenges when it comes to identifying younger-onset CRC. A low level of suspicion among primary care providers that their younger patients may have CRC can result in delays in their receiving clinically appropriate diagnostic testing (particularly for overt or occult bleeding/iron deficiency). Younger patients may also be less likely to know about or adhere to new recommendations that they undergo screening.

The landscape for age-related CRC is changing. Although there are many obstacles for implementing new practices, these recent findings from the ACS also highlight a clear path for improvement.

David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although the past several decades have seen significantly greater emphasis on screening and disease prevention for CRC, it has also become increasingly apparent that the age profile and associated risks for this cancer are rapidly changing.

Evidence of this can be found in recently released CRC statistics from the American Cancer Society, which are updated every 3 years using population-based cancer registries.

The incidence in CRC has shown a progressive decline over the past 4 decades. However, whereas in the 2000s there was an average decline of approximately 3%-4% annually, it slowed to 1% per year between 2011 and 2019. This effect is in part because of the trends among younger individuals (< 55 years), in whom the incidence of CRC has increased by 9% over the past 25 years.

The incidence of regional-stage disease also increased by 2%-3% per year for those younger than 65 years, with an additional increase in the incidence of more advanced/distant disease by 0.5%-3% per year. The latter finding represents a reversal of earlier trends observed for staged disease in the decade from 1995 to 2005.

These recent statistics reveal other notable changes that occurred in parallel with the increased incidence of younger-onset CRC. There was a significant shift to left-sided tumors, with a 4% increase in rectal cancers in the decades spanning 1995–2019.

Although the overall mortality declined 2% from 2011 to 2020, the reverse was seen in patients younger than 50 years, in whom there was an increase by 0.5%-3% annually.

Available incidence and mortality data for the current year are understandably lacking, as there is a 2- to 4-year lag for data collection and assimilation, and there have also been methodological changes for tracking and projections. Nonetheless, 2023 projections estimate that there will be 153,020 new cases in the United States, with 19,550 (13%) to occur in those younger than 50 years and 33% in those aged 50-64 years. Overall, 43% of cases are projected to occur in those aged 45-49 years, which is noteworthy given that these ages are now included in the most current CRC screening recommendations.

Further underscoring the risks posed by earlier-onset trends is the projection of 52,550 CRC-related deaths in 2023, with 7% estimated to occur in those younger than 50 years.
 

What’s behind the trend toward younger onset?

The specific factors contributing to increasing rates of CRC in younger individuals are not well known, but there are several plausible explanations. Notable possible contributing factors reported in the literature include obesity, smoking, alcohol, diet, and microbial changes, among other demographic variables. Exposure to high-fructose corn syrup, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats has also recently received attention as contributing dietary risk factors.

The shifting trends toward the onset of CRC among younger patients are now clearly established, with approximately 20% of new cases occurring in those in their early 50s or younger and a higher rate of left-sided tumor development. Unfortunately, these shifts are also associated with a more advanced stage of disease.

There are unique clinical challenges when it comes to identifying younger-onset CRC. A low level of suspicion among primary care providers that their younger patients may have CRC can result in delays in their receiving clinically appropriate diagnostic testing (particularly for overt or occult bleeding/iron deficiency). Younger patients may also be less likely to know about or adhere to new recommendations that they undergo screening.

The landscape for age-related CRC is changing. Although there are many obstacles for implementing new practices, these recent findings from the ACS also highlight a clear path for improvement.

David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A few months ago, after several months of considerable foot dragging, I wrote that I have accepted the American Academy of Pediatrics’ proclamation that we should begin to treat obesity as a disease.

While it may feel like we are just throwing in the towel, it sounds better if we admit that we may have reached the threshold beyond which total focus on prevention is not going to work.

I continue to be troubled by the lingering fear that, in declaring that obesity is a disease, we will suspend our current efforts at preventing the condition. Granted, most of these efforts at prevention have been woefully ineffective. However, I still believe that, much like ADHD, the rise in obesity in this country is a reflection of some serious flaws in our society. On the other hand, as an inveterate optimist I have not given up on the belief that we will find some yet-to-be-discovered changes in our societal fabric that will eventually turn the ship around.

With this somewhat contradictory combination of resignation and optimism in mind, I continue to seek out studies that hold some promise for prevention while we begin tinkering with the let’s-treat-it-like-a-disease approach.

I recently discovered a story about one such study from the Center for Economic and Social Research at the University of Southern California. Using data collected about adolescent dependents of military personnel, the researchers found that “exposure to a more advantageous built environment for more than 2 years was associated with lower probabilities of obesity.” Because more than half of these teenagers were living in housing that had been assigned by the military, the researchers could more easily control for a variety of factors some related to self-selection.

Interestingly, the data did not support associations between the adolescents’ diet, physical activity, or socioeconomic environments. The investigators noted that “more advantageous built environments were associated with lower consumption of unhealthy foods.” However, the study lacked the granularity to determine what segments of the built environment were most associated with the effect they were observing.

Like me, you may not be familiar with the term “built environment.” Turns out it is just exactly what we might expect – anything about the environment that is the result of human action – buildings, roadways, dams, neighborhoods – and what they do and don’t contain. For example, is the adolescent living in an environment that encourages walking or one that is overly motor vehicle–centric? Does his or her neighborhood have easily reachable grocery stores that offer a range of healthy foods or does the teenager live in a nutritional desert populated only by convenience stores? Is there ample space for outdoor physical activity?

The authors’ observation that the adolescents who benefited from living in advantageous environments had a lower consumption of unhealthy foods might suggest that access to a healthy diet might be a significant factor. For me, the take-home message is that in our search for preventive strategies we have barely scratched the surface. The observation that the associations these researchers were making was over a relatively short time span of 2 years should give us hope that if we think more broadly and creatively we may be to find solutions on a grand scale.

Over the last century we have built an environment that is clearly obesogenic. This paper offers a starting point from which we can learn which components of that environment are the most potent contributors to the obesity epidemic. Once we have that information the question remains: Can we find the political will to tear down and rebuilt?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A few months ago, after several months of considerable foot dragging, I wrote that I have accepted the American Academy of Pediatrics’ proclamation that we should begin to treat obesity as a disease.

While it may feel like we are just throwing in the towel, it sounds better if we admit that we may have reached the threshold beyond which total focus on prevention is not going to work.

I continue to be troubled by the lingering fear that, in declaring that obesity is a disease, we will suspend our current efforts at preventing the condition. Granted, most of these efforts at prevention have been woefully ineffective. However, I still believe that, much like ADHD, the rise in obesity in this country is a reflection of some serious flaws in our society. On the other hand, as an inveterate optimist I have not given up on the belief that we will find some yet-to-be-discovered changes in our societal fabric that will eventually turn the ship around.

With this somewhat contradictory combination of resignation and optimism in mind, I continue to seek out studies that hold some promise for prevention while we begin tinkering with the let’s-treat-it-like-a-disease approach.

I recently discovered a story about one such study from the Center for Economic and Social Research at the University of Southern California. Using data collected about adolescent dependents of military personnel, the researchers found that “exposure to a more advantageous built environment for more than 2 years was associated with lower probabilities of obesity.” Because more than half of these teenagers were living in housing that had been assigned by the military, the researchers could more easily control for a variety of factors some related to self-selection.

Interestingly, the data did not support associations between the adolescents’ diet, physical activity, or socioeconomic environments. The investigators noted that “more advantageous built environments were associated with lower consumption of unhealthy foods.” However, the study lacked the granularity to determine what segments of the built environment were most associated with the effect they were observing.

Like me, you may not be familiar with the term “built environment.” Turns out it is just exactly what we might expect – anything about the environment that is the result of human action – buildings, roadways, dams, neighborhoods – and what they do and don’t contain. For example, is the adolescent living in an environment that encourages walking or one that is overly motor vehicle–centric? Does his or her neighborhood have easily reachable grocery stores that offer a range of healthy foods or does the teenager live in a nutritional desert populated only by convenience stores? Is there ample space for outdoor physical activity?

The authors’ observation that the adolescents who benefited from living in advantageous environments had a lower consumption of unhealthy foods might suggest that access to a healthy diet might be a significant factor. For me, the take-home message is that in our search for preventive strategies we have barely scratched the surface. The observation that the associations these researchers were making was over a relatively short time span of 2 years should give us hope that if we think more broadly and creatively we may be to find solutions on a grand scale.

Over the last century we have built an environment that is clearly obesogenic. This paper offers a starting point from which we can learn which components of that environment are the most potent contributors to the obesity epidemic. Once we have that information the question remains: Can we find the political will to tear down and rebuilt?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A few months ago, after several months of considerable foot dragging, I wrote that I have accepted the American Academy of Pediatrics’ proclamation that we should begin to treat obesity as a disease.

While it may feel like we are just throwing in the towel, it sounds better if we admit that we may have reached the threshold beyond which total focus on prevention is not going to work.

I continue to be troubled by the lingering fear that, in declaring that obesity is a disease, we will suspend our current efforts at preventing the condition. Granted, most of these efforts at prevention have been woefully ineffective. However, I still believe that, much like ADHD, the rise in obesity in this country is a reflection of some serious flaws in our society. On the other hand, as an inveterate optimist I have not given up on the belief that we will find some yet-to-be-discovered changes in our societal fabric that will eventually turn the ship around.

With this somewhat contradictory combination of resignation and optimism in mind, I continue to seek out studies that hold some promise for prevention while we begin tinkering with the let’s-treat-it-like-a-disease approach.

I recently discovered a story about one such study from the Center for Economic and Social Research at the University of Southern California. Using data collected about adolescent dependents of military personnel, the researchers found that “exposure to a more advantageous built environment for more than 2 years was associated with lower probabilities of obesity.” Because more than half of these teenagers were living in housing that had been assigned by the military, the researchers could more easily control for a variety of factors some related to self-selection.

Interestingly, the data did not support associations between the adolescents’ diet, physical activity, or socioeconomic environments. The investigators noted that “more advantageous built environments were associated with lower consumption of unhealthy foods.” However, the study lacked the granularity to determine what segments of the built environment were most associated with the effect they were observing.

Like me, you may not be familiar with the term “built environment.” Turns out it is just exactly what we might expect – anything about the environment that is the result of human action – buildings, roadways, dams, neighborhoods – and what they do and don’t contain. For example, is the adolescent living in an environment that encourages walking or one that is overly motor vehicle–centric? Does his or her neighborhood have easily reachable grocery stores that offer a range of healthy foods or does the teenager live in a nutritional desert populated only by convenience stores? Is there ample space for outdoor physical activity?

The authors’ observation that the adolescents who benefited from living in advantageous environments had a lower consumption of unhealthy foods might suggest that access to a healthy diet might be a significant factor. For me, the take-home message is that in our search for preventive strategies we have barely scratched the surface. The observation that the associations these researchers were making was over a relatively short time span of 2 years should give us hope that if we think more broadly and creatively we may be to find solutions on a grand scale.

Over the last century we have built an environment that is clearly obesogenic. This paper offers a starting point from which we can learn which components of that environment are the most potent contributors to the obesity epidemic. Once we have that information the question remains: Can we find the political will to tear down and rebuilt?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].