Managing Your Practice

Many medical offices are following a popular trend in the business world: They are replacing employee sick leave, vacation, and any other miscellaneous time benefits with a combination of all of them, collectively referred to as “paid time off” (PTO). There are several reasons why this is a good idea, but it is not without disadvantages, and you should carefully consider all the pros and cons before adopting it.

Employees generally like the concept because most never use all their sick leave. Allowing them to take the difference as extra vacation time makes them happy, and makes your office more attractive to excellent prospects. They also appreciate being treated more like adults who can make time off decisions for themselves.

Employers like it because there is less paperwork and less abuse of sick leave. They don’t have to make any decisions about whether an employee is really sick or not; reasons for absence are now irrelevant, so feigned illnesses are a thing of the past. If an employee requests a day off with adequate notice, and there is adequate coverage of that employee’s duties, you don’t need to know (or care) about the reason for the request.

Critics say employees are absent more frequently under a PTO system, since employees who never used their full allotment of sick leave will typically use all of their PTO; but that, in a sense, is the idea. Time off is necessary and important for good office morale, and should be taken by all employees, as well as by all employers. (Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”)

Besides, you should be suspicious of any employee who won’t take vacations. They are often embezzlers who fear that their illicit modus operandi will be discovered during their absence. (More on that next month.)

chokkicx/Digital Vision Vectors

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].

Many medical offices are following a popular trend in the business world: They are replacing employee sick leave, vacation, and any other miscellaneous time benefits with a combination of all of them, collectively referred to as “paid time off” (PTO). There are several reasons why this is a good idea, but it is not without disadvantages, and you should carefully consider all the pros and cons before adopting it.

Employees generally like the concept because most never use all their sick leave. Allowing them to take the difference as extra vacation time makes them happy, and makes your office more attractive to excellent prospects. They also appreciate being treated more like adults who can make time off decisions for themselves.

Employers like it because there is less paperwork and less abuse of sick leave. They don’t have to make any decisions about whether an employee is really sick or not; reasons for absence are now irrelevant, so feigned illnesses are a thing of the past. If an employee requests a day off with adequate notice, and there is adequate coverage of that employee’s duties, you don’t need to know (or care) about the reason for the request.

Critics say employees are absent more frequently under a PTO system, since employees who never used their full allotment of sick leave will typically use all of their PTO; but that, in a sense, is the idea. Time off is necessary and important for good office morale, and should be taken by all employees, as well as by all employers. (Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”)

Besides, you should be suspicious of any employee who won’t take vacations. They are often embezzlers who fear that their illicit modus operandi will be discovered during their absence. (More on that next month.)

chokkicx/Digital Vision Vectors

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].

Many medical offices are following a popular trend in the business world: They are replacing employee sick leave, vacation, and any other miscellaneous time benefits with a combination of all of them, collectively referred to as “paid time off” (PTO). There are several reasons why this is a good idea, but it is not without disadvantages, and you should carefully consider all the pros and cons before adopting it.

Employees generally like the concept because most never use all their sick leave. Allowing them to take the difference as extra vacation time makes them happy, and makes your office more attractive to excellent prospects. They also appreciate being treated more like adults who can make time off decisions for themselves.

Employers like it because there is less paperwork and less abuse of sick leave. They don’t have to make any decisions about whether an employee is really sick or not; reasons for absence are now irrelevant, so feigned illnesses are a thing of the past. If an employee requests a day off with adequate notice, and there is adequate coverage of that employee’s duties, you don’t need to know (or care) about the reason for the request.

Critics say employees are absent more frequently under a PTO system, since employees who never used their full allotment of sick leave will typically use all of their PTO; but that, in a sense, is the idea. Time off is necessary and important for good office morale, and should be taken by all employees, as well as by all employers. (Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”)

Besides, you should be suspicious of any employee who won’t take vacations. They are often embezzlers who fear that their illicit modus operandi will be discovered during their absence. (More on that next month.)

chokkicx/Digital Vision Vectors

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].

A few years ago, my seemingly indestructible 94-year-old mother suffered a series of medical setbacks. As her health problems accumulated, so did the complexity and cost of her care, progressing from her home to an assisted-living facility to a nursing home. It was heartbreaking – and expensive. My wife likened it to “putting another kid through college” – an elite private college, at that.

designer451/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Medicare, of course, did not cover any of this, except for physician visits and some of her medications. When it was finally over, my wife and I resolved that, should we face a similar situation in our final years, we could not put ourselves or our children through a similar financial ordeal.

Long-term care insurance (LTCI) is designed to prevent such situations by covering hospice services, nursing home stays, assisted living facilities, in-home services, and other end-of-life expenses. (Covered services vary by policy; and as always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned here.)

According to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance (AALTCI), the average annual LTCI premium for a 60-year-old couple is $3,490. Not cheap; but there are ways to lower premiums without gutting your coverage.

The best way to keep costs down is to get in early. In general, the younger you are and the better health you are in, the lower your premiums will be. For example – again according to the AALTCI – that “average” annual premium of $3,490 for a hypothetical 60-year-old couple would increase 34%, to $4,675, if they waited until they were 65 to buy the policy. And if their health were to decline in the interim, they might not be able to obtain adequate coverage at all.

You can also lower premiums by decreasing daily benefits, or increasing the “elimination period” – the length of time after you become eligible for benefits that the policy starts paying them; 30-, 60-, and 90-day periods are common. As long as you have sufficient savings to realistically cover costs until the elimination period is over, choosing a longer one can reduce your costs significantly.

Another variable is the maximum length of time the policy will pay out benefits. Ideally, you would want a payout to continue for as long as necessary, but few if any companies are willing to write uncapped policies anymore. Two to five years of benefits is a common time frame. (The “average” premiums quoted above assume a benefit of $150 per day with a 3-year cap and a 90-day elimination period.)

As with any insurance, it is important not to overbuy LTCI. It isn’t necessary to obtain coverage that will pay for 100% of your long-term care costs – just the portion that your projected retirement income (Social Security, pensions, income from savings) may not be sufficient to cover. Buying only the amount of coverage you need will substantially reduce your premium costs over the life of the policy.

If you work for a hospital or a large group, it’s worth checking to see if your employer offers LTCI. Employer-sponsored plans are often offered at discounted group rates, and you can usually keep the policy even if you leave. If you’re a member of any social or religious groups, check their insurance plans as well.

To be sure, there is considerable debate about whether LTCI is worth the cost. Premiums for new policies are rising at a steep clip – 9% annually, according to the AALTCI – and insurers are allowed to raise premiums even after you buy the policy, so you’ll need to factor that possibility into your budget.

But forgoing coverage can be costly too: If you know you will have to cover your own long-term care costs, you won’t be able to spend that money on things you really care about – like your grandkids, or travel, or charitable work. You might even forgo necessary medical care for fear of running out of money.

Everyone must make their own decision. My wife and I decided that a few thousand dollars per year is a fair price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing we will be able to afford proper supportive care, without help from our children or anyone else, regardless of what happens in the years to come.
 

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].

A few years ago, my seemingly indestructible 94-year-old mother suffered a series of medical setbacks. As her health problems accumulated, so did the complexity and cost of her care, progressing from her home to an assisted-living facility to a nursing home. It was heartbreaking – and expensive. My wife likened it to “putting another kid through college” – an elite private college, at that.

designer451/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Medicare, of course, did not cover any of this, except for physician visits and some of her medications. When it was finally over, my wife and I resolved that, should we face a similar situation in our final years, we could not put ourselves or our children through a similar financial ordeal.

Long-term care insurance (LTCI) is designed to prevent such situations by covering hospice services, nursing home stays, assisted living facilities, in-home services, and other end-of-life expenses. (Covered services vary by policy; and as always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned here.)

According to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance (AALTCI), the average annual LTCI premium for a 60-year-old couple is $3,490. Not cheap; but there are ways to lower premiums without gutting your coverage.

The best way to keep costs down is to get in early. In general, the younger you are and the better health you are in, the lower your premiums will be. For example – again according to the AALTCI – that “average” annual premium of $3,490 for a hypothetical 60-year-old couple would increase 34%, to $4,675, if they waited until they were 65 to buy the policy. And if their health were to decline in the interim, they might not be able to obtain adequate coverage at all.

You can also lower premiums by decreasing daily benefits, or increasing the “elimination period” – the length of time after you become eligible for benefits that the policy starts paying them; 30-, 60-, and 90-day periods are common. As long as you have sufficient savings to realistically cover costs until the elimination period is over, choosing a longer one can reduce your costs significantly.

Another variable is the maximum length of time the policy will pay out benefits. Ideally, you would want a payout to continue for as long as necessary, but few if any companies are willing to write uncapped policies anymore. Two to five years of benefits is a common time frame. (The “average” premiums quoted above assume a benefit of $150 per day with a 3-year cap and a 90-day elimination period.)

As with any insurance, it is important not to overbuy LTCI. It isn’t necessary to obtain coverage that will pay for 100% of your long-term care costs – just the portion that your projected retirement income (Social Security, pensions, income from savings) may not be sufficient to cover. Buying only the amount of coverage you need will substantially reduce your premium costs over the life of the policy.

If you work for a hospital or a large group, it’s worth checking to see if your employer offers LTCI. Employer-sponsored plans are often offered at discounted group rates, and you can usually keep the policy even if you leave. If you’re a member of any social or religious groups, check their insurance plans as well.

To be sure, there is considerable debate about whether LTCI is worth the cost. Premiums for new policies are rising at a steep clip – 9% annually, according to the AALTCI – and insurers are allowed to raise premiums even after you buy the policy, so you’ll need to factor that possibility into your budget.

But forgoing coverage can be costly too: If you know you will have to cover your own long-term care costs, you won’t be able to spend that money on things you really care about – like your grandkids, or travel, or charitable work. You might even forgo necessary medical care for fear of running out of money.

Everyone must make their own decision. My wife and I decided that a few thousand dollars per year is a fair price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing we will be able to afford proper supportive care, without help from our children or anyone else, regardless of what happens in the years to come.
 

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].

A few years ago, my seemingly indestructible 94-year-old mother suffered a series of medical setbacks. As her health problems accumulated, so did the complexity and cost of her care, progressing from her home to an assisted-living facility to a nursing home. It was heartbreaking – and expensive. My wife likened it to “putting another kid through college” – an elite private college, at that.

designer451/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Medicare, of course, did not cover any of this, except for physician visits and some of her medications. When it was finally over, my wife and I resolved that, should we face a similar situation in our final years, we could not put ourselves or our children through a similar financial ordeal.

Long-term care insurance (LTCI) is designed to prevent such situations by covering hospice services, nursing home stays, assisted living facilities, in-home services, and other end-of-life expenses. (Covered services vary by policy; and as always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned here.)

According to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance (AALTCI), the average annual LTCI premium for a 60-year-old couple is $3,490. Not cheap; but there are ways to lower premiums without gutting your coverage.

The best way to keep costs down is to get in early. In general, the younger you are and the better health you are in, the lower your premiums will be. For example – again according to the AALTCI – that “average” annual premium of $3,490 for a hypothetical 60-year-old couple would increase 34%, to $4,675, if they waited until they were 65 to buy the policy. And if their health were to decline in the interim, they might not be able to obtain adequate coverage at all.

You can also lower premiums by decreasing daily benefits, or increasing the “elimination period” – the length of time after you become eligible for benefits that the policy starts paying them; 30-, 60-, and 90-day periods are common. As long as you have sufficient savings to realistically cover costs until the elimination period is over, choosing a longer one can reduce your costs significantly.

Another variable is the maximum length of time the policy will pay out benefits. Ideally, you would want a payout to continue for as long as necessary, but few if any companies are willing to write uncapped policies anymore. Two to five years of benefits is a common time frame. (The “average” premiums quoted above assume a benefit of $150 per day with a 3-year cap and a 90-day elimination period.)

As with any insurance, it is important not to overbuy LTCI. It isn’t necessary to obtain coverage that will pay for 100% of your long-term care costs – just the portion that your projected retirement income (Social Security, pensions, income from savings) may not be sufficient to cover. Buying only the amount of coverage you need will substantially reduce your premium costs over the life of the policy.

If you work for a hospital or a large group, it’s worth checking to see if your employer offers LTCI. Employer-sponsored plans are often offered at discounted group rates, and you can usually keep the policy even if you leave. If you’re a member of any social or religious groups, check their insurance plans as well.

To be sure, there is considerable debate about whether LTCI is worth the cost. Premiums for new policies are rising at a steep clip – 9% annually, according to the AALTCI – and insurers are allowed to raise premiums even after you buy the policy, so you’ll need to factor that possibility into your budget.

But forgoing coverage can be costly too: If you know you will have to cover your own long-term care costs, you won’t be able to spend that money on things you really care about – like your grandkids, or travel, or charitable work. You might even forgo necessary medical care for fear of running out of money.

Everyone must make their own decision. My wife and I decided that a few thousand dollars per year is a fair price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing we will be able to afford proper supportive care, without help from our children or anyone else, regardless of what happens in the years to come.
 

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

The most recently concluded term of the US Supreme Court, which began on October 1, 2018, yielded a number of decisions of interest to health care professionals and to ObGyns in particular. Although the term was viewed by some observers as less consequential than other recent terms, a review of the cases decided paints a picture of a more important term than some commentators expected.

When the term began, the Court had only 8 justices—1 short of a full bench: Judge Brett Kavanaugh had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. He was confirmed on October 6, by a 50-48 vote, and Justice Kavanaugh immediately joined the Court and began to hear and decide cases.

Increasingly, important decisions affect medical practice

From the nature of practice (abortion), to payment for service (Medicare reimbursement), resolution of disputes (arbitration), and fraud and abuse (the federal False Claims Act), the decisions of the Court will have an impact on many areas of medical practice. Organized medicine increasingly has recognized the significance of the work of the Court; nowhere has this been more clearly demonstrated than with amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs filed by medical organizations.

Amicus curiae briefs. These briefs are filed by persons or organizations not a party to a case the Court is hearing. Their legitimate purpose is to inform the Court of 1) special information within the expertise of the amicus (or amici, plural) or 2) consequences of the decision that might not be apparent from arguments made by the parties to the case. Sometimes, the Court cites amicus briefs for having provided important information about the case.

Filing amicus briefs is time-consuming and expensive; organizations do not file them for trivial reasons. Organizations frequently join together to file a joint brief, to share expenses and express to the Court a stronger position.

Three categories of health professionals file amicus briefs in ObGyn-related cases:

• Major national organizations, often representing broad interests of health care professions or institutions (the American Medical Association [AMA], the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Hospital Association [AHA]), have filed a number of amicus briefs over the years.
• Specialty boards increasingly file amicus briefs. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have filed briefs related to abortion issues.
• In reproductive issues, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations have been active amicus filers—frequently taking positions different than, even inconsistent with, amicus briefs filed by major specialty boards.

Amicus briefs filed by medical associations provide strong clues to what is important to clinicians. We have looked at such briefs to help us identify topics and cases from the just-concluded term that can be of particular interest to you.

Continue to: Surveying the shadow docket...

Surveying the shadow docket. As part of our review of the past term, we also looked at the so-called shadow docket, which includes decisions regarding writs of certiorari (which cases it agrees to hear); stays (usually delaying implementation of a law); or denials of stays. (Persuading the Court to hear a case is not easy: It hears approximately 70 cases per year out of as many as 7,000 applications to be heard.)

Abortion ruling

At stake. A number of states recently enacted a variety of provisions that might make an abortion more difficult to obtain. Some of the cases challenging these restrictions are making their way through lower courts, and one day might be argued before the Supreme Court. However, the Court has not (yet) agreed to hear the substance of many new abortion-related provisions.

Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.

The Court decided only 1 abortion restriction case this term.¹ The Indiana law in question included 2 provisions that the Court considered:

Disposal of remains. The law regulated the manner in which abortion providers can dispose of fetal remains (ie, they cannot be treated as “infectious and pathologic waste”).

Motivation for seeking abortion. The Indiana law makes it illegal for an abortion provider to perform an abortion when the provider knows that the mother is seeking that abortion “solely” because of the fetus’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics.

Final rulings. The Court held that the disposal-of-remains provision is constitutional. The provision is “rationally related to the state’s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.”² Planned Parenthood had not raised the issue of whether the law might impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, so the Court did not decide that issue.

The Court did not consider the constitutionality of the part of the law proscribing certain reasons for seeking an otherwise legal abortion; instead, it awaits lower courts’ review of the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an extensive concurring opinion suggesting that this law is intended to avoid abortion to achieve eugenic goals.³

Key developments from the shadow docket

The Court issued a stay preventing a Louisiana statute that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital from going into effect, pending the outcome of litigation about that law.⁴ Four dissenters noted that all 4 physicians who perform abortions in Louisiana have such privileges. Chief Justice Roberts was the fifth vote to grant the stay. This case likely will make its way back to the Court, as will a number of other state laws being adopted. The issue may be back as soon as the term just starting.

The Court is also considering whether to take another Indiana case, Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (Box II). This case involves an Indiana ultrasonography viewing option as part of the abortion consent process.⁵

The Court declined to hear cases from Louisiana and Kansas in which the states had cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Lower courts had stopped the implementation of those laws.⁶ The legal issue was whether private parties, as opposed to the federal government, had standing to bring the case. For now, the decision of the lower courts to stop implementation of the funding cutoff is in effect. There is a split in the Circuit Courts on the issue, however, making it likely that the Supreme Court will have to resolve it sooner or later.

Health care organizations have filed a number of amicus briefs in these and other cases involving new abortion regulations. ACOG and others filed a brief opposing a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby facility,⁷ and a brief opposing a similar Oklahoma law.⁸ The Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others filed amicus curiae briefs in Box II⁹ and in an Alabama case involving so-called dismemberment abortion.¹⁰

Continue to: Medicare payments...

Medicare payments

Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services v Allina Health Services, et al¹¹

This case drew interest—and many amicus briefs—from health care providers, including the AMA and the AHA.^12,13 There was good reason for their interest: First, the case involved more than $3 billion in reimbursements; second, it represented a potentially important precedent about the rights of providers and patients to comment on Medicare reimbursement changes. The question involved the technical calculation of additional payments made to institutions that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients (known as Medicare Fractions).

At stake. The issue was a statutory requirement for a 60-day public notice and comment period for rules that “change a substantive legal standard” governing the scope of benefits, eligibility, or payment for services.¹⁴ In 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Obama administration posted a spreadsheet announcing Medicare fractions rates for hospitals (for 2012)—without formal notice or comment regarding the formula used. (The spreadsheet listed what each qualifying institution would receive, but it was based on a formula that, as noted, had not been subject to public notice and comment.) The AMA and AHA briefs emphasized the importance of a notice and comment period, especially when Medicare reimbursement is involved.

Final ruling. The Court held that the HHS process violated the notice and comment provision, thereby invalidating the policy underlying the so-called spreadsheet reimbursement. The decision was significant: This was a careful statutory interpretation of the 60-day notice and comment period, not the reimbursement policy itself. Presumably, had the HHS Secretary provided for sufficient notice and comment, the formula used would have met the requirements for issuing reimbursement formulas.

Key points. Hospitals will collectively receive $3 or $4 billion as a consequence of the ruling. Perhaps more importantly, the decision signals that HHS is going to have to take seriously the requirement that it publish Medicare-related reimbursement policies for the 60-day period.

Liability under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (FCA) protects the federal government from fraudulent claims for payment and for shoddy goods and services. It incentivizes (by a percentage of recovery) private parties to bring cases to enforce the law.¹⁵ (Of course, the federal government also enforces the Act.)

At stake. The FCA has been of considerable concern to the AHA, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and other health care organizations—understandably so.¹⁶ As the AHA informed the Court in an amicus brief, “The prevalence of [FCA] cases has ballooned over the past three decades.... These suits disproportionately target healthcare entities.... Of the 767 new FCA cases filed in 2018, for example, 506 involved healthcare defendants.”¹⁷

Final ruling. The Court considered an ambiguity in the statute of limitations for these actions and the Court unanimously ruled to permit an extended time in which qui tam actions (private actions under the law) can be filed.¹⁸

Key points. As long a period as 10 years can pass between the time an FCA violation occurs and an action is brought. This decision is likely to increase the number of FCA actions against health care providers because the case can be filed many years after the conduct that gave rise to the complaint.

Continue to: Registering sex offenders...

Registering sex offenders

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).¹⁹ Sex offenders must register and periodically report, in person, to law enforcement in every state in which the offender works, studies, or resides.

At stake. The case involved the applicability of SORNA registration obligations to those convicted of sex offenses before SORNA was adopted (pre-Act offenders).²⁰ The court upheld registration requirements for pre-Act offenders.

Arbitration

The Court continued its practice of deciding at least one case each term that emphasizes that federal law requires that courts rather strictly enforce agreements to arbitrate (instead of to litigate) future disputes.²¹ In another case, the Court ruled that there can be “class” or “joint” arbitration only if the agreement to arbitrate a dispute clearly permits such class arbitration.²²

Pharma’s liability regarding product risk

The Court somewhat limited the liability of pharmaceutical companies for failing to provide adequate warning about the risk that their products pose. The case against Merck involved 500 patients who took denosumab (Fosamax) and suffered atypical femoral fractures.²³

At stake. Because prescribing information (in which warnings are provided) must be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the legal test is: Would the FDA have refused to approve a change in the warning if Merck had “fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning” required by state law to avoid liability?^24,25 Lower-court judges (not juries) will be expected to apply this test in the future.

The doctor and the death penalty

The Court has established a rule that, when a prisoner facing capital punishment objects to a form of execution because it is too painful, he has to propose an alternative that is reasonably available. In one case,²⁶ a physician, an expert witness for the prisoner, did not answer some essential relative-pain questions (ie, would one procedure be more painful than another?).

At stake. The AMA filed an amicus brief in this case, indicating that it is unethical for physicians to participate in an execution. The brief noted that “testimony used to determine which method of execution would reduce physical suffering would constitute physician participation in capital punishment and would be unethical.”²⁷

The expert witness’s failure to answer the question on relative pain had the unfortunate result of reducing the likelihood that the prisoner would prevail in his request for an alternative method of execution.

Analysis

Despite obvious disagreements about big issues (notably, abortion and the death penalty) the Court maintained a courteous and civil demeanor—something not always seen nowadays in other branches of government. Here are facts about the Court’s term just concluded:

• The Court issued 72 merits opinions (about average).
• Only 39% of decisions were unanimous (compared with the average of 49% in recent terms).
• On the other hand, 26% of decisions were split 5 to 4 (compared with a 10% recent average).
• In those 5 to 4 decisions, Justices were in the majority as follows²⁸: Justice Gorsuch, 65%; Justice Kavanaugh, 61%; Justice Thomas, 60%; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Alito, each 55%; Justice Breyer, 50%; and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan each at 45%.
• There were 57 dissenting opinions—up from 48 in the previous term.
• What is referred to as “the liberal-conservative split” might seem more profound than it really is: “Every conservative member of the court at some point voted to form a majority with the liberal justices. And every liberal at least once left behind all of his or her usual voting partners to join the conservatives.”²⁹

Continue to: Last, it was a year of personal health issues for...

Last, it was a year of personal health issues for the Court: Justice Ginsburg had a diagnosis of lung cancer and was absent, following surgery, in January. Of retired Justices, Sandra Day O’Connor suffers from dementia and former Justice John Paul Stevens died.

In closing

The Court has accepted approximately 50 cases for the current term, which began on October 7. The first 2 days of the term were spent on arguments about, first, whether a state can abolish the insanity defense and, second, whether nondiscrimination laws (“based on sex”) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. Cases also will deal with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act payments to providers; the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; the death penalty; and international child custody disputes. The Court will be accepting more cases for several months. It promises to be a very interesting term.

The most recently concluded term of the US Supreme Court, which began on October 1, 2018, yielded a number of decisions of interest to health care professionals and to ObGyns in particular. Although the term was viewed by some observers as less consequential than other recent terms, a review of the cases decided paints a picture of a more important term than some commentators expected.

When the term began, the Court had only 8 justices—1 short of a full bench: Judge Brett Kavanaugh had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. He was confirmed on October 6, by a 50-48 vote, and Justice Kavanaugh immediately joined the Court and began to hear and decide cases.

Increasingly, important decisions affect medical practice

From the nature of practice (abortion), to payment for service (Medicare reimbursement), resolution of disputes (arbitration), and fraud and abuse (the federal False Claims Act), the decisions of the Court will have an impact on many areas of medical practice. Organized medicine increasingly has recognized the significance of the work of the Court; nowhere has this been more clearly demonstrated than with amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs filed by medical organizations.

Amicus curiae briefs. These briefs are filed by persons or organizations not a party to a case the Court is hearing. Their legitimate purpose is to inform the Court of 1) special information within the expertise of the amicus (or amici, plural) or 2) consequences of the decision that might not be apparent from arguments made by the parties to the case. Sometimes, the Court cites amicus briefs for having provided important information about the case.

Filing amicus briefs is time-consuming and expensive; organizations do not file them for trivial reasons. Organizations frequently join together to file a joint brief, to share expenses and express to the Court a stronger position.

Three categories of health professionals file amicus briefs in ObGyn-related cases:

• Major national organizations, often representing broad interests of health care professions or institutions (the American Medical Association [AMA], the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Hospital Association [AHA]), have filed a number of amicus briefs over the years.
• Specialty boards increasingly file amicus briefs. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have filed briefs related to abortion issues.
• In reproductive issues, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations have been active amicus filers—frequently taking positions different than, even inconsistent with, amicus briefs filed by major specialty boards.

Amicus briefs filed by medical associations provide strong clues to what is important to clinicians. We have looked at such briefs to help us identify topics and cases from the just-concluded term that can be of particular interest to you.

Continue to: Surveying the shadow docket...

Surveying the shadow docket. As part of our review of the past term, we also looked at the so-called shadow docket, which includes decisions regarding writs of certiorari (which cases it agrees to hear); stays (usually delaying implementation of a law); or denials of stays. (Persuading the Court to hear a case is not easy: It hears approximately 70 cases per year out of as many as 7,000 applications to be heard.)

Abortion ruling

At stake. A number of states recently enacted a variety of provisions that might make an abortion more difficult to obtain. Some of the cases challenging these restrictions are making their way through lower courts, and one day might be argued before the Supreme Court. However, the Court has not (yet) agreed to hear the substance of many new abortion-related provisions.

Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.

The Court decided only 1 abortion restriction case this term.¹ The Indiana law in question included 2 provisions that the Court considered:

Disposal of remains. The law regulated the manner in which abortion providers can dispose of fetal remains (ie, they cannot be treated as “infectious and pathologic waste”).

Motivation for seeking abortion. The Indiana law makes it illegal for an abortion provider to perform an abortion when the provider knows that the mother is seeking that abortion “solely” because of the fetus’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics.

Final rulings. The Court held that the disposal-of-remains provision is constitutional. The provision is “rationally related to the state’s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.”² Planned Parenthood had not raised the issue of whether the law might impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, so the Court did not decide that issue.

The Court did not consider the constitutionality of the part of the law proscribing certain reasons for seeking an otherwise legal abortion; instead, it awaits lower courts’ review of the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an extensive concurring opinion suggesting that this law is intended to avoid abortion to achieve eugenic goals.³

Key developments from the shadow docket

The Court issued a stay preventing a Louisiana statute that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital from going into effect, pending the outcome of litigation about that law.⁴ Four dissenters noted that all 4 physicians who perform abortions in Louisiana have such privileges. Chief Justice Roberts was the fifth vote to grant the stay. This case likely will make its way back to the Court, as will a number of other state laws being adopted. The issue may be back as soon as the term just starting.

The Court is also considering whether to take another Indiana case, Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (Box II). This case involves an Indiana ultrasonography viewing option as part of the abortion consent process.⁵

The Court declined to hear cases from Louisiana and Kansas in which the states had cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Lower courts had stopped the implementation of those laws.⁶ The legal issue was whether private parties, as opposed to the federal government, had standing to bring the case. For now, the decision of the lower courts to stop implementation of the funding cutoff is in effect. There is a split in the Circuit Courts on the issue, however, making it likely that the Supreme Court will have to resolve it sooner or later.

Health care organizations have filed a number of amicus briefs in these and other cases involving new abortion regulations. ACOG and others filed a brief opposing a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby facility,⁷ and a brief opposing a similar Oklahoma law.⁸ The Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others filed amicus curiae briefs in Box II⁹ and in an Alabama case involving so-called dismemberment abortion.¹⁰

Continue to: Medicare payments...

Medicare payments

Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services v Allina Health Services, et al¹¹

This case drew interest—and many amicus briefs—from health care providers, including the AMA and the AHA.^12,13 There was good reason for their interest: First, the case involved more than $3 billion in reimbursements; second, it represented a potentially important precedent about the rights of providers and patients to comment on Medicare reimbursement changes. The question involved the technical calculation of additional payments made to institutions that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients (known as Medicare Fractions).

At stake. The issue was a statutory requirement for a 60-day public notice and comment period for rules that “change a substantive legal standard” governing the scope of benefits, eligibility, or payment for services.¹⁴ In 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Obama administration posted a spreadsheet announcing Medicare fractions rates for hospitals (for 2012)—without formal notice or comment regarding the formula used. (The spreadsheet listed what each qualifying institution would receive, but it was based on a formula that, as noted, had not been subject to public notice and comment.) The AMA and AHA briefs emphasized the importance of a notice and comment period, especially when Medicare reimbursement is involved.

Final ruling. The Court held that the HHS process violated the notice and comment provision, thereby invalidating the policy underlying the so-called spreadsheet reimbursement. The decision was significant: This was a careful statutory interpretation of the 60-day notice and comment period, not the reimbursement policy itself. Presumably, had the HHS Secretary provided for sufficient notice and comment, the formula used would have met the requirements for issuing reimbursement formulas.

Key points. Hospitals will collectively receive $3 or $4 billion as a consequence of the ruling. Perhaps more importantly, the decision signals that HHS is going to have to take seriously the requirement that it publish Medicare-related reimbursement policies for the 60-day period.

Liability under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (FCA) protects the federal government from fraudulent claims for payment and for shoddy goods and services. It incentivizes (by a percentage of recovery) private parties to bring cases to enforce the law.¹⁵ (Of course, the federal government also enforces the Act.)

At stake. The FCA has been of considerable concern to the AHA, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and other health care organizations—understandably so.¹⁶ As the AHA informed the Court in an amicus brief, “The prevalence of [FCA] cases has ballooned over the past three decades.... These suits disproportionately target healthcare entities.... Of the 767 new FCA cases filed in 2018, for example, 506 involved healthcare defendants.”¹⁷

Final ruling. The Court considered an ambiguity in the statute of limitations for these actions and the Court unanimously ruled to permit an extended time in which qui tam actions (private actions under the law) can be filed.¹⁸

Key points. As long a period as 10 years can pass between the time an FCA violation occurs and an action is brought. This decision is likely to increase the number of FCA actions against health care providers because the case can be filed many years after the conduct that gave rise to the complaint.

Continue to: Registering sex offenders...

Registering sex offenders

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).¹⁹ Sex offenders must register and periodically report, in person, to law enforcement in every state in which the offender works, studies, or resides.

At stake. The case involved the applicability of SORNA registration obligations to those convicted of sex offenses before SORNA was adopted (pre-Act offenders).²⁰ The court upheld registration requirements for pre-Act offenders.

Arbitration

The Court continued its practice of deciding at least one case each term that emphasizes that federal law requires that courts rather strictly enforce agreements to arbitrate (instead of to litigate) future disputes.²¹ In another case, the Court ruled that there can be “class” or “joint” arbitration only if the agreement to arbitrate a dispute clearly permits such class arbitration.²²

Pharma’s liability regarding product risk

The Court somewhat limited the liability of pharmaceutical companies for failing to provide adequate warning about the risk that their products pose. The case against Merck involved 500 patients who took denosumab (Fosamax) and suffered atypical femoral fractures.²³

At stake. Because prescribing information (in which warnings are provided) must be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the legal test is: Would the FDA have refused to approve a change in the warning if Merck had “fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning” required by state law to avoid liability?^24,25 Lower-court judges (not juries) will be expected to apply this test in the future.

The doctor and the death penalty

The Court has established a rule that, when a prisoner facing capital punishment objects to a form of execution because it is too painful, he has to propose an alternative that is reasonably available. In one case,²⁶ a physician, an expert witness for the prisoner, did not answer some essential relative-pain questions (ie, would one procedure be more painful than another?).

At stake. The AMA filed an amicus brief in this case, indicating that it is unethical for physicians to participate in an execution. The brief noted that “testimony used to determine which method of execution would reduce physical suffering would constitute physician participation in capital punishment and would be unethical.”²⁷

The expert witness’s failure to answer the question on relative pain had the unfortunate result of reducing the likelihood that the prisoner would prevail in his request for an alternative method of execution.

Analysis

Despite obvious disagreements about big issues (notably, abortion and the death penalty) the Court maintained a courteous and civil demeanor—something not always seen nowadays in other branches of government. Here are facts about the Court’s term just concluded:

• The Court issued 72 merits opinions (about average).
• Only 39% of decisions were unanimous (compared with the average of 49% in recent terms).
• On the other hand, 26% of decisions were split 5 to 4 (compared with a 10% recent average).
• In those 5 to 4 decisions, Justices were in the majority as follows²⁸: Justice Gorsuch, 65%; Justice Kavanaugh, 61%; Justice Thomas, 60%; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Alito, each 55%; Justice Breyer, 50%; and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan each at 45%.
• There were 57 dissenting opinions—up from 48 in the previous term.
• What is referred to as “the liberal-conservative split” might seem more profound than it really is: “Every conservative member of the court at some point voted to form a majority with the liberal justices. And every liberal at least once left behind all of his or her usual voting partners to join the conservatives.”²⁹

Continue to: Last, it was a year of personal health issues for...

Last, it was a year of personal health issues for the Court: Justice Ginsburg had a diagnosis of lung cancer and was absent, following surgery, in January. Of retired Justices, Sandra Day O’Connor suffers from dementia and former Justice John Paul Stevens died.

In closing

The Court has accepted approximately 50 cases for the current term, which began on October 7. The first 2 days of the term were spent on arguments about, first, whether a state can abolish the insanity defense and, second, whether nondiscrimination laws (“based on sex”) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. Cases also will deal with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act payments to providers; the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; the death penalty; and international child custody disputes. The Court will be accepting more cases for several months. It promises to be a very interesting term.

The most recently concluded term of the US Supreme Court, which began on October 1, 2018, yielded a number of decisions of interest to health care professionals and to ObGyns in particular. Although the term was viewed by some observers as less consequential than other recent terms, a review of the cases decided paints a picture of a more important term than some commentators expected.

When the term began, the Court had only 8 justices—1 short of a full bench: Judge Brett Kavanaugh had not yet been confirmed by the Senate. He was confirmed on October 6, by a 50-48 vote, and Justice Kavanaugh immediately joined the Court and began to hear and decide cases.

Increasingly, important decisions affect medical practice

From the nature of practice (abortion), to payment for service (Medicare reimbursement), resolution of disputes (arbitration), and fraud and abuse (the federal False Claims Act), the decisions of the Court will have an impact on many areas of medical practice. Organized medicine increasingly has recognized the significance of the work of the Court; nowhere has this been more clearly demonstrated than with amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs filed by medical organizations.

Amicus curiae briefs. These briefs are filed by persons or organizations not a party to a case the Court is hearing. Their legitimate purpose is to inform the Court of 1) special information within the expertise of the amicus (or amici, plural) or 2) consequences of the decision that might not be apparent from arguments made by the parties to the case. Sometimes, the Court cites amicus briefs for having provided important information about the case.

Filing amicus briefs is time-consuming and expensive; organizations do not file them for trivial reasons. Organizations frequently join together to file a joint brief, to share expenses and express to the Court a stronger position.

Three categories of health professionals file amicus briefs in ObGyn-related cases:

• Major national organizations, often representing broad interests of health care professions or institutions (the American Medical Association [AMA], the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Hospital Association [AHA]), have filed a number of amicus briefs over the years.
• Specialty boards increasingly file amicus briefs. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have filed briefs related to abortion issues.
• In reproductive issues, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations have been active amicus filers—frequently taking positions different than, even inconsistent with, amicus briefs filed by major specialty boards.

Amicus briefs filed by medical associations provide strong clues to what is important to clinicians. We have looked at such briefs to help us identify topics and cases from the just-concluded term that can be of particular interest to you.

Continue to: Surveying the shadow docket...

Surveying the shadow docket. As part of our review of the past term, we also looked at the so-called shadow docket, which includes decisions regarding writs of certiorari (which cases it agrees to hear); stays (usually delaying implementation of a law); or denials of stays. (Persuading the Court to hear a case is not easy: It hears approximately 70 cases per year out of as many as 7,000 applications to be heard.)

Abortion ruling

At stake. A number of states recently enacted a variety of provisions that might make an abortion more difficult to obtain. Some of the cases challenging these restrictions are making their way through lower courts, and one day might be argued before the Supreme Court. However, the Court has not (yet) agreed to hear the substance of many new abortion-related provisions.

Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.

The Court decided only 1 abortion restriction case this term.¹ The Indiana law in question included 2 provisions that the Court considered:

Disposal of remains. The law regulated the manner in which abortion providers can dispose of fetal remains (ie, they cannot be treated as “infectious and pathologic waste”).

Motivation for seeking abortion. The Indiana law makes it illegal for an abortion provider to perform an abortion when the provider knows that the mother is seeking that abortion “solely” because of the fetus’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics.

Final rulings. The Court held that the disposal-of-remains provision is constitutional. The provision is “rationally related to the state’s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.”² Planned Parenthood had not raised the issue of whether the law might impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, so the Court did not decide that issue.

The Court did not consider the constitutionality of the part of the law proscribing certain reasons for seeking an otherwise legal abortion; instead, it awaits lower courts’ review of the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an extensive concurring opinion suggesting that this law is intended to avoid abortion to achieve eugenic goals.³

Key developments from the shadow docket

The Court issued a stay preventing a Louisiana statute that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital from going into effect, pending the outcome of litigation about that law.⁴ Four dissenters noted that all 4 physicians who perform abortions in Louisiana have such privileges. Chief Justice Roberts was the fifth vote to grant the stay. This case likely will make its way back to the Court, as will a number of other state laws being adopted. The issue may be back as soon as the term just starting.

The Court is also considering whether to take another Indiana case, Box v Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (Box II). This case involves an Indiana ultrasonography viewing option as part of the abortion consent process.⁵

The Court declined to hear cases from Louisiana and Kansas in which the states had cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Lower courts had stopped the implementation of those laws.⁶ The legal issue was whether private parties, as opposed to the federal government, had standing to bring the case. For now, the decision of the lower courts to stop implementation of the funding cutoff is in effect. There is a split in the Circuit Courts on the issue, however, making it likely that the Supreme Court will have to resolve it sooner or later.

Health care organizations have filed a number of amicus briefs in these and other cases involving new abortion regulations. ACOG and others filed a brief opposing a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby facility,⁷ and a brief opposing a similar Oklahoma law.⁸ The Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others filed amicus curiae briefs in Box II⁹ and in an Alabama case involving so-called dismemberment abortion.¹⁰

Continue to: Medicare payments...

Medicare payments

Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services v Allina Health Services, et al¹¹

This case drew interest—and many amicus briefs—from health care providers, including the AMA and the AHA.^12,13 There was good reason for their interest: First, the case involved more than $3 billion in reimbursements; second, it represented a potentially important precedent about the rights of providers and patients to comment on Medicare reimbursement changes. The question involved the technical calculation of additional payments made to institutions that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients (known as Medicare Fractions).

At stake. The issue was a statutory requirement for a 60-day public notice and comment period for rules that “change a substantive legal standard” governing the scope of benefits, eligibility, or payment for services.¹⁴ In 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Obama administration posted a spreadsheet announcing Medicare fractions rates for hospitals (for 2012)—without formal notice or comment regarding the formula used. (The spreadsheet listed what each qualifying institution would receive, but it was based on a formula that, as noted, had not been subject to public notice and comment.) The AMA and AHA briefs emphasized the importance of a notice and comment period, especially when Medicare reimbursement is involved.

Final ruling. The Court held that the HHS process violated the notice and comment provision, thereby invalidating the policy underlying the so-called spreadsheet reimbursement. The decision was significant: This was a careful statutory interpretation of the 60-day notice and comment period, not the reimbursement policy itself. Presumably, had the HHS Secretary provided for sufficient notice and comment, the formula used would have met the requirements for issuing reimbursement formulas.

Key points. Hospitals will collectively receive $3 or $4 billion as a consequence of the ruling. Perhaps more importantly, the decision signals that HHS is going to have to take seriously the requirement that it publish Medicare-related reimbursement policies for the 60-day period.

Liability under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (FCA) protects the federal government from fraudulent claims for payment and for shoddy goods and services. It incentivizes (by a percentage of recovery) private parties to bring cases to enforce the law.¹⁵ (Of course, the federal government also enforces the Act.)

At stake. The FCA has been of considerable concern to the AHA, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and other health care organizations—understandably so.¹⁶ As the AHA informed the Court in an amicus brief, “The prevalence of [FCA] cases has ballooned over the past three decades.... These suits disproportionately target healthcare entities.... Of the 767 new FCA cases filed in 2018, for example, 506 involved healthcare defendants.”¹⁷

Final ruling. The Court considered an ambiguity in the statute of limitations for these actions and the Court unanimously ruled to permit an extended time in which qui tam actions (private actions under the law) can be filed.¹⁸

Key points. As long a period as 10 years can pass between the time an FCA violation occurs and an action is brought. This decision is likely to increase the number of FCA actions against health care providers because the case can be filed many years after the conduct that gave rise to the complaint.

Continue to: Registering sex offenders...

Registering sex offenders

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).¹⁹ Sex offenders must register and periodically report, in person, to law enforcement in every state in which the offender works, studies, or resides.

At stake. The case involved the applicability of SORNA registration obligations to those convicted of sex offenses before SORNA was adopted (pre-Act offenders).²⁰ The court upheld registration requirements for pre-Act offenders.

Arbitration

The Court continued its practice of deciding at least one case each term that emphasizes that federal law requires that courts rather strictly enforce agreements to arbitrate (instead of to litigate) future disputes.²¹ In another case, the Court ruled that there can be “class” or “joint” arbitration only if the agreement to arbitrate a dispute clearly permits such class arbitration.²²

Pharma’s liability regarding product risk

The Court somewhat limited the liability of pharmaceutical companies for failing to provide adequate warning about the risk that their products pose. The case against Merck involved 500 patients who took denosumab (Fosamax) and suffered atypical femoral fractures.²³

At stake. Because prescribing information (in which warnings are provided) must be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the legal test is: Would the FDA have refused to approve a change in the warning if Merck had “fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning” required by state law to avoid liability?^24,25 Lower-court judges (not juries) will be expected to apply this test in the future.

The doctor and the death penalty

The Court has established a rule that, when a prisoner facing capital punishment objects to a form of execution because it is too painful, he has to propose an alternative that is reasonably available. In one case,²⁶ a physician, an expert witness for the prisoner, did not answer some essential relative-pain questions (ie, would one procedure be more painful than another?).

At stake. The AMA filed an amicus brief in this case, indicating that it is unethical for physicians to participate in an execution. The brief noted that “testimony used to determine which method of execution would reduce physical suffering would constitute physician participation in capital punishment and would be unethical.”²⁷

The expert witness’s failure to answer the question on relative pain had the unfortunate result of reducing the likelihood that the prisoner would prevail in his request for an alternative method of execution.

Analysis

Despite obvious disagreements about big issues (notably, abortion and the death penalty) the Court maintained a courteous and civil demeanor—something not always seen nowadays in other branches of government. Here are facts about the Court’s term just concluded:

• The Court issued 72 merits opinions (about average).
• Only 39% of decisions were unanimous (compared with the average of 49% in recent terms).
• On the other hand, 26% of decisions were split 5 to 4 (compared with a 10% recent average).
• In those 5 to 4 decisions, Justices were in the majority as follows²⁸: Justice Gorsuch, 65%; Justice Kavanaugh, 61%; Justice Thomas, 60%; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Alito, each 55%; Justice Breyer, 50%; and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan each at 45%.
• There were 57 dissenting opinions—up from 48 in the previous term.
• What is referred to as “the liberal-conservative split” might seem more profound than it really is: “Every conservative member of the court at some point voted to form a majority with the liberal justices. And every liberal at least once left behind all of his or her usual voting partners to join the conservatives.”²⁹

Continue to: Last, it was a year of personal health issues for...

Last, it was a year of personal health issues for the Court: Justice Ginsburg had a diagnosis of lung cancer and was absent, following surgery, in January. Of retired Justices, Sandra Day O’Connor suffers from dementia and former Justice John Paul Stevens died.

In closing

The Court has accepted approximately 50 cases for the current term, which began on October 7. The first 2 days of the term were spent on arguments about, first, whether a state can abolish the insanity defense and, second, whether nondiscrimination laws (“based on sex”) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. Cases also will deal with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act payments to providers; the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; the death penalty; and international child custody disputes. The Court will be accepting more cases for several months. It promises to be a very interesting term.

Whenever Don McLean is asked what the lyrics to his iconic song “American Pie” mean, he answers: “They mean that I don’t have to work anymore.”

It would be nice if those of us who have never written an enigmatic hit tune could receive an unequivocal signal when it’s safe to retire. Unfortunately, the road to retirement is fraught with challenges, not least of which is locating the right off-ramp.

We tend to live longer than planned, so we run the risk of outliving our savings, which are often underfunded to begin with. And we don’t face facts about end-of-life care. Few of us have long-term care insurance, or the means to self-fund an extended long-term care situation, as I will discuss next month.

Many of us lack a clear idea of where our retirement income will come from, or if it will be there when we arrive. Doctors in particular are notorious for mismanaging their investments. Many try to self-manage retirement plans and personal savings without adequate time or knowledge to do it right. Involving a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

So, assuming you have a solid savings plan, and solid help with its management – how will you know when you can safely retire? As with everything else, it depends; but to arrive at any sort of reliable ballpark figure, you’ll need to know three things: how much you realistically expect to spend annually after retirement; how much principal will throw off that amount in interest and dividends each year; and how far your present savings are from that target.

An oft-quoted rule of thumb is that, in retirement, your expenses will be about 70% of what they are now. In my opinion, that’s nonsense. While a few bills, such as disability and malpractice insurance premiums, will go away, other costs, such as recreation and medical care, will increase. I suggest assuming that your spending will not diminish significantly in retirement. Those of us who love travel or fancy toys may need even more.

Once you have an estimate of your annual retirement expenses, you’ll need to determine how much principal you’ll need – usually in fixed pensions and invested assets – to generate that income. Most financial advisors use the 5% rule: Assume your nest egg will pay you a conservative 5% of its value each year in dividends and interest. That rule has worked well, on average, over the long term. So if you estimate your postretirement spending will be around $100,000 per year (in today’s dollars), you’ll need about $2 million in assets. For $200,000 annual spending, you’ll need $4 million. (Should you factor in Social Security? Yes, if you’re 50 years or older; if you’re younger, I wouldn’t count on receiving any entitlements, and be pleasantly surprised if you do.)

How do you accumulate that kind of money? Financial experts say too many physicians invest too aggressively. For retirement, safety is the key. The most foolproof strategy – seldom employed, because it’s boring – is to sock away a fixed amount per month (after your retirement plan has been funded) in a mutual fund. $1,000 per month for 25 years with the market earning 10% (its historic long-term average) comes to almost $2 million, with the power of compounded interest working for you. And the earlier you start, the better.

It is never too soon to think about retirement. Young physicians often defer contributing to their retirement plans because they want to save for a new house or for college for their children. But there are tangible tax benefits that you get now, because your contributions usually reduce your taxable income, and your funds grow tax free until you withdraw them, presumably in a lower tax bracket.

At any age, it’s hard to motivate yourself to save, because it generally requires spending less money now. The way I do it is to pay myself first; that is, each month I make my regular savings contribution before considering any new purchases.

In the end, the strategy is very straightforward: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start, the better.

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].

Whenever Don McLean is asked what the lyrics to his iconic song “American Pie” mean, he answers: “They mean that I don’t have to work anymore.”

It would be nice if those of us who have never written an enigmatic hit tune could receive an unequivocal signal when it’s safe to retire. Unfortunately, the road to retirement is fraught with challenges, not least of which is locating the right off-ramp.

We tend to live longer than planned, so we run the risk of outliving our savings, which are often underfunded to begin with. And we don’t face facts about end-of-life care. Few of us have long-term care insurance, or the means to self-fund an extended long-term care situation, as I will discuss next month.

Many of us lack a clear idea of where our retirement income will come from, or if it will be there when we arrive. Doctors in particular are notorious for mismanaging their investments. Many try to self-manage retirement plans and personal savings without adequate time or knowledge to do it right. Involving a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

So, assuming you have a solid savings plan, and solid help with its management – how will you know when you can safely retire? As with everything else, it depends; but to arrive at any sort of reliable ballpark figure, you’ll need to know three things: how much you realistically expect to spend annually after retirement; how much principal will throw off that amount in interest and dividends each year; and how far your present savings are from that target.

An oft-quoted rule of thumb is that, in retirement, your expenses will be about 70% of what they are now. In my opinion, that’s nonsense. While a few bills, such as disability and malpractice insurance premiums, will go away, other costs, such as recreation and medical care, will increase. I suggest assuming that your spending will not diminish significantly in retirement. Those of us who love travel or fancy toys may need even more.

Once you have an estimate of your annual retirement expenses, you’ll need to determine how much principal you’ll need – usually in fixed pensions and invested assets – to generate that income. Most financial advisors use the 5% rule: Assume your nest egg will pay you a conservative 5% of its value each year in dividends and interest. That rule has worked well, on average, over the long term. So if you estimate your postretirement spending will be around $100,000 per year (in today’s dollars), you’ll need about $2 million in assets. For $200,000 annual spending, you’ll need $4 million. (Should you factor in Social Security? Yes, if you’re 50 years or older; if you’re younger, I wouldn’t count on receiving any entitlements, and be pleasantly surprised if you do.)

How do you accumulate that kind of money? Financial experts say too many physicians invest too aggressively. For retirement, safety is the key. The most foolproof strategy – seldom employed, because it’s boring – is to sock away a fixed amount per month (after your retirement plan has been funded) in a mutual fund. $1,000 per month for 25 years with the market earning 10% (its historic long-term average) comes to almost $2 million, with the power of compounded interest working for you. And the earlier you start, the better.

It is never too soon to think about retirement. Young physicians often defer contributing to their retirement plans because they want to save for a new house or for college for their children. But there are tangible tax benefits that you get now, because your contributions usually reduce your taxable income, and your funds grow tax free until you withdraw them, presumably in a lower tax bracket.

At any age, it’s hard to motivate yourself to save, because it generally requires spending less money now. The way I do it is to pay myself first; that is, each month I make my regular savings contribution before considering any new purchases.

In the end, the strategy is very straightforward: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start, the better.

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].

Whenever Don McLean is asked what the lyrics to his iconic song “American Pie” mean, he answers: “They mean that I don’t have to work anymore.”

It would be nice if those of us who have never written an enigmatic hit tune could receive an unequivocal signal when it’s safe to retire. Unfortunately, the road to retirement is fraught with challenges, not least of which is locating the right off-ramp.

We tend to live longer than planned, so we run the risk of outliving our savings, which are often underfunded to begin with. And we don’t face facts about end-of-life care. Few of us have long-term care insurance, or the means to self-fund an extended long-term care situation, as I will discuss next month.

Many of us lack a clear idea of where our retirement income will come from, or if it will be there when we arrive. Doctors in particular are notorious for mismanaging their investments. Many try to self-manage retirement plans and personal savings without adequate time or knowledge to do it right. Involving a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

So, assuming you have a solid savings plan, and solid help with its management – how will you know when you can safely retire? As with everything else, it depends; but to arrive at any sort of reliable ballpark figure, you’ll need to know three things: how much you realistically expect to spend annually after retirement; how much principal will throw off that amount in interest and dividends each year; and how far your present savings are from that target.

An oft-quoted rule of thumb is that, in retirement, your expenses will be about 70% of what they are now. In my opinion, that’s nonsense. While a few bills, such as disability and malpractice insurance premiums, will go away, other costs, such as recreation and medical care, will increase. I suggest assuming that your spending will not diminish significantly in retirement. Those of us who love travel or fancy toys may need even more.

Once you have an estimate of your annual retirement expenses, you’ll need to determine how much principal you’ll need – usually in fixed pensions and invested assets – to generate that income. Most financial advisors use the 5% rule: Assume your nest egg will pay you a conservative 5% of its value each year in dividends and interest. That rule has worked well, on average, over the long term. So if you estimate your postretirement spending will be around $100,000 per year (in today’s dollars), you’ll need about $2 million in assets. For $200,000 annual spending, you’ll need $4 million. (Should you factor in Social Security? Yes, if you’re 50 years or older; if you’re younger, I wouldn’t count on receiving any entitlements, and be pleasantly surprised if you do.)

How do you accumulate that kind of money? Financial experts say too many physicians invest too aggressively. For retirement, safety is the key. The most foolproof strategy – seldom employed, because it’s boring – is to sock away a fixed amount per month (after your retirement plan has been funded) in a mutual fund. $1,000 per month for 25 years with the market earning 10% (its historic long-term average) comes to almost $2 million, with the power of compounded interest working for you. And the earlier you start, the better.

It is never too soon to think about retirement. Young physicians often defer contributing to their retirement plans because they want to save for a new house or for college for their children. But there are tangible tax benefits that you get now, because your contributions usually reduce your taxable income, and your funds grow tax free until you withdraw them, presumably in a lower tax bracket.

At any age, it’s hard to motivate yourself to save, because it generally requires spending less money now. The way I do it is to pay myself first; that is, each month I make my regular savings contribution before considering any new purchases.

In the end, the strategy is very straightforward: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start, the better.

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].

Insurance, so goes the hoary cliché, is the one product you buy hoping never to use. While no one enjoys foreseeing unforeseeable calamities, if you haven’t reviewed your insurance coverage recently, there is no time like the present.

Malpractice premiums continue to rise, despite token “pain and suffering” caps in a few states. “Occurrence” policies remain the coverage of choice, but the cost has become prohibitive in many areas, when insurers are willing to write them at all. “Claims made” policies are cheaper and provide the same protection, but only while coverage is in effect. You will need “tail” coverage against belated claims after your policy lapses, but many companies provide free tail coverage if you are retiring. If you are simply switching workplaces (or policies), ask your new insurer about “nose” coverage, for claims involving acts that occurred before the new policy takes effect.

Other alternatives are gaining popularity as the demand for reasonably priced insurance increases. The most common, known as reciprocal exchanges, are very similar to traditional insurers, but require policyholders to make capital contributions in addition to payment of premiums, at least in their early stages. You get your investment back, with interest, when (if) the exchange becomes solvent.

Another option, called a captive, is a company formed by a consortium of medical practices to write their own insurance policies. All participants are shareholders, and all premiums (less administrative expenses) go toward building the security of the captive. Most captives purchase reinsurance to protect against catastrophic losses. If all goes well, individual owners sell their shares at retirement for a profit, which has grown tax-free in the interim.

Those willing to shoulder more risk might consider a risk retention group (RRG), a sort of combination of an exchange and a captive. Again, the owners are the insureds themselves, but all responsibility for management and adequate funding falls on their shoulders, and reinsurance is not usually an option. Most medical malpractice RRGs are licensed in Vermont or South Carolina, because of favorable laws in those states, but can be based in any state that allows them (36 at this writing). RRGs provide profit opportunities not available with traditional insurance, but there is risk: A few large claims could eat up all the profits, or even put owners in a financial hole.

Malpractice insurance requirements will remain fairly static throughout your career, but other insurance needs evolve over time. A good example is life insurance: As retirement savings increase, the need for life insurance decreases – especially expensive “whole life” coverage, which can often be eliminated or converted to cheaper “term” insurance.

Health insurance premiums continue to soar, but the Affordable Care Act might offer a favorable alternative for your office policy. If you are considering that, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services maintains a website summarizing the various options for employers.

Worker compensation insurance is mandatory in most states and heavily regulated, so there is little wiggle room. However, some states do not require you, as the employer, to cover yourself, so eliminating that coverage could save you a substantial amount. This is only worth considering, of course, if you’re in excellent health and have very good personal health and disability coverage.

Disability insurance is not something to skimp on, but if you are approaching retirement age and have no major health issues, you may be able to decrease your coverage, or even eliminate it entirely if your retirement plan is far enough along.

Liability insurance is likewise no place to pinch pennies, but you might be able to add an “umbrella” policy providing comprehensive catastrophic coverage, which may allow you to decrease your regular coverage, or raise your deductible limits.

Two additional policies to consider are office overhead insurance, to cover the costs of keeping your office open should you be temporarily incapacitated, and employee practices liability insurance (EPLI), which protects you from lawsuits brought by militant or disgruntled employees. I covered EPLI in detail several months ago.

If you are over 50, I strongly recommend long-term-care insurance as well. It’s relatively inexpensive if you buy it while you’re still healthy, and it could save you and your heirs a load of money and aggravation on the other end. If you have shouldered the expense of caring for a chronically ill parent or grandparent, you know what I’m talking about. More about that next month.

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].

Insurance, so goes the hoary cliché, is the one product you buy hoping never to use. While no one enjoys foreseeing unforeseeable calamities, if you haven’t reviewed your insurance coverage recently, there is no time like the present.

Malpractice premiums continue to rise, despite token “pain and suffering” caps in a few states. “Occurrence” policies remain the coverage of choice, but the cost has become prohibitive in many areas, when insurers are willing to write them at all. “Claims made” policies are cheaper and provide the same protection, but only while coverage is in effect. You will need “tail” coverage against belated claims after your policy lapses, but many companies provide free tail coverage if you are retiring. If you are simply switching workplaces (or policies), ask your new insurer about “nose” coverage, for claims involving acts that occurred before the new policy takes effect.

Other alternatives are gaining popularity as the demand for reasonably priced insurance increases. The most common, known as reciprocal exchanges, are very similar to traditional insurers, but require policyholders to make capital contributions in addition to payment of premiums, at least in their early stages. You get your investment back, with interest, when (if) the exchange becomes solvent.

Another option, called a captive, is a company formed by a consortium of medical practices to write their own insurance policies. All participants are shareholders, and all premiums (less administrative expenses) go toward building the security of the captive. Most captives purchase reinsurance to protect against catastrophic losses. If all goes well, individual owners sell their shares at retirement for a profit, which has grown tax-free in the interim.

Those willing to shoulder more risk might consider a risk retention group (RRG), a sort of combination of an exchange and a captive. Again, the owners are the insureds themselves, but all responsibility for management and adequate funding falls on their shoulders, and reinsurance is not usually an option. Most medical malpractice RRGs are licensed in Vermont or South Carolina, because of favorable laws in those states, but can be based in any state that allows them (36 at this writing). RRGs provide profit opportunities not available with traditional insurance, but there is risk: A few large claims could eat up all the profits, or even put owners in a financial hole.

Malpractice insurance requirements will remain fairly static throughout your career, but other insurance needs evolve over time. A good example is life insurance: As retirement savings increase, the need for life insurance decreases – especially expensive “whole life” coverage, which can often be eliminated or converted to cheaper “term” insurance.

Health insurance premiums continue to soar, but the Affordable Care Act might offer a favorable alternative for your office policy. If you are considering that, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services maintains a website summarizing the various options for employers.

Worker compensation insurance is mandatory in most states and heavily regulated, so there is little wiggle room. However, some states do not require you, as the employer, to cover yourself, so eliminating that coverage could save you a substantial amount. This is only worth considering, of course, if you’re in excellent health and have very good personal health and disability coverage.

Disability insurance is not something to skimp on, but if you are approaching retirement age and have no major health issues, you may be able to decrease your coverage, or even eliminate it entirely if your retirement plan is far enough along.

Liability insurance is likewise no place to pinch pennies, but you might be able to add an “umbrella” policy providing comprehensive catastrophic coverage, which may allow you to decrease your regular coverage, or raise your deductible limits.

Two additional policies to consider are office overhead insurance, to cover the costs of keeping your office open should you be temporarily incapacitated, and employee practices liability insurance (EPLI), which protects you from lawsuits brought by militant or disgruntled employees. I covered EPLI in detail several months ago.

If you are over 50, I strongly recommend long-term-care insurance as well. It’s relatively inexpensive if you buy it while you’re still healthy, and it could save you and your heirs a load of money and aggravation on the other end. If you have shouldered the expense of caring for a chronically ill parent or grandparent, you know what I’m talking about. More about that next month.

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].

Insurance, so goes the hoary cliché, is the one product you buy hoping never to use. While no one enjoys foreseeing unforeseeable calamities, if you haven’t reviewed your insurance coverage recently, there is no time like the present.

Malpractice premiums continue to rise, despite token “pain and suffering” caps in a few states. “Occurrence” policies remain the coverage of choice, but the cost has become prohibitive in many areas, when insurers are willing to write them at all. “Claims made” policies are cheaper and provide the same protection, but only while coverage is in effect. You will need “tail” coverage against belated claims after your policy lapses, but many companies provide free tail coverage if you are retiring. If you are simply switching workplaces (or policies), ask your new insurer about “nose” coverage, for claims involving acts that occurred before the new policy takes effect.

Other alternatives are gaining popularity as the demand for reasonably priced insurance increases. The most common, known as reciprocal exchanges, are very similar to traditional insurers, but require policyholders to make capital contributions in addition to payment of premiums, at least in their early stages. You get your investment back, with interest, when (if) the exchange becomes solvent.

Another option, called a captive, is a company formed by a consortium of medical practices to write their own insurance policies. All participants are shareholders, and all premiums (less administrative expenses) go toward building the security of the captive. Most captives purchase reinsurance to protect against catastrophic losses. If all goes well, individual owners sell their shares at retirement for a profit, which has grown tax-free in the interim.

Those willing to shoulder more risk might consider a risk retention group (RRG), a sort of combination of an exchange and a captive. Again, the owners are the insureds themselves, but all responsibility for management and adequate funding falls on their shoulders, and reinsurance is not usually an option. Most medical malpractice RRGs are licensed in Vermont or South Carolina, because of favorable laws in those states, but can be based in any state that allows them (36 at this writing). RRGs provide profit opportunities not available with traditional insurance, but there is risk: A few large claims could eat up all the profits, or even put owners in a financial hole.

Malpractice insurance requirements will remain fairly static throughout your career, but other insurance needs evolve over time. A good example is life insurance: As retirement savings increase, the need for life insurance decreases – especially expensive “whole life” coverage, which can often be eliminated or converted to cheaper “term” insurance.

Health insurance premiums continue to soar, but the Affordable Care Act might offer a favorable alternative for your office policy. If you are considering that, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services maintains a website summarizing the various options for employers.

Worker compensation insurance is mandatory in most states and heavily regulated, so there is little wiggle room. However, some states do not require you, as the employer, to cover yourself, so eliminating that coverage could save you a substantial amount. This is only worth considering, of course, if you’re in excellent health and have very good personal health and disability coverage.

Disability insurance is not something to skimp on, but if you are approaching retirement age and have no major health issues, you may be able to decrease your coverage, or even eliminate it entirely if your retirement plan is far enough along.

Liability insurance is likewise no place to pinch pennies, but you might be able to add an “umbrella” policy providing comprehensive catastrophic coverage, which may allow you to decrease your regular coverage, or raise your deductible limits.

Two additional policies to consider are office overhead insurance, to cover the costs of keeping your office open should you be temporarily incapacitated, and employee practices liability insurance (EPLI), which protects you from lawsuits brought by militant or disgruntled employees. I covered EPLI in detail several months ago.

If you are over 50, I strongly recommend long-term-care insurance as well. It’s relatively inexpensive if you buy it while you’re still healthy, and it could save you and your heirs a load of money and aggravation on the other end. If you have shouldered the expense of caring for a chronically ill parent or grandparent, you know what I’m talking about. More about that next month.

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

The gender wage gap in physician compensation persists but is narrowing. According to information gleaned from self-reported compensation surveys, collected by Doximity and completed by 90,000 full-time, US-licensed physicians, while wages for men idled between 2017 and 2018, they increased for women by 2%.¹ So, whereas the gender wage gap was 27.7% in 2017, it dropped to 25.2% in 2018. This translates to female physicians making $90,490 less than male counterparts in 2018 vs $105,000 less in 2017.¹

Gender wage gap and geography. Metropolitan areas with the smallest gender wage gaps according to the Doximity report include Birmingham, Alabama (9%); Bridgeport, Connecticut (10%); and Seattle, Washington (15%). Areas with the largest gender wage gap include Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky-Indiana (40%); New Orleans, Louisiana (32%); and Austin, Texas (31%).¹

Gender wage gap and specialty. Specialties with the widest gender wage gaps are pediatric pulmonology (23%), otolaryngology (22%), and urology (22%). Those with the narrowest gaps are hematology (4%), rheumatology (8%), and radiation oncology (9%).¹

Interestingly, although female physicians continue to earn less than men across the board, women were the slight majority of US medical school applicants (50.9%) and matriculants (51.6%) in 2018.²

What are physicians earning?

The overall average salary for physicians in 2019 is $313,000, according to a Medscape report, and the average annual compensation for ObGyns is $303,000, up from $300,000 in 2018.³ Doximity’s figure was slightly different; it reported average annual compensation for ObGyns to be $335,000 in 2018, ranking ObGyns 20th in specialties with the highest annual compensation.¹

Compensation by specialty. The specialties with the highest average annual compensation in 2018 according to the Doximity report were neurosurgery ($617K), thoracic surgery ($584K), and orthopedic surgery ($526K). Those with the lowest were pediatric infectious disease ($186K), pediatric endocrinology ($201K), and general pediatrics ($223K).¹

While women make up 61% of the ObGyn workforce, fewer than 15% of cardiologists, urologists, and orthopedists—some of the highest paying specialties—are women, although this alone does not explain the gender wage gap.³

Compensation by employment type. While average annual compensation increased from 2017 to 2018 for physicians working in single specialty groups (1%), multispecialty groups (1%), solo practices (3%), and industry/pharmaceutical (17%), compensation decreased for those working in health maintenance organizations (-1%), hospitals (-7%), and academia (-9%).¹ Only 14% of private practices are owned by female physicians (TABLE 1).¹

Satisfaction with compensation. Exactly half (50%) of ObGyns report feeling fairly compensated.³ Those physicians working in public health and preventive medicine are the most likely to feel fairly compensated (73%), while those working in infectious disease are least likely (42%).³
 

Location matters and may surprise you

Contrary to what many believe, less populated metropolitan areas tend to pay better than larger, more populated cities.¹ This may be because metropolitan areas without academic institutions or nationally renowned health systems tend to offer slightly higher compensation than those with such facilities. The reason? The presence of large or prestigious medical schools ensures a pipeline of viable physician candidates for limited jobs, resulting in institutions and practices needing to pay less for qualified applicants.¹

The 5 markets paying the highest physician salaries in 2018 were (from highest to lowest) Milwaukee; New Orleans; Riverside, California; Minneapolis; and Charlotte, North Carolina. Those paying the lowest were Durham, North Carolina; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio; Virginia Beach; and New Haven, Connecticut.¹ Rural areas continue to have problems luring physicians (see “Cures for the famine of rural physicians?”^3,4).

Job satisfaction

ObGyns rank 16th in terms of specialists who are happiest at work; 27% responded that they were very or extremely happy. Plastic surgeons ranked first in happiness on the job (41%), while those in physical medicine and rehabilitation ranked last (19%).⁵

Physicians as a whole report that the most rewarding part of the job is the gratitude from and relationships with patients, followed by “being good at a what I do”/finding answers/diagnoses, and “knowing that I’m making the world a better place.”³ Three-quarters (74%) of ObGyns would choose medicine again, and 75% would choose the same specialty. Those most likely to choose medicine again are those in infectious disease (84%), while those least likely work in physical medicine and rehabilitation (62%). Those most satisfied with their chosen specialty are ophthalmologists; 96% would choose the specialty again, whereas only 62% of internists would do so.³

Burnout. In a Medscape survey of 15,000 physicians in 29 specialties, 45% of ObGyns reported being burned out.⁵ Another 15% reported being “colloquially” depressed (sad, despondent, but not clinically depressed), and 7% reported clinical depression. While physicians overall most frequently engage in exercise as a coping mechanism, ObGyns most frequently report isolating themselves from others (47%)(TABLE 2).⁶

Across all specialties, more female physicians report being burned out than men (50% vs 39%). The 3 highest contributors to burnout are too many bureaucratic tasks (charting, paperwork), spending too many hours at work/insufficient compensation, and the increasing computerization of practices (electronic health records [EHRs])(TABLE 3).⁶ While 44% of ObGyns report that their feelings of being burned out or depressed do not affect their interactions with patients, 39% say such feelings make them easily exasperated with their patients.⁶ One in five (20%) responding ObGyns reported having had thoughts of suicide (vs 14% for physicians as a whole).^5,6

Sources of frustration on the job

Long hours. Physicians responding to the Medscape survey say that the most frustrating part of their job is having so many rules and regulations, followed by having to work with an EHR, and having to work long hours.³

As for the latter, 60% of responding ObGyns reported working long hours, which places obstetrics/gynecology in the 11th position on a list of specialties with physicians reporting working too many hours.⁵ Surgeons were number 1 with 77% reporting working long hours, and emergency medicine physicians were last with only 13% reporting working long hours.

Paper and administrative tasks. Thirty-eight percent of the physicians responding to the Medscape survey report spending 10 to 19 hours per week on paperwork; another 36% report spending 20 hours or more.³ This is almost identical to last year when the figures were 38% and 32%, respectively. However, the trend in the last few years has been dramatic. In 2017, the total percentage of physicians spending 10 of more hours on paperwork per week was 57%, compared with this year’s 74%.³
 

The gender wage gap in physician compensation persists but is narrowing. According to information gleaned from self-reported compensation surveys, collected by Doximity and completed by 90,000 full-time, US-licensed physicians, while wages for men idled between 2017 and 2018, they increased for women by 2%.¹ So, whereas the gender wage gap was 27.7% in 2017, it dropped to 25.2% in 2018. This translates to female physicians making $90,490 less than male counterparts in 2018 vs $105,000 less in 2017.¹

Gender wage gap and geography. Metropolitan areas with the smallest gender wage gaps according to the Doximity report include Birmingham, Alabama (9%); Bridgeport, Connecticut (10%); and Seattle, Washington (15%). Areas with the largest gender wage gap include Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky-Indiana (40%); New Orleans, Louisiana (32%); and Austin, Texas (31%).¹

Gender wage gap and specialty. Specialties with the widest gender wage gaps are pediatric pulmonology (23%), otolaryngology (22%), and urology (22%). Those with the narrowest gaps are hematology (4%), rheumatology (8%), and radiation oncology (9%).¹

Interestingly, although female physicians continue to earn less than men across the board, women were the slight majority of US medical school applicants (50.9%) and matriculants (51.6%) in 2018.²

What are physicians earning?

The overall average salary for physicians in 2019 is $313,000, according to a Medscape report, and the average annual compensation for ObGyns is $303,000, up from $300,000 in 2018.³ Doximity’s figure was slightly different; it reported average annual compensation for ObGyns to be $335,000 in 2018, ranking ObGyns 20th in specialties with the highest annual compensation.¹

Compensation by specialty. The specialties with the highest average annual compensation in 2018 according to the Doximity report were neurosurgery ($617K), thoracic surgery ($584K), and orthopedic surgery ($526K). Those with the lowest were pediatric infectious disease ($186K), pediatric endocrinology ($201K), and general pediatrics ($223K).¹

While women make up 61% of the ObGyn workforce, fewer than 15% of cardiologists, urologists, and orthopedists—some of the highest paying specialties—are women, although this alone does not explain the gender wage gap.³

Compensation by employment type. While average annual compensation increased from 2017 to 2018 for physicians working in single specialty groups (1%), multispecialty groups (1%), solo practices (3%), and industry/pharmaceutical (17%), compensation decreased for those working in health maintenance organizations (-1%), hospitals (-7%), and academia (-9%).¹ Only 14% of private practices are owned by female physicians (TABLE 1).¹

Satisfaction with compensation. Exactly half (50%) of ObGyns report feeling fairly compensated.³ Those physicians working in public health and preventive medicine are the most likely to feel fairly compensated (73%), while those working in infectious disease are least likely (42%).³
 

Location matters and may surprise you

Contrary to what many believe, less populated metropolitan areas tend to pay better than larger, more populated cities.¹ This may be because metropolitan areas without academic institutions or nationally renowned health systems tend to offer slightly higher compensation than those with such facilities. The reason? The presence of large or prestigious medical schools ensures a pipeline of viable physician candidates for limited jobs, resulting in institutions and practices needing to pay less for qualified applicants.¹

The 5 markets paying the highest physician salaries in 2018 were (from highest to lowest) Milwaukee; New Orleans; Riverside, California; Minneapolis; and Charlotte, North Carolina. Those paying the lowest were Durham, North Carolina; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio; Virginia Beach; and New Haven, Connecticut.¹ Rural areas continue to have problems luring physicians (see “Cures for the famine of rural physicians?”^3,4).

Job satisfaction

ObGyns rank 16th in terms of specialists who are happiest at work; 27% responded that they were very or extremely happy. Plastic surgeons ranked first in happiness on the job (41%), while those in physical medicine and rehabilitation ranked last (19%).⁵

Physicians as a whole report that the most rewarding part of the job is the gratitude from and relationships with patients, followed by “being good at a what I do”/finding answers/diagnoses, and “knowing that I’m making the world a better place.”³ Three-quarters (74%) of ObGyns would choose medicine again, and 75% would choose the same specialty. Those most likely to choose medicine again are those in infectious disease (84%), while those least likely work in physical medicine and rehabilitation (62%). Those most satisfied with their chosen specialty are ophthalmologists; 96% would choose the specialty again, whereas only 62% of internists would do so.³

Burnout. In a Medscape survey of 15,000 physicians in 29 specialties, 45% of ObGyns reported being burned out.⁵ Another 15% reported being “colloquially” depressed (sad, despondent, but not clinically depressed), and 7% reported clinical depression. While physicians overall most frequently engage in exercise as a coping mechanism, ObGyns most frequently report isolating themselves from others (47%)(TABLE 2).⁶

Across all specialties, more female physicians report being burned out than men (50% vs 39%). The 3 highest contributors to burnout are too many bureaucratic tasks (charting, paperwork), spending too many hours at work/insufficient compensation, and the increasing computerization of practices (electronic health records [EHRs])(TABLE 3).⁶ While 44% of ObGyns report that their feelings of being burned out or depressed do not affect their interactions with patients, 39% say such feelings make them easily exasperated with their patients.⁶ One in five (20%) responding ObGyns reported having had thoughts of suicide (vs 14% for physicians as a whole).^5,6

Sources of frustration on the job

Long hours. Physicians responding to the Medscape survey say that the most frustrating part of their job is having so many rules and regulations, followed by having to work with an EHR, and having to work long hours.³

As for the latter, 60% of responding ObGyns reported working long hours, which places obstetrics/gynecology in the 11th position on a list of specialties with physicians reporting working too many hours.⁵ Surgeons were number 1 with 77% reporting working long hours, and emergency medicine physicians were last with only 13% reporting working long hours.

Paper and administrative tasks. Thirty-eight percent of the physicians responding to the Medscape survey report spending 10 to 19 hours per week on paperwork; another 36% report spending 20 hours or more.³ This is almost identical to last year when the figures were 38% and 32%, respectively. However, the trend in the last few years has been dramatic. In 2017, the total percentage of physicians spending 10 of more hours on paperwork per week was 57%, compared with this year’s 74%.³
 

The gender wage gap in physician compensation persists but is narrowing. According to information gleaned from self-reported compensation surveys, collected by Doximity and completed by 90,000 full-time, US-licensed physicians, while wages for men idled between 2017 and 2018, they increased for women by 2%.¹ So, whereas the gender wage gap was 27.7% in 2017, it dropped to 25.2% in 2018. This translates to female physicians making $90,490 less than male counterparts in 2018 vs $105,000 less in 2017.¹

Gender wage gap and geography. Metropolitan areas with the smallest gender wage gaps according to the Doximity report include Birmingham, Alabama (9%); Bridgeport, Connecticut (10%); and Seattle, Washington (15%). Areas with the largest gender wage gap include Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky-Indiana (40%); New Orleans, Louisiana (32%); and Austin, Texas (31%).¹

Gender wage gap and specialty. Specialties with the widest gender wage gaps are pediatric pulmonology (23%), otolaryngology (22%), and urology (22%). Those with the narrowest gaps are hematology (4%), rheumatology (8%), and radiation oncology (9%).¹

Interestingly, although female physicians continue to earn less than men across the board, women were the slight majority of US medical school applicants (50.9%) and matriculants (51.6%) in 2018.²

What are physicians earning?

The overall average salary for physicians in 2019 is $313,000, according to a Medscape report, and the average annual compensation for ObGyns is $303,000, up from $300,000 in 2018.³ Doximity’s figure was slightly different; it reported average annual compensation for ObGyns to be $335,000 in 2018, ranking ObGyns 20th in specialties with the highest annual compensation.¹

Compensation by specialty. The specialties with the highest average annual compensation in 2018 according to the Doximity report were neurosurgery ($617K), thoracic surgery ($584K), and orthopedic surgery ($526K). Those with the lowest were pediatric infectious disease ($186K), pediatric endocrinology ($201K), and general pediatrics ($223K).¹

While women make up 61% of the ObGyn workforce, fewer than 15% of cardiologists, urologists, and orthopedists—some of the highest paying specialties—are women, although this alone does not explain the gender wage gap.³

Compensation by employment type. While average annual compensation increased from 2017 to 2018 for physicians working in single specialty groups (1%), multispecialty groups (1%), solo practices (3%), and industry/pharmaceutical (17%), compensation decreased for those working in health maintenance organizations (-1%), hospitals (-7%), and academia (-9%).¹ Only 14% of private practices are owned by female physicians (TABLE 1).¹

Satisfaction with compensation. Exactly half (50%) of ObGyns report feeling fairly compensated.³ Those physicians working in public health and preventive medicine are the most likely to feel fairly compensated (73%), while those working in infectious disease are least likely (42%).³
 

Location matters and may surprise you

Contrary to what many believe, less populated metropolitan areas tend to pay better than larger, more populated cities.¹ This may be because metropolitan areas without academic institutions or nationally renowned health systems tend to offer slightly higher compensation than those with such facilities. The reason? The presence of large or prestigious medical schools ensures a pipeline of viable physician candidates for limited jobs, resulting in institutions and practices needing to pay less for qualified applicants.¹

The 5 markets paying the highest physician salaries in 2018 were (from highest to lowest) Milwaukee; New Orleans; Riverside, California; Minneapolis; and Charlotte, North Carolina. Those paying the lowest were Durham, North Carolina; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio; Virginia Beach; and New Haven, Connecticut.¹ Rural areas continue to have problems luring physicians (see “Cures for the famine of rural physicians?”^3,4).

Job satisfaction

ObGyns rank 16th in terms of specialists who are happiest at work; 27% responded that they were very or extremely happy. Plastic surgeons ranked first in happiness on the job (41%), while those in physical medicine and rehabilitation ranked last (19%).⁵

Physicians as a whole report that the most rewarding part of the job is the gratitude from and relationships with patients, followed by “being good at a what I do”/finding answers/diagnoses, and “knowing that I’m making the world a better place.”³ Three-quarters (74%) of ObGyns would choose medicine again, and 75% would choose the same specialty. Those most likely to choose medicine again are those in infectious disease (84%), while those least likely work in physical medicine and rehabilitation (62%). Those most satisfied with their chosen specialty are ophthalmologists; 96% would choose the specialty again, whereas only 62% of internists would do so.³

Burnout. In a Medscape survey of 15,000 physicians in 29 specialties, 45% of ObGyns reported being burned out.⁵ Another 15% reported being “colloquially” depressed (sad, despondent, but not clinically depressed), and 7% reported clinical depression. While physicians overall most frequently engage in exercise as a coping mechanism, ObGyns most frequently report isolating themselves from others (47%)(TABLE 2).⁶

Across all specialties, more female physicians report being burned out than men (50% vs 39%). The 3 highest contributors to burnout are too many bureaucratic tasks (charting, paperwork), spending too many hours at work/insufficient compensation, and the increasing computerization of practices (electronic health records [EHRs])(TABLE 3).⁶ While 44% of ObGyns report that their feelings of being burned out or depressed do not affect their interactions with patients, 39% say such feelings make them easily exasperated with their patients.⁶ One in five (20%) responding ObGyns reported having had thoughts of suicide (vs 14% for physicians as a whole).^5,6

Sources of frustration on the job

Long hours. Physicians responding to the Medscape survey say that the most frustrating part of their job is having so many rules and regulations, followed by having to work with an EHR, and having to work long hours.³

As for the latter, 60% of responding ObGyns reported working long hours, which places obstetrics/gynecology in the 11th position on a list of specialties with physicians reporting working too many hours.⁵ Surgeons were number 1 with 77% reporting working long hours, and emergency medicine physicians were last with only 13% reporting working long hours.

Paper and administrative tasks. Thirty-eight percent of the physicians responding to the Medscape survey report spending 10 to 19 hours per week on paperwork; another 36% report spending 20 hours or more.³ This is almost identical to last year when the figures were 38% and 32%, respectively. However, the trend in the last few years has been dramatic. In 2017, the total percentage of physicians spending 10 of more hours on paperwork per week was 57%, compared with this year’s 74%.³