Perspectives

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

We’ve had an organ shortage for many decades now. We can do more transplants than we have organs made available. We try very hard to get organ donation from those who die. That’s a commendable thing to do. I think doctors should always be discussing the opportunity to donate organs upon death, even in primary care settings.

It’s good to find out what people’s attitudes are. Let them learn about organ donation as something they can think about. Let them talk about it with family and friends and partners so that they know their wishes.

However, despite these efforts to encourage organ donation, we still have far fewer organs than we could use to transplant people, many people die on waiting lists because there are no organs to give them, and we’re in a situation where demand for organ transplant is actually increasing.

There is more capacity to do transplants both in the United States and elsewhere, and more people are living longer, so organ failure starts to become more common before, let’s say, terminal illness is really there. Now, we have more people who might benefit from organ transplant in an aging population.

One place to turn to help reduce the shortage of organs is to living donation. At least insofar as kidneys go, kidney donation from living persons has become a prominent source of organs for those who need kidneys – most of whom are surviving on dialysis, by the way, at a very high cost and often with a quality of life that they don’t find particularly easy to accept.

Transplant is far preferred, even though they have to take immunosuppression to keep those organ transplants going, and that has its own risks and side effects. They still get more mobility. They still are able to have a broader diet. They enjoy life far more than they do having to show up for dialysis three times a week for a couple of hours, every week, for every week that they live.

There is an interest in living kidney donation. One battle has been that, well, maybe we could get more kidneys if we just paid people to sell us their kidneys. That has been resisted, and I’ve been resistant to that idea, too, because I worry that it leads to exploitation.

The people who sell their kidneys are poor. They’re often in debt. They feel coerced by their circumstances, so they make a kidney sale. This happens in countries like India, where there are markets underground, and you see that it’s the poorest of the poor who do this, and they don’t really work their way out of debt. They just wind up without a kidney, help relieve their debt a little bit, and pretty soon, because they don’t have a job or an income except that sale of a kidney, they’re not much better off than they were before they started.

Also, people who sell kidneys for money are more likely not to admit to their own health problems, raising risks about the quality of organs. Then, of course, it puts doctors in a position to take out an organ for pay, even though it doesn’t benefit you, so that you can sell it. This raises some questions about whether that’s consistent with medical ethics.

A different idea has emerged. New York State Governor Kathy Hochul just signed legislation that allows living donors to be compensated for legitimate costs. That’s a little different matter. You’re not buying the organ, but you’re saying that if you experience health care problems due to complications from a donation, if you need money for transportation, if you lost money because you did this altruistically and you had to take time off from work and had expenses for a babysitter, restaurants, or other things, the state is going to try to create funds that will compensate you.

That, I think we should agree, is not a bad idea. You’re in a situation there where you don’t want to make people who are heroic, altruistic, and trying to help others by donating a kidney end up financially worse off.

I think there’s a difference between making someone financially whole after the decision to make a kidney available and creating a market where the poorest of the poor come forward to just sell because they see no other choice in terms of how to get rid of debts. I see these situations as not ethically equivalent, so I support efforts to try to compensate people who are our heroes. I don’t think we should ask them to financially suffer.

We’ll watch to see what happens as the New York state law comes into effect. By the way, New York is one of the states that really lags in the supply of organs for transplant, so this measure is particularly important for that state. Many other states should be considering this legislation as well.

It’s one thing to reward, if you will, donors by making sure they don’t suffer financial loss. It’s a very different thing to say, let’s have a free market and we’ll pay whoever it is that’s willing to sell us a kidney to do so. The former seems to me to be humane and just, whereas the latter risks exploitation.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

We’ve had an organ shortage for many decades now. We can do more transplants than we have organs made available. We try very hard to get organ donation from those who die. That’s a commendable thing to do. I think doctors should always be discussing the opportunity to donate organs upon death, even in primary care settings.

It’s good to find out what people’s attitudes are. Let them learn about organ donation as something they can think about. Let them talk about it with family and friends and partners so that they know their wishes.

However, despite these efforts to encourage organ donation, we still have far fewer organs than we could use to transplant people, many people die on waiting lists because there are no organs to give them, and we’re in a situation where demand for organ transplant is actually increasing.

There is more capacity to do transplants both in the United States and elsewhere, and more people are living longer, so organ failure starts to become more common before, let’s say, terminal illness is really there. Now, we have more people who might benefit from organ transplant in an aging population.

One place to turn to help reduce the shortage of organs is to living donation. At least insofar as kidneys go, kidney donation from living persons has become a prominent source of organs for those who need kidneys – most of whom are surviving on dialysis, by the way, at a very high cost and often with a quality of life that they don’t find particularly easy to accept.

Transplant is far preferred, even though they have to take immunosuppression to keep those organ transplants going, and that has its own risks and side effects. They still get more mobility. They still are able to have a broader diet. They enjoy life far more than they do having to show up for dialysis three times a week for a couple of hours, every week, for every week that they live.

There is an interest in living kidney donation. One battle has been that, well, maybe we could get more kidneys if we just paid people to sell us their kidneys. That has been resisted, and I’ve been resistant to that idea, too, because I worry that it leads to exploitation.

The people who sell their kidneys are poor. They’re often in debt. They feel coerced by their circumstances, so they make a kidney sale. This happens in countries like India, where there are markets underground, and you see that it’s the poorest of the poor who do this, and they don’t really work their way out of debt. They just wind up without a kidney, help relieve their debt a little bit, and pretty soon, because they don’t have a job or an income except that sale of a kidney, they’re not much better off than they were before they started.

Also, people who sell kidneys for money are more likely not to admit to their own health problems, raising risks about the quality of organs. Then, of course, it puts doctors in a position to take out an organ for pay, even though it doesn’t benefit you, so that you can sell it. This raises some questions about whether that’s consistent with medical ethics.

A different idea has emerged. New York State Governor Kathy Hochul just signed legislation that allows living donors to be compensated for legitimate costs. That’s a little different matter. You’re not buying the organ, but you’re saying that if you experience health care problems due to complications from a donation, if you need money for transportation, if you lost money because you did this altruistically and you had to take time off from work and had expenses for a babysitter, restaurants, or other things, the state is going to try to create funds that will compensate you.

That, I think we should agree, is not a bad idea. You’re in a situation there where you don’t want to make people who are heroic, altruistic, and trying to help others by donating a kidney end up financially worse off.

I think there’s a difference between making someone financially whole after the decision to make a kidney available and creating a market where the poorest of the poor come forward to just sell because they see no other choice in terms of how to get rid of debts. I see these situations as not ethically equivalent, so I support efforts to try to compensate people who are our heroes. I don’t think we should ask them to financially suffer.

We’ll watch to see what happens as the New York state law comes into effect. By the way, New York is one of the states that really lags in the supply of organs for transplant, so this measure is particularly important for that state. Many other states should be considering this legislation as well.

It’s one thing to reward, if you will, donors by making sure they don’t suffer financial loss. It’s a very different thing to say, let’s have a free market and we’ll pay whoever it is that’s willing to sell us a kidney to do so. The former seems to me to be humane and just, whereas the latter risks exploitation.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

We’ve had an organ shortage for many decades now. We can do more transplants than we have organs made available. We try very hard to get organ donation from those who die. That’s a commendable thing to do. I think doctors should always be discussing the opportunity to donate organs upon death, even in primary care settings.

It’s good to find out what people’s attitudes are. Let them learn about organ donation as something they can think about. Let them talk about it with family and friends and partners so that they know their wishes.

However, despite these efforts to encourage organ donation, we still have far fewer organs than we could use to transplant people, many people die on waiting lists because there are no organs to give them, and we’re in a situation where demand for organ transplant is actually increasing.

There is more capacity to do transplants both in the United States and elsewhere, and more people are living longer, so organ failure starts to become more common before, let’s say, terminal illness is really there. Now, we have more people who might benefit from organ transplant in an aging population.

One place to turn to help reduce the shortage of organs is to living donation. At least insofar as kidneys go, kidney donation from living persons has become a prominent source of organs for those who need kidneys – most of whom are surviving on dialysis, by the way, at a very high cost and often with a quality of life that they don’t find particularly easy to accept.

Transplant is far preferred, even though they have to take immunosuppression to keep those organ transplants going, and that has its own risks and side effects. They still get more mobility. They still are able to have a broader diet. They enjoy life far more than they do having to show up for dialysis three times a week for a couple of hours, every week, for every week that they live.

There is an interest in living kidney donation. One battle has been that, well, maybe we could get more kidneys if we just paid people to sell us their kidneys. That has been resisted, and I’ve been resistant to that idea, too, because I worry that it leads to exploitation.

The people who sell their kidneys are poor. They’re often in debt. They feel coerced by their circumstances, so they make a kidney sale. This happens in countries like India, where there are markets underground, and you see that it’s the poorest of the poor who do this, and they don’t really work their way out of debt. They just wind up without a kidney, help relieve their debt a little bit, and pretty soon, because they don’t have a job or an income except that sale of a kidney, they’re not much better off than they were before they started.

Also, people who sell kidneys for money are more likely not to admit to their own health problems, raising risks about the quality of organs. Then, of course, it puts doctors in a position to take out an organ for pay, even though it doesn’t benefit you, so that you can sell it. This raises some questions about whether that’s consistent with medical ethics.

A different idea has emerged. New York State Governor Kathy Hochul just signed legislation that allows living donors to be compensated for legitimate costs. That’s a little different matter. You’re not buying the organ, but you’re saying that if you experience health care problems due to complications from a donation, if you need money for transportation, if you lost money because you did this altruistically and you had to take time off from work and had expenses for a babysitter, restaurants, or other things, the state is going to try to create funds that will compensate you.

That, I think we should agree, is not a bad idea. You’re in a situation there where you don’t want to make people who are heroic, altruistic, and trying to help others by donating a kidney end up financially worse off.

I think there’s a difference between making someone financially whole after the decision to make a kidney available and creating a market where the poorest of the poor come forward to just sell because they see no other choice in terms of how to get rid of debts. I see these situations as not ethically equivalent, so I support efforts to try to compensate people who are our heroes. I don’t think we should ask them to financially suffer.

We’ll watch to see what happens as the New York state law comes into effect. By the way, New York is one of the states that really lags in the supply of organs for transplant, so this measure is particularly important for that state. Many other states should be considering this legislation as well.

It’s one thing to reward, if you will, donors by making sure they don’t suffer financial loss. It’s a very different thing to say, let’s have a free market and we’ll pay whoever it is that’s willing to sell us a kidney to do so. The former seems to me to be humane and just, whereas the latter risks exploitation.
 

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

When I read the news that Bruce Willis had disclosed his diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), I was reminded that all of us are at risk for spending our final epoch lost in a neurologic swamp. What is remarkable about the swamp that we call FTD is that it’s a somewhat rare and unusual type of dementia. We tend to characterize dementia as the erosion of memory, but FTD is more characterized by the loss of control over emotions and other cognitive functions. What›s especially tragic for performers like Mr. Willis is the loss of the verbal fluency required for delivering one’s lines.

Frontotemporal dementia

To this casual observer, Bruce Willis was an almost invincible force, vigorous, vital, one of the “immortals.” Alas, with his FTD diagnosis, we know that even a die-hard like Mr. Willis, now only 67 years of age, may have to endure years of progressive decline. If the disease follows its typical path, that will probably include slowly disconnecting and progressively losing emotional judgment and control as well as losing a reasonable understanding of what or why any of it is happening. He may also experience a progressive deterioration of the control of bodily functions and general health.

Most people with dementia lose their neurocognitive abilities through a number of different pathways, all of which result in brain shrinkage, disconnection, evident neuropathology, neurobehavioral expressions of loss, and forms of befuddlement. Alzheimer’s disease leads the list as the most common form of dementia, but vascular dementias; dementia with Lewy bodies; “mixed” dementias; dementias associated with Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, or other diseases; dementia rising from alcoholic or other brain poisoning, HIV, Lyme disease, or a host of other brain infections; or from traumatic encephalopathy (chronic or more current) may present at any active neurology clinic. These are what you might think of as your “grandpa’s dementia” – the common types often associated with old age.

FTD is a particularly interesting variant for several reasons. First, it usually arises in relatively young individuals, with initial symptoms emerging in one’s 50s or 60s. In most cases, there is no genetic and, with rare exception, any other explanation of origin – except that old medical standby, bad luck.

Second, FTD has little initial impact on a patient’s broader memory and associated cognitive abilities. The patient will stumble to come up with that next word and ultimately slow down their speech as their brain struggles with verbal fluency; they will struggle with translating their feelings and emotions into fast and appropriate actions expressed in their mind and their physical body while their memory will appear intact.

In all other dementias, cognitive losses can be profound, whereas social and emotional control and voluble speech production are generally better sustained. Imagine the impact that these struggles in verbal fluency and in emotional calibration and response must have for an established actor. By all reports, Mr. Willis vigorously pursued the work that he loved right up until the time of his dementia diagnosis, even as his colleagues would almost certainly have seen that he was struggling. Sadly, a lack of that type of self-awareness is an expected consequence of FTD.
 

The salience network and von Economo neurons

Third and most intriguing to a neuroscientific nerd like me is that patients with FTD experience an initial loss of a special population of cortical neurons located within the salience network in our brains, called the von Economo neurons. That salience network is designed to quickly read and evaluate our complex thoughts and emotions and via those Economo neurons, initiate appropriate neurologic and physical responses.

We share this special von Economo machinery with great apes, whales, elephants, and a handful of other especially social mammalian species.

When we see or hear or otherwise sense something that induces fear, alarm, or a potential reward, the salience network in our brain acts as a kind of gatekeeper. First, it assesses the emergent or changing situation, then it rapidly initiates an emotional and physical response. As I sit with a patient in obvious distress in my office, my salience network turns on an empathetic alarm. My brain and body immediately adjust to initiate appropriately sympathetic reactions. The von Economo neurons – those very neurons that have substantially died off in a brain with FTD – are the linchpins in this fast-response emotion and complex body signal-informed system.

Controlled emotional response is at the heart of our humanity. It’s a sad day when we lose it.

In other neurologic clinical conditions marked by the loss of specific brain cells, different forms of “disuse atrophy” are partly the cause. We don’t know whether that’s the case for FTD. Scientists have shown that specific forms of computerized brain exercises can sharply increase activity levels in the salience network which is linked to improvements in the regulatory control of the autonomic nervous system – one of the key response-mediating targets of the network’s von Economo neurons.

Interestingly, superagers who sustain body and brain health into their 90s (and beyond) die with a full complement of von Economo neurons operating happily in a still-vigorous salience network.

This neuroscientist can foresee a day when we routinely assess the integrity of this important brain system and more reliably maintain its good health. Keeping those very special neurons alive would have probably allowed Mr. Willis to sustain himself on the soundstage and on the grander stage of life for a long time to come. Alas, like so many things in medicine, there is promise. But at this moment for this famous patient, our current medical science appears to be a day late, and a dollar short.

Dr. Merzenichis is professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco, and a Kavli Laureate in Neuroscience. He reported conflicts of interest with the National Institutes of Health, Stronger Brains, and Posit Science.
 

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

When I read the news that Bruce Willis had disclosed his diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), I was reminded that all of us are at risk for spending our final epoch lost in a neurologic swamp. What is remarkable about the swamp that we call FTD is that it’s a somewhat rare and unusual type of dementia. We tend to characterize dementia as the erosion of memory, but FTD is more characterized by the loss of control over emotions and other cognitive functions. What›s especially tragic for performers like Mr. Willis is the loss of the verbal fluency required for delivering one’s lines.

Frontotemporal dementia

To this casual observer, Bruce Willis was an almost invincible force, vigorous, vital, one of the “immortals.” Alas, with his FTD diagnosis, we know that even a die-hard like Mr. Willis, now only 67 years of age, may have to endure years of progressive decline. If the disease follows its typical path, that will probably include slowly disconnecting and progressively losing emotional judgment and control as well as losing a reasonable understanding of what or why any of it is happening. He may also experience a progressive deterioration of the control of bodily functions and general health.

Most people with dementia lose their neurocognitive abilities through a number of different pathways, all of which result in brain shrinkage, disconnection, evident neuropathology, neurobehavioral expressions of loss, and forms of befuddlement. Alzheimer’s disease leads the list as the most common form of dementia, but vascular dementias; dementia with Lewy bodies; “mixed” dementias; dementias associated with Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, or other diseases; dementia rising from alcoholic or other brain poisoning, HIV, Lyme disease, or a host of other brain infections; or from traumatic encephalopathy (chronic or more current) may present at any active neurology clinic. These are what you might think of as your “grandpa’s dementia” – the common types often associated with old age.

FTD is a particularly interesting variant for several reasons. First, it usually arises in relatively young individuals, with initial symptoms emerging in one’s 50s or 60s. In most cases, there is no genetic and, with rare exception, any other explanation of origin – except that old medical standby, bad luck.

Second, FTD has little initial impact on a patient’s broader memory and associated cognitive abilities. The patient will stumble to come up with that next word and ultimately slow down their speech as their brain struggles with verbal fluency; they will struggle with translating their feelings and emotions into fast and appropriate actions expressed in their mind and their physical body while their memory will appear intact.

In all other dementias, cognitive losses can be profound, whereas social and emotional control and voluble speech production are generally better sustained. Imagine the impact that these struggles in verbal fluency and in emotional calibration and response must have for an established actor. By all reports, Mr. Willis vigorously pursued the work that he loved right up until the time of his dementia diagnosis, even as his colleagues would almost certainly have seen that he was struggling. Sadly, a lack of that type of self-awareness is an expected consequence of FTD.
 

The salience network and von Economo neurons

Third and most intriguing to a neuroscientific nerd like me is that patients with FTD experience an initial loss of a special population of cortical neurons located within the salience network in our brains, called the von Economo neurons. That salience network is designed to quickly read and evaluate our complex thoughts and emotions and via those Economo neurons, initiate appropriate neurologic and physical responses.

We share this special von Economo machinery with great apes, whales, elephants, and a handful of other especially social mammalian species.

When we see or hear or otherwise sense something that induces fear, alarm, or a potential reward, the salience network in our brain acts as a kind of gatekeeper. First, it assesses the emergent or changing situation, then it rapidly initiates an emotional and physical response. As I sit with a patient in obvious distress in my office, my salience network turns on an empathetic alarm. My brain and body immediately adjust to initiate appropriately sympathetic reactions. The von Economo neurons – those very neurons that have substantially died off in a brain with FTD – are the linchpins in this fast-response emotion and complex body signal-informed system.

Controlled emotional response is at the heart of our humanity. It’s a sad day when we lose it.

In other neurologic clinical conditions marked by the loss of specific brain cells, different forms of “disuse atrophy” are partly the cause. We don’t know whether that’s the case for FTD. Scientists have shown that specific forms of computerized brain exercises can sharply increase activity levels in the salience network which is linked to improvements in the regulatory control of the autonomic nervous system – one of the key response-mediating targets of the network’s von Economo neurons.

Interestingly, superagers who sustain body and brain health into their 90s (and beyond) die with a full complement of von Economo neurons operating happily in a still-vigorous salience network.

This neuroscientist can foresee a day when we routinely assess the integrity of this important brain system and more reliably maintain its good health. Keeping those very special neurons alive would have probably allowed Mr. Willis to sustain himself on the soundstage and on the grander stage of life for a long time to come. Alas, like so many things in medicine, there is promise. But at this moment for this famous patient, our current medical science appears to be a day late, and a dollar short.

Dr. Merzenichis is professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco, and a Kavli Laureate in Neuroscience. He reported conflicts of interest with the National Institutes of Health, Stronger Brains, and Posit Science.
 

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

When I read the news that Bruce Willis had disclosed his diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), I was reminded that all of us are at risk for spending our final epoch lost in a neurologic swamp. What is remarkable about the swamp that we call FTD is that it’s a somewhat rare and unusual type of dementia. We tend to characterize dementia as the erosion of memory, but FTD is more characterized by the loss of control over emotions and other cognitive functions. What›s especially tragic for performers like Mr. Willis is the loss of the verbal fluency required for delivering one’s lines.

Frontotemporal dementia

To this casual observer, Bruce Willis was an almost invincible force, vigorous, vital, one of the “immortals.” Alas, with his FTD diagnosis, we know that even a die-hard like Mr. Willis, now only 67 years of age, may have to endure years of progressive decline. If the disease follows its typical path, that will probably include slowly disconnecting and progressively losing emotional judgment and control as well as losing a reasonable understanding of what or why any of it is happening. He may also experience a progressive deterioration of the control of bodily functions and general health.

Most people with dementia lose their neurocognitive abilities through a number of different pathways, all of which result in brain shrinkage, disconnection, evident neuropathology, neurobehavioral expressions of loss, and forms of befuddlement. Alzheimer’s disease leads the list as the most common form of dementia, but vascular dementias; dementia with Lewy bodies; “mixed” dementias; dementias associated with Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, or other diseases; dementia rising from alcoholic or other brain poisoning, HIV, Lyme disease, or a host of other brain infections; or from traumatic encephalopathy (chronic or more current) may present at any active neurology clinic. These are what you might think of as your “grandpa’s dementia” – the common types often associated with old age.

FTD is a particularly interesting variant for several reasons. First, it usually arises in relatively young individuals, with initial symptoms emerging in one’s 50s or 60s. In most cases, there is no genetic and, with rare exception, any other explanation of origin – except that old medical standby, bad luck.

Second, FTD has little initial impact on a patient’s broader memory and associated cognitive abilities. The patient will stumble to come up with that next word and ultimately slow down their speech as their brain struggles with verbal fluency; they will struggle with translating their feelings and emotions into fast and appropriate actions expressed in their mind and their physical body while their memory will appear intact.

In all other dementias, cognitive losses can be profound, whereas social and emotional control and voluble speech production are generally better sustained. Imagine the impact that these struggles in verbal fluency and in emotional calibration and response must have for an established actor. By all reports, Mr. Willis vigorously pursued the work that he loved right up until the time of his dementia diagnosis, even as his colleagues would almost certainly have seen that he was struggling. Sadly, a lack of that type of self-awareness is an expected consequence of FTD.
 

The salience network and von Economo neurons

Third and most intriguing to a neuroscientific nerd like me is that patients with FTD experience an initial loss of a special population of cortical neurons located within the salience network in our brains, called the von Economo neurons. That salience network is designed to quickly read and evaluate our complex thoughts and emotions and via those Economo neurons, initiate appropriate neurologic and physical responses.

We share this special von Economo machinery with great apes, whales, elephants, and a handful of other especially social mammalian species.

When we see or hear or otherwise sense something that induces fear, alarm, or a potential reward, the salience network in our brain acts as a kind of gatekeeper. First, it assesses the emergent or changing situation, then it rapidly initiates an emotional and physical response. As I sit with a patient in obvious distress in my office, my salience network turns on an empathetic alarm. My brain and body immediately adjust to initiate appropriately sympathetic reactions. The von Economo neurons – those very neurons that have substantially died off in a brain with FTD – are the linchpins in this fast-response emotion and complex body signal-informed system.

Controlled emotional response is at the heart of our humanity. It’s a sad day when we lose it.

In other neurologic clinical conditions marked by the loss of specific brain cells, different forms of “disuse atrophy” are partly the cause. We don’t know whether that’s the case for FTD. Scientists have shown that specific forms of computerized brain exercises can sharply increase activity levels in the salience network which is linked to improvements in the regulatory control of the autonomic nervous system – one of the key response-mediating targets of the network’s von Economo neurons.

Interestingly, superagers who sustain body and brain health into their 90s (and beyond) die with a full complement of von Economo neurons operating happily in a still-vigorous salience network.

This neuroscientist can foresee a day when we routinely assess the integrity of this important brain system and more reliably maintain its good health. Keeping those very special neurons alive would have probably allowed Mr. Willis to sustain himself on the soundstage and on the grander stage of life for a long time to come. Alas, like so many things in medicine, there is promise. But at this moment for this famous patient, our current medical science appears to be a day late, and a dollar short.

Dr. Merzenichis is professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco, and a Kavli Laureate in Neuroscience. He reported conflicts of interest with the National Institutes of Health, Stronger Brains, and Posit Science.
 

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

“Just Do It” is a cute marketing slogan. But let’s face it: Clinically, it doesn’t work well. Most people just don’t exercise. The recommended amount of weekly physical activity is 2.5 hours (150 minutes), but less than half of adults over 18 meet the guidelines for aerobic exercise, according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Furthermore, when surveyed about aerobic exercise and strength training, only 24.6% meet these weekly recommendations. These low rates of physical activity are alarming, given the immense benefits of exercise in improving mental and physical health and well-being.

Many people know that exercise is good for them but struggle to go workout consistently. I know firsthand how challenging this can be. In addition to being an integrative obesity specialist, I have gone from 0 minutes of physical activity in 2014 to becoming a fitness enthusiast who’s run more than 5,300 miles over 8 years. I know that as doctors and clinicians, we can profoundly influence our patients’ exercise journey.

Here are five tips to help motivate your patients make the change from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”
 

Tip 1: ‘[Clinician], heal thyself’

Data don’t lie. Doctors who move more are more likely to counsel patients on exercise. I’ve been the doctor on both sides of the exercise spectrum. At my heaviest weight and lowest physical activity level, I felt hypocritical counseling patients on exercise.

If and when I counseled my patients on exercise, it was very directive and impersonal. When I started running consistently, I went to the opposite end of the spectrum. In my running zeal, it took a while for me to understand that not everyone wants to run dozens of miles a week. Shocking! Some people can’t handle intense workouts. The “I did it so you can too” perspective wasn’t helpful for long-term change in most patients.

What has been beneficial is recalling the obstacles and emotions I had (and still have) with staying consistent with physical activity. When physicians and clinicians move regularly, we’re more equipped to give our patients genuine counseling based on practicality rather than theory.

Now that self-reflection has been addressed, let’s get to patient counseling.
 

Tip 2: Motivate, don’t berate

Lectures on why patients should exercise are less helpful than asking, “Why aren›t you able to exercise more often?”

Asking open-ended questions is essential in motivational interviewing. Motivational interviewing promotes behavioral change through collaborative conversation.

Instead of telling the patient what to do, motivational interviewing seeks to establish a person’s why and create an effective plan based on their motivation. Asking open-ended questions is also helpful in determining any challenges to regular exercise, rather than calling these challenges “excuses,” which can be counterproductive.

I encourage patients to embrace challenges as opportunities for improvement. If they say: “I can’t find time to work out,” I suggest that they create time to work out by walking 10-15 minutes during lunch or after dinner. The information gleaned from open-ended questions helps set practical SMARTER goals, which we will discuss next.

Tip 3: Set SMARTER goals

After assessing the patient’s motivation and barriers, use this information to transform their desire to change into an actionable plan through a SMARTER goal. SMARTER stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-Sensitive, Enjoyable, and Rewarding. Practical goals have each of these components. That’s why “Just Do It” or even “Exercise 150 minutes a week” isn’t a clear path for actionable change. SMARTER goals go beyond what to do and help people personalize how to change.

For example, the SMARTER version of “exercise 150 minutes a week” for a busy person who works 50 hours a week may look like this: “My goal is to incorporate 150 minutes of physical activity through 60 minutes of aerobic exercise Monday through Friday (20-minute lunch walks) and 90 minutes of combination resistance training on the weekend (two 45-minute sessions) while listening to my favorite music. To meet my goal, I will reward myself by calling a friend to catch up or buy myself a new workout outfit.”

Exercise prescriptions are another helpful way to empower patients with a realistic exercise strategy. In my practice, I developed my own exercise prescription which focuses on overcoming time barriers to exercise and finding personally enjoyable exercises. To enhance self-directed physical activity, I›ve found it useful to have patients complete part of the “exercise prescription” on their own before or after their visit.
 

Tip 4: Use accountability tools

Making a SMARTER goal is one thing, but sticking with it takes regular reinforcement. Even with the best plan, once patients leave the office, there are many distractions from their goals. Accountability is the secret sauce to cultivating consistency. Fitness trackers are an affordable form of accountability. Studies show that wearing a fitness tracker can help people get up to 40 minutes of extra walking, compared with people who don’t wear trackers.

Additionally, clinicians can use different ways to offer exercise accountability. For example, more frequent check-ins, individually or in groups, can be helpful. The increase in telehealth has made interval visits easier. Reimbursement and time can limit clinician-level accountability, however. Other options are referring patients to online support groups or programs sponsored by the government or organizations. For years, I coled a Walk With a Doc chapter in Richmond, Va. There are chapters throughout the country.
 

Tip 5: Prepare and PLAN for setbacks

Breaking news: Most plans don’t go quite as envisioned. Accounting for the potential of setbacks early on helps patients set realistic expectations. As physicians and clinicians, we can help our patients anticipate a few likely obstacles. This may lessen the impact when a setback occurs. Also, it’s helpful to have the patient prepare for a setback with a PLAN for recovering quickly. PLAN stands for Ponder what happened; Learn from it; Adjust the original goal; Now get back on track. Getting back on track as soon as possible is important to keep patients motivated and prevent muscle deconditioning.

Exercise is medicine. Physical inactivity is a leading contributor to many preventable diseases. Although the physical activity statistics are disappointing, improvement is possible. Many systemic changes are needed to increase physical activity on a population level.

While waiting for more extensive changes, we have the power to equip patients with personalized, actionable tools for improving and maintaining physical activity.

We can transform one person at a time through our clinical encounters. Let’s use effective tools to help patients shift from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

“Just Do It” is a cute marketing slogan. But let’s face it: Clinically, it doesn’t work well. Most people just don’t exercise. The recommended amount of weekly physical activity is 2.5 hours (150 minutes), but less than half of adults over 18 meet the guidelines for aerobic exercise, according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Furthermore, when surveyed about aerobic exercise and strength training, only 24.6% meet these weekly recommendations. These low rates of physical activity are alarming, given the immense benefits of exercise in improving mental and physical health and well-being.

Many people know that exercise is good for them but struggle to go workout consistently. I know firsthand how challenging this can be. In addition to being an integrative obesity specialist, I have gone from 0 minutes of physical activity in 2014 to becoming a fitness enthusiast who’s run more than 5,300 miles over 8 years. I know that as doctors and clinicians, we can profoundly influence our patients’ exercise journey.

Here are five tips to help motivate your patients make the change from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”
 

Tip 1: ‘[Clinician], heal thyself’

Data don’t lie. Doctors who move more are more likely to counsel patients on exercise. I’ve been the doctor on both sides of the exercise spectrum. At my heaviest weight and lowest physical activity level, I felt hypocritical counseling patients on exercise.

If and when I counseled my patients on exercise, it was very directive and impersonal. When I started running consistently, I went to the opposite end of the spectrum. In my running zeal, it took a while for me to understand that not everyone wants to run dozens of miles a week. Shocking! Some people can’t handle intense workouts. The “I did it so you can too” perspective wasn’t helpful for long-term change in most patients.

What has been beneficial is recalling the obstacles and emotions I had (and still have) with staying consistent with physical activity. When physicians and clinicians move regularly, we’re more equipped to give our patients genuine counseling based on practicality rather than theory.

Now that self-reflection has been addressed, let’s get to patient counseling.
 

Tip 2: Motivate, don’t berate

Lectures on why patients should exercise are less helpful than asking, “Why aren›t you able to exercise more often?”

Asking open-ended questions is essential in motivational interviewing. Motivational interviewing promotes behavioral change through collaborative conversation.

Instead of telling the patient what to do, motivational interviewing seeks to establish a person’s why and create an effective plan based on their motivation. Asking open-ended questions is also helpful in determining any challenges to regular exercise, rather than calling these challenges “excuses,” which can be counterproductive.

I encourage patients to embrace challenges as opportunities for improvement. If they say: “I can’t find time to work out,” I suggest that they create time to work out by walking 10-15 minutes during lunch or after dinner. The information gleaned from open-ended questions helps set practical SMARTER goals, which we will discuss next.

Tip 3: Set SMARTER goals

After assessing the patient’s motivation and barriers, use this information to transform their desire to change into an actionable plan through a SMARTER goal. SMARTER stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-Sensitive, Enjoyable, and Rewarding. Practical goals have each of these components. That’s why “Just Do It” or even “Exercise 150 minutes a week” isn’t a clear path for actionable change. SMARTER goals go beyond what to do and help people personalize how to change.

For example, the SMARTER version of “exercise 150 minutes a week” for a busy person who works 50 hours a week may look like this: “My goal is to incorporate 150 minutes of physical activity through 60 minutes of aerobic exercise Monday through Friday (20-minute lunch walks) and 90 minutes of combination resistance training on the weekend (two 45-minute sessions) while listening to my favorite music. To meet my goal, I will reward myself by calling a friend to catch up or buy myself a new workout outfit.”

Exercise prescriptions are another helpful way to empower patients with a realistic exercise strategy. In my practice, I developed my own exercise prescription which focuses on overcoming time barriers to exercise and finding personally enjoyable exercises. To enhance self-directed physical activity, I›ve found it useful to have patients complete part of the “exercise prescription” on their own before or after their visit.
 

Tip 4: Use accountability tools

Making a SMARTER goal is one thing, but sticking with it takes regular reinforcement. Even with the best plan, once patients leave the office, there are many distractions from their goals. Accountability is the secret sauce to cultivating consistency. Fitness trackers are an affordable form of accountability. Studies show that wearing a fitness tracker can help people get up to 40 minutes of extra walking, compared with people who don’t wear trackers.

Additionally, clinicians can use different ways to offer exercise accountability. For example, more frequent check-ins, individually or in groups, can be helpful. The increase in telehealth has made interval visits easier. Reimbursement and time can limit clinician-level accountability, however. Other options are referring patients to online support groups or programs sponsored by the government or organizations. For years, I coled a Walk With a Doc chapter in Richmond, Va. There are chapters throughout the country.
 

Tip 5: Prepare and PLAN for setbacks

Breaking news: Most plans don’t go quite as envisioned. Accounting for the potential of setbacks early on helps patients set realistic expectations. As physicians and clinicians, we can help our patients anticipate a few likely obstacles. This may lessen the impact when a setback occurs. Also, it’s helpful to have the patient prepare for a setback with a PLAN for recovering quickly. PLAN stands for Ponder what happened; Learn from it; Adjust the original goal; Now get back on track. Getting back on track as soon as possible is important to keep patients motivated and prevent muscle deconditioning.

Exercise is medicine. Physical inactivity is a leading contributor to many preventable diseases. Although the physical activity statistics are disappointing, improvement is possible. Many systemic changes are needed to increase physical activity on a population level.

While waiting for more extensive changes, we have the power to equip patients with personalized, actionable tools for improving and maintaining physical activity.

We can transform one person at a time through our clinical encounters. Let’s use effective tools to help patients shift from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

“Just Do It” is a cute marketing slogan. But let’s face it: Clinically, it doesn’t work well. Most people just don’t exercise. The recommended amount of weekly physical activity is 2.5 hours (150 minutes), but less than half of adults over 18 meet the guidelines for aerobic exercise, according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Furthermore, when surveyed about aerobic exercise and strength training, only 24.6% meet these weekly recommendations. These low rates of physical activity are alarming, given the immense benefits of exercise in improving mental and physical health and well-being.

Many people know that exercise is good for them but struggle to go workout consistently. I know firsthand how challenging this can be. In addition to being an integrative obesity specialist, I have gone from 0 minutes of physical activity in 2014 to becoming a fitness enthusiast who’s run more than 5,300 miles over 8 years. I know that as doctors and clinicians, we can profoundly influence our patients’ exercise journey.

Here are five tips to help motivate your patients make the change from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”
 

Tip 1: ‘[Clinician], heal thyself’

Data don’t lie. Doctors who move more are more likely to counsel patients on exercise. I’ve been the doctor on both sides of the exercise spectrum. At my heaviest weight and lowest physical activity level, I felt hypocritical counseling patients on exercise.

If and when I counseled my patients on exercise, it was very directive and impersonal. When I started running consistently, I went to the opposite end of the spectrum. In my running zeal, it took a while for me to understand that not everyone wants to run dozens of miles a week. Shocking! Some people can’t handle intense workouts. The “I did it so you can too” perspective wasn’t helpful for long-term change in most patients.

What has been beneficial is recalling the obstacles and emotions I had (and still have) with staying consistent with physical activity. When physicians and clinicians move regularly, we’re more equipped to give our patients genuine counseling based on practicality rather than theory.

Now that self-reflection has been addressed, let’s get to patient counseling.
 

Tip 2: Motivate, don’t berate

Lectures on why patients should exercise are less helpful than asking, “Why aren›t you able to exercise more often?”

Asking open-ended questions is essential in motivational interviewing. Motivational interviewing promotes behavioral change through collaborative conversation.

Instead of telling the patient what to do, motivational interviewing seeks to establish a person’s why and create an effective plan based on their motivation. Asking open-ended questions is also helpful in determining any challenges to regular exercise, rather than calling these challenges “excuses,” which can be counterproductive.

I encourage patients to embrace challenges as opportunities for improvement. If they say: “I can’t find time to work out,” I suggest that they create time to work out by walking 10-15 minutes during lunch or after dinner. The information gleaned from open-ended questions helps set practical SMARTER goals, which we will discuss next.

Tip 3: Set SMARTER goals

After assessing the patient’s motivation and barriers, use this information to transform their desire to change into an actionable plan through a SMARTER goal. SMARTER stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-Sensitive, Enjoyable, and Rewarding. Practical goals have each of these components. That’s why “Just Do It” or even “Exercise 150 minutes a week” isn’t a clear path for actionable change. SMARTER goals go beyond what to do and help people personalize how to change.

For example, the SMARTER version of “exercise 150 minutes a week” for a busy person who works 50 hours a week may look like this: “My goal is to incorporate 150 minutes of physical activity through 60 minutes of aerobic exercise Monday through Friday (20-minute lunch walks) and 90 minutes of combination resistance training on the weekend (two 45-minute sessions) while listening to my favorite music. To meet my goal, I will reward myself by calling a friend to catch up or buy myself a new workout outfit.”

Exercise prescriptions are another helpful way to empower patients with a realistic exercise strategy. In my practice, I developed my own exercise prescription which focuses on overcoming time barriers to exercise and finding personally enjoyable exercises. To enhance self-directed physical activity, I›ve found it useful to have patients complete part of the “exercise prescription” on their own before or after their visit.
 

Tip 4: Use accountability tools

Making a SMARTER goal is one thing, but sticking with it takes regular reinforcement. Even with the best plan, once patients leave the office, there are many distractions from their goals. Accountability is the secret sauce to cultivating consistency. Fitness trackers are an affordable form of accountability. Studies show that wearing a fitness tracker can help people get up to 40 minutes of extra walking, compared with people who don’t wear trackers.

Additionally, clinicians can use different ways to offer exercise accountability. For example, more frequent check-ins, individually or in groups, can be helpful. The increase in telehealth has made interval visits easier. Reimbursement and time can limit clinician-level accountability, however. Other options are referring patients to online support groups or programs sponsored by the government or organizations. For years, I coled a Walk With a Doc chapter in Richmond, Va. There are chapters throughout the country.
 

Tip 5: Prepare and PLAN for setbacks

Breaking news: Most plans don’t go quite as envisioned. Accounting for the potential of setbacks early on helps patients set realistic expectations. As physicians and clinicians, we can help our patients anticipate a few likely obstacles. This may lessen the impact when a setback occurs. Also, it’s helpful to have the patient prepare for a setback with a PLAN for recovering quickly. PLAN stands for Ponder what happened; Learn from it; Adjust the original goal; Now get back on track. Getting back on track as soon as possible is important to keep patients motivated and prevent muscle deconditioning.

Exercise is medicine. Physical inactivity is a leading contributor to many preventable diseases. Although the physical activity statistics are disappointing, improvement is possible. Many systemic changes are needed to increase physical activity on a population level.

While waiting for more extensive changes, we have the power to equip patients with personalized, actionable tools for improving and maintaining physical activity.

We can transform one person at a time through our clinical encounters. Let’s use effective tools to help patients shift from “I Won’t Do It” to “I’m Doing It.”

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness,” was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Screening high-risk populations for lung cancer saves lives. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with annual screening over 3 years with low-dose CT as compared with x-rays. The NELSON trial found a higher benefit: Men at high risk for lung cancer had a 26% reduced risk of dying from lung cancer and women had a 61% reduced risk over 10 years. However, the 2022 American Lung Association State of Lung Cancer report shows that less than 6% of eligible people get screened. Why is this?

There are many reasons, but I submit that at least one hurdle is related to the difficulties associated with ordering the low-dose CT in the electronic medical record (EMR) and following the results. The rules and regulations around lung cancer screening are complex. First, the ordering provider must be able to determine if the patient is eligible for screening and has insurance coverage – a complicated procedure, which is constantly in flux, and is based on age, smoking history, smoke-free interval, and type of insurance coverage. Most EMRs do not have a way of flagging high-risk individuals, and clinic coordinators (for those practices that have one) are often put in charge of determining eligibility.

Secondly, the health care provider must order the scan. Unlike mammography, people must have a prescreening visit with a physician or other health care provider – a visit which is poorly compensated, and often must be supported by the institution. Many EMRs also do not have a smooth mechanism to make sure all the “boxes have been checked” before the scan can be ordered. Is there a complete smoking history? Has the patient had their prescreening visit? Has the patient been counseled regarding tobacco use? Has eligibility for insurance payment been confirmed?

Coordinating follow-up is cumbersome. Abnormal findings are common and usually nonmalignant, but must be followed up, and the follow-up recommendations are complicated and are based upon the appearance of the finding. This may be difficult for a general practitioner, so referrals to pulmonologists are often scheduled. Best practices state the patient be followed in a multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinic, but again, most multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinics are found in the academic setting.

All this involves a lot of back-and-forth for the patient: First to see their primary care physician, then to see a pulmonologist or other health care provider for the counseling regarding risks and benefits of screening and the importance of smoking cessation, and then a visit to a radiologist as well as a visit to a smoking cessation clinic, then a return follow-up visit. Academic medical centers and NCI-approved cancer centers often have these procedures worked out, but many private or smaller practices do not. Yes, the local IT folks can modify an EMR, but in a small practice, there are other “more important” problems that take precedence.

Would coupling lung cancer screening with breast cancer scanning help? One study followed 874 women who attended mammographic screening and found that over 11% were at high risk for lung cancer. This would appear to be an ideal “teaching moment” to educate the importance of lung cancer screening to women. It could also cut down on some of the logistical issues associated with lung cancer screening, particularly if a health care provider and coordinator were immediately available for counseling and eligibility determination at the time of the mammography visit. The radiology clinic staff could schedule a scan and return visit while the patient was still in the mammography suite.

Of course, the logistical hassle is just one of many associated with lung cancer screening. The internal stigma the patient may experience about their smoking history, the unconscious bias on the part of many health professionals, the many other screening and prevention regulations providers are now required to follow, the institution’s reluctance to support a screening program, the rushed pace in many clinics: These all certainly contribute to the problem. However, we have overcome all of these issues when it comes to mammography, such as work flow, stigma, logistical issues, seamless incorporation of ordering scans and referrals to specialists in the EMR, etc. We can and must do the same for our patients at high risk for lung cancer, and routine scheduling of mammograms and low-dose CTs may help.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Screening high-risk populations for lung cancer saves lives. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with annual screening over 3 years with low-dose CT as compared with x-rays. The NELSON trial found a higher benefit: Men at high risk for lung cancer had a 26% reduced risk of dying from lung cancer and women had a 61% reduced risk over 10 years. However, the 2022 American Lung Association State of Lung Cancer report shows that less than 6% of eligible people get screened. Why is this?

There are many reasons, but I submit that at least one hurdle is related to the difficulties associated with ordering the low-dose CT in the electronic medical record (EMR) and following the results. The rules and regulations around lung cancer screening are complex. First, the ordering provider must be able to determine if the patient is eligible for screening and has insurance coverage – a complicated procedure, which is constantly in flux, and is based on age, smoking history, smoke-free interval, and type of insurance coverage. Most EMRs do not have a way of flagging high-risk individuals, and clinic coordinators (for those practices that have one) are often put in charge of determining eligibility.

Secondly, the health care provider must order the scan. Unlike mammography, people must have a prescreening visit with a physician or other health care provider – a visit which is poorly compensated, and often must be supported by the institution. Many EMRs also do not have a smooth mechanism to make sure all the “boxes have been checked” before the scan can be ordered. Is there a complete smoking history? Has the patient had their prescreening visit? Has the patient been counseled regarding tobacco use? Has eligibility for insurance payment been confirmed?

Coordinating follow-up is cumbersome. Abnormal findings are common and usually nonmalignant, but must be followed up, and the follow-up recommendations are complicated and are based upon the appearance of the finding. This may be difficult for a general practitioner, so referrals to pulmonologists are often scheduled. Best practices state the patient be followed in a multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinic, but again, most multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinics are found in the academic setting.

All this involves a lot of back-and-forth for the patient: First to see their primary care physician, then to see a pulmonologist or other health care provider for the counseling regarding risks and benefits of screening and the importance of smoking cessation, and then a visit to a radiologist as well as a visit to a smoking cessation clinic, then a return follow-up visit. Academic medical centers and NCI-approved cancer centers often have these procedures worked out, but many private or smaller practices do not. Yes, the local IT folks can modify an EMR, but in a small practice, there are other “more important” problems that take precedence.

Would coupling lung cancer screening with breast cancer scanning help? One study followed 874 women who attended mammographic screening and found that over 11% were at high risk for lung cancer. This would appear to be an ideal “teaching moment” to educate the importance of lung cancer screening to women. It could also cut down on some of the logistical issues associated with lung cancer screening, particularly if a health care provider and coordinator were immediately available for counseling and eligibility determination at the time of the mammography visit. The radiology clinic staff could schedule a scan and return visit while the patient was still in the mammography suite.

Of course, the logistical hassle is just one of many associated with lung cancer screening. The internal stigma the patient may experience about their smoking history, the unconscious bias on the part of many health professionals, the many other screening and prevention regulations providers are now required to follow, the institution’s reluctance to support a screening program, the rushed pace in many clinics: These all certainly contribute to the problem. However, we have overcome all of these issues when it comes to mammography, such as work flow, stigma, logistical issues, seamless incorporation of ordering scans and referrals to specialists in the EMR, etc. We can and must do the same for our patients at high risk for lung cancer, and routine scheduling of mammograms and low-dose CTs may help.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Screening high-risk populations for lung cancer saves lives. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with annual screening over 3 years with low-dose CT as compared with x-rays. The NELSON trial found a higher benefit: Men at high risk for lung cancer had a 26% reduced risk of dying from lung cancer and women had a 61% reduced risk over 10 years. However, the 2022 American Lung Association State of Lung Cancer report shows that less than 6% of eligible people get screened. Why is this?

There are many reasons, but I submit that at least one hurdle is related to the difficulties associated with ordering the low-dose CT in the electronic medical record (EMR) and following the results. The rules and regulations around lung cancer screening are complex. First, the ordering provider must be able to determine if the patient is eligible for screening and has insurance coverage – a complicated procedure, which is constantly in flux, and is based on age, smoking history, smoke-free interval, and type of insurance coverage. Most EMRs do not have a way of flagging high-risk individuals, and clinic coordinators (for those practices that have one) are often put in charge of determining eligibility.

Secondly, the health care provider must order the scan. Unlike mammography, people must have a prescreening visit with a physician or other health care provider – a visit which is poorly compensated, and often must be supported by the institution. Many EMRs also do not have a smooth mechanism to make sure all the “boxes have been checked” before the scan can be ordered. Is there a complete smoking history? Has the patient had their prescreening visit? Has the patient been counseled regarding tobacco use? Has eligibility for insurance payment been confirmed?

Coordinating follow-up is cumbersome. Abnormal findings are common and usually nonmalignant, but must be followed up, and the follow-up recommendations are complicated and are based upon the appearance of the finding. This may be difficult for a general practitioner, so referrals to pulmonologists are often scheduled. Best practices state the patient be followed in a multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinic, but again, most multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinics are found in the academic setting.

All this involves a lot of back-and-forth for the patient: First to see their primary care physician, then to see a pulmonologist or other health care provider for the counseling regarding risks and benefits of screening and the importance of smoking cessation, and then a visit to a radiologist as well as a visit to a smoking cessation clinic, then a return follow-up visit. Academic medical centers and NCI-approved cancer centers often have these procedures worked out, but many private or smaller practices do not. Yes, the local IT folks can modify an EMR, but in a small practice, there are other “more important” problems that take precedence.

Would coupling lung cancer screening with breast cancer scanning help? One study followed 874 women who attended mammographic screening and found that over 11% were at high risk for lung cancer. This would appear to be an ideal “teaching moment” to educate the importance of lung cancer screening to women. It could also cut down on some of the logistical issues associated with lung cancer screening, particularly if a health care provider and coordinator were immediately available for counseling and eligibility determination at the time of the mammography visit. The radiology clinic staff could schedule a scan and return visit while the patient was still in the mammography suite.

Of course, the logistical hassle is just one of many associated with lung cancer screening. The internal stigma the patient may experience about their smoking history, the unconscious bias on the part of many health professionals, the many other screening and prevention regulations providers are now required to follow, the institution’s reluctance to support a screening program, the rushed pace in many clinics: These all certainly contribute to the problem. However, we have overcome all of these issues when it comes to mammography, such as work flow, stigma, logistical issues, seamless incorporation of ordering scans and referrals to specialists in the EMR, etc. We can and must do the same for our patients at high risk for lung cancer, and routine scheduling of mammograms and low-dose CTs may help.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released results of the most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey, their once-a-decade survey of youth mental health and risk-taking behaviors. The headlines aren’t good: Self-reported rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts in adolescents have increased substantially from 2011 to 2021. This echoes epidemiologic data showing increasing rates of anxiety and depression over the last decade in 12- to 24-year-olds, but not in older age cohorts.

This trend started well before COVID, coinciding with the explosive growth in use of smartphones, apps, and social media platforms. Facebook launched in 2004, the iPhone in 2007, Instagram in 2010, and TikTok in 2016. A 2018 Pew Research survey of 13- to 17-year-olds found that 97% of them used at least one social media platform and 45% described themselves as online “almost constantly.” Social media does have great potential benefits for adolescents.

We all experienced how it supported relationships during COVID. It can provide supportive networks for teenagers isolated by exclusion, illness, or disability. It can support exploration of esoteric interests, expression of identity, entertainment, and relaxation. But certain children, as was true before social media, seem vulnerable to the bullying, loneliness, isolation, and disengagement that social media may exacerbate.

Several studies have shown an association between high daily screen time and adolescent anxiety and depression. These findings have not been consistently duplicated, and those that were could not establish causality. There appears to be a strong link between certain illnesses (ADHD, depression, anorexia nervosa) and excessive screen use, which can in turn worsen symptoms. But it is hard to know which came first or how they are related.

Now, a very large long-term observational study has suggested that there may be critical windows in adolescence (11-13 years in girls and 14-16 in boys and again at 19 years for both) during which time excessive screen time can put that child’s developing mental health at risk. This is nuanced and interesting progress, but you don’t have to wait another decade to offer the families in your practice some common sense guidance when they are asking how to balance their children’s needs to be independent and socially connected (and the fact that smartphones and social media are pervasive) with the risks of overuse. Equipped with these guiding principles, parents can set individualized, flexible ground rules, and adjust them as their children grow into young adults.
 

First: Know your child

Parents are, of course, the experts on their own child – their talents, interests, challenges, vulnerabilities, and developmental progress. Children with poor impulse control (including those with ADHD) are going to have greater difficulty turning away from highly addictive activities on their devices. Children who are anxious and shy may be prone to avoiding the stress of real-life situations, preferring virtual ones. Children with a history of depression may be vulnerable to relapse if their sleep and exercise routines are disrupted by excessive use. And children with eating disorders are especially vulnerable to the superficial social comparisons and “likes” that Instagram offers. Children with these vulnerabilities will benefit if their parents are aware of and can talk about these vulnerabilities, ideally with their child. They should be prepared to work with their teens to develop strategies that can help them learn how to manage their social media usage. These might include stopping screen use after a certain hour, leaving devices outside of bedrooms at night, and setting up apps that monitor and alert them about excessive use. They might use resources such as the AAP’s Family Media Plan (Media and Children [aap.org]), but simply taking the time to have regular, open, honest conversations about what is known and unknown about the potential risks of social media use is very protective.

Second: Use adolescent development as your guide

For those children who do not have a known vulnerability to overuse, consider the following areas that are essential to healthy development in adolescence as guideposts to help parents in setting reasonable ground rules: building independence, cultivating healthy social relationships, learning about their identity, managing their strong emotions, and developing the skills of self-care. If screen time supports these developmental areas, then it’s probably healthy. If it interferes with them, then not. And remember, parents should routinely discuss these principles with their children as well.

Independence

Key questions. Does their use of a device enable them to function more independently – that is, to arrange for rides, manage their schedules, homework, shifts, and so forth – on their own? Could it be done with a “dumb” device (text/call only)?

Social relationships

One-way viewing (Instagram, Facebook) with superficial acquaintances may promote isolation, anxiety, and depression, does not facilitate deepened relationships, and may be using up time that they could be investing in genuine social connections. But if they are using their devices to stay connected to good friends who live far away or just have different schedules, they can promote genuine, satisfying, bilateral social connections.

Key questions. Are they engaged in two-way communication with their devices? Are they staying connected to friends with whom they have a genuine, substantial relationship?
 

Investigating and experimenting with interests (identity)

Teenagers are supposed to be learning in deep and nuanced ways about their own interests and abilities during these years. This requires a lot of time invested in exploration and experimentation and a considerable amount of failure. Any activity that consumes a lot of their time without deepening meaningful knowledge of their interests and abilities (that is, activity that is only an escape or distraction) will interfere with their discovering their authentic identity.

Key questions. Is their use of devices facilitating this genuine exploration (setting up internships, practicing programming, or exploring interests that must be virtual)? Or is their device use just consuming precious time they could be using to genuinely explore potential interests?
 

Managing anxiety or distress

Exploring their identity and building social connections will involve a lot of stress, failure, disappointment, and even heartbreak. Learning to manage these uncomfortable feelings is an important part of adolescence. Distraction with a diverting entertainment can be one of several strategies for managing stress and distress. But if it becomes the only strategy, it can keep teens from getting “back in the game” and experiencing the fun, success, meaning, and joy that are also a big part of this exploration.

Key questions. Do they turn to their devices first when sad or stressed? Are they also able to use other strategies, such as talking with friends/family, exercising, or engaging in a meaningful pursuit to help them manage stress? Do they feel better after a little time spent on their device, or as if they will only feel good if they can stay on the device?
 

Self-care

Getting adequate, restful sleep (8-10 hours/night), finding regular time for exercise, cultivating healthy eating habits, and discovering what healthy strategies help them to unwind or relax is critical to a teenager’s healthiest development, and to healthy adult life. Some screens may help with motivating and tracking exercise, but screens in the bedroom interfere with going to bed, and with falling and staying asleep. Most teenagers are very busy and managing a lot of (normal) stress; the senseless fun or relaxation that are part of video games or surfing the Web are quick, practical, and effective ways to unwind. Don’t discourage your teenager from enjoying them. Instead, focus on also helping them to find other healthy ways to relax: hot baths, exercise, time with pets, crafts, reading, and listening to music are just a few examples. As they are building their identity, they should also be discovering how they best slow down and calm down.

Key questions. How many hours of sleep do they usually get on a school night? Is their phone (or other screen) in their bedroom during sleep? How do they relax? Do they have several strategies that do not require screens? Do they exercise regularly (3-5 times weekly)? Do they complain that they do not have enough time for exercise?
 

Third: Be mindful of what you model

Many of these principles can apply to our own use of smartphones, computers, and so on. Remind parents that their teenager will ultimately consider and follow their example much more than their commands. They should be prepared to talk about how they are thinking about the risks and benefits of social media use, how they are developing rules and expectations, and why they decided on them. These conversations model thoughtful and flexible decision-making.

It is critical that parents acknowledge that there are wonderful benefits to technology, including senseless fun. Then, it is easier to discuss how escaping into screen use can be hard to resist, and why it is important to practice resisting some temptations. Parents should find ways to follow the same rules they set for their teenager, or making them “family rules.” It’s important for our teenagers to learn about how to set these limits, as eventually they will be setting their own!
 

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released results of the most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey, their once-a-decade survey of youth mental health and risk-taking behaviors. The headlines aren’t good: Self-reported rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts in adolescents have increased substantially from 2011 to 2021. This echoes epidemiologic data showing increasing rates of anxiety and depression over the last decade in 12- to 24-year-olds, but not in older age cohorts.

This trend started well before COVID, coinciding with the explosive growth in use of smartphones, apps, and social media platforms. Facebook launched in 2004, the iPhone in 2007, Instagram in 2010, and TikTok in 2016. A 2018 Pew Research survey of 13- to 17-year-olds found that 97% of them used at least one social media platform and 45% described themselves as online “almost constantly.” Social media does have great potential benefits for adolescents.

We all experienced how it supported relationships during COVID. It can provide supportive networks for teenagers isolated by exclusion, illness, or disability. It can support exploration of esoteric interests, expression of identity, entertainment, and relaxation. But certain children, as was true before social media, seem vulnerable to the bullying, loneliness, isolation, and disengagement that social media may exacerbate.

Several studies have shown an association between high daily screen time and adolescent anxiety and depression. These findings have not been consistently duplicated, and those that were could not establish causality. There appears to be a strong link between certain illnesses (ADHD, depression, anorexia nervosa) and excessive screen use, which can in turn worsen symptoms. But it is hard to know which came first or how they are related.

Now, a very large long-term observational study has suggested that there may be critical windows in adolescence (11-13 years in girls and 14-16 in boys and again at 19 years for both) during which time excessive screen time can put that child’s developing mental health at risk. This is nuanced and interesting progress, but you don’t have to wait another decade to offer the families in your practice some common sense guidance when they are asking how to balance their children’s needs to be independent and socially connected (and the fact that smartphones and social media are pervasive) with the risks of overuse. Equipped with these guiding principles, parents can set individualized, flexible ground rules, and adjust them as their children grow into young adults.
 

First: Know your child

Parents are, of course, the experts on their own child – their talents, interests, challenges, vulnerabilities, and developmental progress. Children with poor impulse control (including those with ADHD) are going to have greater difficulty turning away from highly addictive activities on their devices. Children who are anxious and shy may be prone to avoiding the stress of real-life situations, preferring virtual ones. Children with a history of depression may be vulnerable to relapse if their sleep and exercise routines are disrupted by excessive use. And children with eating disorders are especially vulnerable to the superficial social comparisons and “likes” that Instagram offers. Children with these vulnerabilities will benefit if their parents are aware of and can talk about these vulnerabilities, ideally with their child. They should be prepared to work with their teens to develop strategies that can help them learn how to manage their social media usage. These might include stopping screen use after a certain hour, leaving devices outside of bedrooms at night, and setting up apps that monitor and alert them about excessive use. They might use resources such as the AAP’s Family Media Plan (Media and Children [aap.org]), but simply taking the time to have regular, open, honest conversations about what is known and unknown about the potential risks of social media use is very protective.

Second: Use adolescent development as your guide

For those children who do not have a known vulnerability to overuse, consider the following areas that are essential to healthy development in adolescence as guideposts to help parents in setting reasonable ground rules: building independence, cultivating healthy social relationships, learning about their identity, managing their strong emotions, and developing the skills of self-care. If screen time supports these developmental areas, then it’s probably healthy. If it interferes with them, then not. And remember, parents should routinely discuss these principles with their children as well.

Independence

Key questions. Does their use of a device enable them to function more independently – that is, to arrange for rides, manage their schedules, homework, shifts, and so forth – on their own? Could it be done with a “dumb” device (text/call only)?

Social relationships

One-way viewing (Instagram, Facebook) with superficial acquaintances may promote isolation, anxiety, and depression, does not facilitate deepened relationships, and may be using up time that they could be investing in genuine social connections. But if they are using their devices to stay connected to good friends who live far away or just have different schedules, they can promote genuine, satisfying, bilateral social connections.

Key questions. Are they engaged in two-way communication with their devices? Are they staying connected to friends with whom they have a genuine, substantial relationship?
 

Investigating and experimenting with interests (identity)

Teenagers are supposed to be learning in deep and nuanced ways about their own interests and abilities during these years. This requires a lot of time invested in exploration and experimentation and a considerable amount of failure. Any activity that consumes a lot of their time without deepening meaningful knowledge of their interests and abilities (that is, activity that is only an escape or distraction) will interfere with their discovering their authentic identity.

Key questions. Is their use of devices facilitating this genuine exploration (setting up internships, practicing programming, or exploring interests that must be virtual)? Or is their device use just consuming precious time they could be using to genuinely explore potential interests?
 

Managing anxiety or distress

Exploring their identity and building social connections will involve a lot of stress, failure, disappointment, and even heartbreak. Learning to manage these uncomfortable feelings is an important part of adolescence. Distraction with a diverting entertainment can be one of several strategies for managing stress and distress. But if it becomes the only strategy, it can keep teens from getting “back in the game” and experiencing the fun, success, meaning, and joy that are also a big part of this exploration.

Key questions. Do they turn to their devices first when sad or stressed? Are they also able to use other strategies, such as talking with friends/family, exercising, or engaging in a meaningful pursuit to help them manage stress? Do they feel better after a little time spent on their device, or as if they will only feel good if they can stay on the device?
 

Self-care

Getting adequate, restful sleep (8-10 hours/night), finding regular time for exercise, cultivating healthy eating habits, and discovering what healthy strategies help them to unwind or relax is critical to a teenager’s healthiest development, and to healthy adult life. Some screens may help with motivating and tracking exercise, but screens in the bedroom interfere with going to bed, and with falling and staying asleep. Most teenagers are very busy and managing a lot of (normal) stress; the senseless fun or relaxation that are part of video games or surfing the Web are quick, practical, and effective ways to unwind. Don’t discourage your teenager from enjoying them. Instead, focus on also helping them to find other healthy ways to relax: hot baths, exercise, time with pets, crafts, reading, and listening to music are just a few examples. As they are building their identity, they should also be discovering how they best slow down and calm down.

Key questions. How many hours of sleep do they usually get on a school night? Is their phone (or other screen) in their bedroom during sleep? How do they relax? Do they have several strategies that do not require screens? Do they exercise regularly (3-5 times weekly)? Do they complain that they do not have enough time for exercise?
 

Third: Be mindful of what you model

Many of these principles can apply to our own use of smartphones, computers, and so on. Remind parents that their teenager will ultimately consider and follow their example much more than their commands. They should be prepared to talk about how they are thinking about the risks and benefits of social media use, how they are developing rules and expectations, and why they decided on them. These conversations model thoughtful and flexible decision-making.

It is critical that parents acknowledge that there are wonderful benefits to technology, including senseless fun. Then, it is easier to discuss how escaping into screen use can be hard to resist, and why it is important to practice resisting some temptations. Parents should find ways to follow the same rules they set for their teenager, or making them “family rules.” It’s important for our teenagers to learn about how to set these limits, as eventually they will be setting their own!
 

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released results of the most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey, their once-a-decade survey of youth mental health and risk-taking behaviors. The headlines aren’t good: Self-reported rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts in adolescents have increased substantially from 2011 to 2021. This echoes epidemiologic data showing increasing rates of anxiety and depression over the last decade in 12- to 24-year-olds, but not in older age cohorts.

This trend started well before COVID, coinciding with the explosive growth in use of smartphones, apps, and social media platforms. Facebook launched in 2004, the iPhone in 2007, Instagram in 2010, and TikTok in 2016. A 2018 Pew Research survey of 13- to 17-year-olds found that 97% of them used at least one social media platform and 45% described themselves as online “almost constantly.” Social media does have great potential benefits for adolescents.

We all experienced how it supported relationships during COVID. It can provide supportive networks for teenagers isolated by exclusion, illness, or disability. It can support exploration of esoteric interests, expression of identity, entertainment, and relaxation. But certain children, as was true before social media, seem vulnerable to the bullying, loneliness, isolation, and disengagement that social media may exacerbate.

Several studies have shown an association between high daily screen time and adolescent anxiety and depression. These findings have not been consistently duplicated, and those that were could not establish causality. There appears to be a strong link between certain illnesses (ADHD, depression, anorexia nervosa) and excessive screen use, which can in turn worsen symptoms. But it is hard to know which came first or how they are related.

Now, a very large long-term observational study has suggested that there may be critical windows in adolescence (11-13 years in girls and 14-16 in boys and again at 19 years for both) during which time excessive screen time can put that child’s developing mental health at risk. This is nuanced and interesting progress, but you don’t have to wait another decade to offer the families in your practice some common sense guidance when they are asking how to balance their children’s needs to be independent and socially connected (and the fact that smartphones and social media are pervasive) with the risks of overuse. Equipped with these guiding principles, parents can set individualized, flexible ground rules, and adjust them as their children grow into young adults.
 

First: Know your child

Parents are, of course, the experts on their own child – their talents, interests, challenges, vulnerabilities, and developmental progress. Children with poor impulse control (including those with ADHD) are going to have greater difficulty turning away from highly addictive activities on their devices. Children who are anxious and shy may be prone to avoiding the stress of real-life situations, preferring virtual ones. Children with a history of depression may be vulnerable to relapse if their sleep and exercise routines are disrupted by excessive use. And children with eating disorders are especially vulnerable to the superficial social comparisons and “likes” that Instagram offers. Children with these vulnerabilities will benefit if their parents are aware of and can talk about these vulnerabilities, ideally with their child. They should be prepared to work with their teens to develop strategies that can help them learn how to manage their social media usage. These might include stopping screen use after a certain hour, leaving devices outside of bedrooms at night, and setting up apps that monitor and alert them about excessive use. They might use resources such as the AAP’s Family Media Plan (Media and Children [aap.org]), but simply taking the time to have regular, open, honest conversations about what is known and unknown about the potential risks of social media use is very protective.

Second: Use adolescent development as your guide

For those children who do not have a known vulnerability to overuse, consider the following areas that are essential to healthy development in adolescence as guideposts to help parents in setting reasonable ground rules: building independence, cultivating healthy social relationships, learning about their identity, managing their strong emotions, and developing the skills of self-care. If screen time supports these developmental areas, then it’s probably healthy. If it interferes with them, then not. And remember, parents should routinely discuss these principles with their children as well.

Independence

Key questions. Does their use of a device enable them to function more independently – that is, to arrange for rides, manage their schedules, homework, shifts, and so forth – on their own? Could it be done with a “dumb” device (text/call only)?

Social relationships

One-way viewing (Instagram, Facebook) with superficial acquaintances may promote isolation, anxiety, and depression, does not facilitate deepened relationships, and may be using up time that they could be investing in genuine social connections. But if they are using their devices to stay connected to good friends who live far away or just have different schedules, they can promote genuine, satisfying, bilateral social connections.

Key questions. Are they engaged in two-way communication with their devices? Are they staying connected to friends with whom they have a genuine, substantial relationship?
 

Investigating and experimenting with interests (identity)

Teenagers are supposed to be learning in deep and nuanced ways about their own interests and abilities during these years. This requires a lot of time invested in exploration and experimentation and a considerable amount of failure. Any activity that consumes a lot of their time without deepening meaningful knowledge of their interests and abilities (that is, activity that is only an escape or distraction) will interfere with their discovering their authentic identity.

Key questions. Is their use of devices facilitating this genuine exploration (setting up internships, practicing programming, or exploring interests that must be virtual)? Or is their device use just consuming precious time they could be using to genuinely explore potential interests?
 

Managing anxiety or distress

Exploring their identity and building social connections will involve a lot of stress, failure, disappointment, and even heartbreak. Learning to manage these uncomfortable feelings is an important part of adolescence. Distraction with a diverting entertainment can be one of several strategies for managing stress and distress. But if it becomes the only strategy, it can keep teens from getting “back in the game” and experiencing the fun, success, meaning, and joy that are also a big part of this exploration.

Key questions. Do they turn to their devices first when sad or stressed? Are they also able to use other strategies, such as talking with friends/family, exercising, or engaging in a meaningful pursuit to help them manage stress? Do they feel better after a little time spent on their device, or as if they will only feel good if they can stay on the device?
 

Self-care

Getting adequate, restful sleep (8-10 hours/night), finding regular time for exercise, cultivating healthy eating habits, and discovering what healthy strategies help them to unwind or relax is critical to a teenager’s healthiest development, and to healthy adult life. Some screens may help with motivating and tracking exercise, but screens in the bedroom interfere with going to bed, and with falling and staying asleep. Most teenagers are very busy and managing a lot of (normal) stress; the senseless fun or relaxation that are part of video games or surfing the Web are quick, practical, and effective ways to unwind. Don’t discourage your teenager from enjoying them. Instead, focus on also helping them to find other healthy ways to relax: hot baths, exercise, time with pets, crafts, reading, and listening to music are just a few examples. As they are building their identity, they should also be discovering how they best slow down and calm down.

Key questions. How many hours of sleep do they usually get on a school night? Is their phone (or other screen) in their bedroom during sleep? How do they relax? Do they have several strategies that do not require screens? Do they exercise regularly (3-5 times weekly)? Do they complain that they do not have enough time for exercise?
 

Third: Be mindful of what you model

Many of these principles can apply to our own use of smartphones, computers, and so on. Remind parents that their teenager will ultimately consider and follow their example much more than their commands. They should be prepared to talk about how they are thinking about the risks and benefits of social media use, how they are developing rules and expectations, and why they decided on them. These conversations model thoughtful and flexible decision-making.

It is critical that parents acknowledge that there are wonderful benefits to technology, including senseless fun. Then, it is easier to discuss how escaping into screen use can be hard to resist, and why it is important to practice resisting some temptations. Parents should find ways to follow the same rules they set for their teenager, or making them “family rules.” It’s important for our teenagers to learn about how to set these limits, as eventually they will be setting their own!
 

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

Social media and mainstream media websites are full of stories on the new wonder weight loss drug: Ozempic. Even Hollywood stars are talking about it.

Recently, the zealous prescribing of this diabetes medication fueled a 6-month shortage making it difficult for anyone to get it. Part of the problem stems from digital access to these medications where a patient can get a prescription online or via a telemedicine platform. Additionally, certain weight loss programs contributed to promoting the weight loss benefits.

It is important to remember when prescribing Ozempic that it has not received FDA approval to serve as a weight loss medication but rather as a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Doctors use many medications off label, but this must be done with the whole picture in mind.

Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, with the generic name semaglutide, that lowers hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes and lowers the risk of cardiovascular events. Semaglutide is also sold as Wegovy, which is indicated for weight loss. Both Ozempic and Wegovy are sold in multiple doses, but the target dose for Wegovy is higher.

Weight loss with Wegovy is, on average, higher than that seen with Ozempic. However, it is often more difficult to get Wegovy covered by health insurance companies.

As doctors, we must be stewards of the medications we are prescribing. Clearly, the Internet should not be driving our prescribing habits. Prescribing Ozempic for weight loss can make it more difficult for patients with diabetes to receive it, and we should consider other options until it is more available and/or receives FDA approval for treating obesity.

Most of us have seen our patients with diabetes having difficulty getting a prescription for Ozempic filled, either because it is on back-order or because of a lack of coverage. Insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost when it is in such high demand at its current rate. For these patients, lowering their A1c can be life-saving and prevent complications of diabetes, such as kidney failure and heart disease. In our current environment, we should reserve prescribing Ozempic for our patients with diabetes who need it more. Wegovy is available and can be prescribed for patients wishing to lose weight.

Many patients are looking for a magic cure. Neither medication is that. Patients need to start with making lifestyle changes first. In primary care, advising on and helping patients implement those are often our most difficult tasks. However, no medication is going to work unless the patient makes adjustments to their diet and amount and type of movement they are doing. In patients who have a hard time changing their diet, lowering carbohydrate intake may be a good first step. Exercising, or being more active if a patient is unable to formally exercise, is an important therapy.

As we all know, metformin is the usual preferred method for the treatment of type 2 diabetes unless contraindicated in a given patient. There are many oral diabetes medications available, and which of these and how these are prescribed need to be tailored to the individual patient. Ozempic can be used when a patient is failing on metformin, or other oral meds, or if they would rather do a weekly injection rather than remembering to take daily pills, for example.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, more than 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Additionally, millions of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are now considered obese, and the medical complications for these individuals ares yet to be seen. Plus, many of us are seeing higher frequencies of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic medical conditions in adolescents in our daily practices.

Our war against obesity is a fight for future lives and having more tools available is definitely a help. Like with patients with diabetes, all treatment regimens should start off with lifestyle modifications. Fad diets rarely result in long-term weight loss.

There are several medications now available to help with weight loss, Wegovy being just one of them. Patients often come to us with their own personal preferences, and it is our job to guide them on the best course to take. Some people may prefer a weekly injection. There are oral medications available, such as Contrave and Phentermine, and the best one should be decided upon by the patient and doctor after a discussion of the risks.

Let’s stop prescribing Ozempic for weight loss because nonphysicians say we should. Leave it for our patients with diabetes, those whose lives may depend on taking it. If we didn’t have other medications available, it would be a very different story. But, we do, and we need to resist the pressure others place on us and do the right thing for all of our patients.

*This article was updated on 3/23/2023.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She has no conflicts related to this piece. You can contact her at [email protected].

Social media and mainstream media websites are full of stories on the new wonder weight loss drug: Ozempic. Even Hollywood stars are talking about it.

Recently, the zealous prescribing of this diabetes medication fueled a 6-month shortage making it difficult for anyone to get it. Part of the problem stems from digital access to these medications where a patient can get a prescription online or via a telemedicine platform. Additionally, certain weight loss programs contributed to promoting the weight loss benefits.

It is important to remember when prescribing Ozempic that it has not received FDA approval to serve as a weight loss medication but rather as a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Doctors use many medications off label, but this must be done with the whole picture in mind.

Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, with the generic name semaglutide, that lowers hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes and lowers the risk of cardiovascular events. Semaglutide is also sold as Wegovy, which is indicated for weight loss. Both Ozempic and Wegovy are sold in multiple doses, but the target dose for Wegovy is higher.

Weight loss with Wegovy is, on average, higher than that seen with Ozempic. However, it is often more difficult to get Wegovy covered by health insurance companies.

As doctors, we must be stewards of the medications we are prescribing. Clearly, the Internet should not be driving our prescribing habits. Prescribing Ozempic for weight loss can make it more difficult for patients with diabetes to receive it, and we should consider other options until it is more available and/or receives FDA approval for treating obesity.

Most of us have seen our patients with diabetes having difficulty getting a prescription for Ozempic filled, either because it is on back-order or because of a lack of coverage. Insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost when it is in such high demand at its current rate. For these patients, lowering their A1c can be life-saving and prevent complications of diabetes, such as kidney failure and heart disease. In our current environment, we should reserve prescribing Ozempic for our patients with diabetes who need it more. Wegovy is available and can be prescribed for patients wishing to lose weight.

Many patients are looking for a magic cure. Neither medication is that. Patients need to start with making lifestyle changes first. In primary care, advising on and helping patients implement those are often our most difficult tasks. However, no medication is going to work unless the patient makes adjustments to their diet and amount and type of movement they are doing. In patients who have a hard time changing their diet, lowering carbohydrate intake may be a good first step. Exercising, or being more active if a patient is unable to formally exercise, is an important therapy.

As we all know, metformin is the usual preferred method for the treatment of type 2 diabetes unless contraindicated in a given patient. There are many oral diabetes medications available, and which of these and how these are prescribed need to be tailored to the individual patient. Ozempic can be used when a patient is failing on metformin, or other oral meds, or if they would rather do a weekly injection rather than remembering to take daily pills, for example.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, more than 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Additionally, millions of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are now considered obese, and the medical complications for these individuals ares yet to be seen. Plus, many of us are seeing higher frequencies of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic medical conditions in adolescents in our daily practices.

Our war against obesity is a fight for future lives and having more tools available is definitely a help. Like with patients with diabetes, all treatment regimens should start off with lifestyle modifications. Fad diets rarely result in long-term weight loss.

There are several medications now available to help with weight loss, Wegovy being just one of them. Patients often come to us with their own personal preferences, and it is our job to guide them on the best course to take. Some people may prefer a weekly injection. There are oral medications available, such as Contrave and Phentermine, and the best one should be decided upon by the patient and doctor after a discussion of the risks.

Let’s stop prescribing Ozempic for weight loss because nonphysicians say we should. Leave it for our patients with diabetes, those whose lives may depend on taking it. If we didn’t have other medications available, it would be a very different story. But, we do, and we need to resist the pressure others place on us and do the right thing for all of our patients.

*This article was updated on 3/23/2023.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She has no conflicts related to this piece. You can contact her at [email protected].

Social media and mainstream media websites are full of stories on the new wonder weight loss drug: Ozempic. Even Hollywood stars are talking about it.

Recently, the zealous prescribing of this diabetes medication fueled a 6-month shortage making it difficult for anyone to get it. Part of the problem stems from digital access to these medications where a patient can get a prescription online or via a telemedicine platform. Additionally, certain weight loss programs contributed to promoting the weight loss benefits.

It is important to remember when prescribing Ozempic that it has not received FDA approval to serve as a weight loss medication but rather as a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Doctors use many medications off label, but this must be done with the whole picture in mind.

Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, with the generic name semaglutide, that lowers hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes and lowers the risk of cardiovascular events. Semaglutide is also sold as Wegovy, which is indicated for weight loss. Both Ozempic and Wegovy are sold in multiple doses, but the target dose for Wegovy is higher.

Weight loss with Wegovy is, on average, higher than that seen with Ozempic. However, it is often more difficult to get Wegovy covered by health insurance companies.

As doctors, we must be stewards of the medications we are prescribing. Clearly, the Internet should not be driving our prescribing habits. Prescribing Ozempic for weight loss can make it more difficult for patients with diabetes to receive it, and we should consider other options until it is more available and/or receives FDA approval for treating obesity.

Most of us have seen our patients with diabetes having difficulty getting a prescription for Ozempic filled, either because it is on back-order or because of a lack of coverage. Insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost when it is in such high demand at its current rate. For these patients, lowering their A1c can be life-saving and prevent complications of diabetes, such as kidney failure and heart disease. In our current environment, we should reserve prescribing Ozempic for our patients with diabetes who need it more. Wegovy is available and can be prescribed for patients wishing to lose weight.

Many patients are looking for a magic cure. Neither medication is that. Patients need to start with making lifestyle changes first. In primary care, advising on and helping patients implement those are often our most difficult tasks. However, no medication is going to work unless the patient makes adjustments to their diet and amount and type of movement they are doing. In patients who have a hard time changing their diet, lowering carbohydrate intake may be a good first step. Exercising, or being more active if a patient is unable to formally exercise, is an important therapy.

As we all know, metformin is the usual preferred method for the treatment of type 2 diabetes unless contraindicated in a given patient. There are many oral diabetes medications available, and which of these and how these are prescribed need to be tailored to the individual patient. Ozempic can be used when a patient is failing on metformin, or other oral meds, or if they would rather do a weekly injection rather than remembering to take daily pills, for example.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, more than 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Additionally, millions of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are now considered obese, and the medical complications for these individuals ares yet to be seen. Plus, many of us are seeing higher frequencies of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic medical conditions in adolescents in our daily practices.

Our war against obesity is a fight for future lives and having more tools available is definitely a help. Like with patients with diabetes, all treatment regimens should start off with lifestyle modifications. Fad diets rarely result in long-term weight loss.

There are several medications now available to help with weight loss, Wegovy being just one of them. Patients often come to us with their own personal preferences, and it is our job to guide them on the best course to take. Some people may prefer a weekly injection. There are oral medications available, such as Contrave and Phentermine, and the best one should be decided upon by the patient and doctor after a discussion of the risks.

Let’s stop prescribing Ozempic for weight loss because nonphysicians say we should. Leave it for our patients with diabetes, those whose lives may depend on taking it. If we didn’t have other medications available, it would be a very different story. But, we do, and we need to resist the pressure others place on us and do the right thing for all of our patients.

*This article was updated on 3/23/2023.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She has no conflicts related to this piece. You can contact her at [email protected].

Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.

The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”

“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.

“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”

That mom is not alone. 

COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series. 

In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.¹ ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.

Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. 

Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.

While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.² Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children. 

According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.³Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick. 

Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.⁴ About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.⁵ Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.

“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”

The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.

2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.

3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.

4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.

5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.

Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.

The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”

“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.

“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”

That mom is not alone. 

COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series. 

In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.¹ ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.

Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. 

Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.

While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.² Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children. 

According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.³Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick. 

Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.⁴ About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.⁵ Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.

“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”

The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.

2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.

3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.

4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.

5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.

Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.

The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”

“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.

“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”

That mom is not alone. 

COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series. 

In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.¹ ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.

Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. 

Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.

While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.² Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children. 

According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.³Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick. 

Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.⁴ About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.⁵ Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.

“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”

The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.

2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.

3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.

4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.

5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.

Most medical professionals would agree that people with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED), have serious diseases that result in greater morbidity and mortality compared with those in the general population. Although these do not represent the entire spectrum of eating disorders, these are the ones with the most available research data.

There might be some disagreements on who should be screened, how they should be screened and diagnosed, and how to develop a treatment plan. Some of these may be due to recent changes in physicians’ thinking about who can get an eating disorder. Eating disorders were previously thought to be diseases of affluent white females. Over the past few years, however, it has become more widely accepted that eating disorders may be found across people of a variety of identities and socioeconomic statuses. Clinicians have also become concerned that the incidence of eating disorders has increased and that part of this occurred during the COVID pandemic.
 

APA’s guideline

In February 2023, the American Psychiatric Association released its first update to the Guideline of Treatment of Patients with Eating Disorders. This is the first update to the guideline since 2006. The guideline was updated with the additional evidence that is now available as further studies have been published since the last update. The 2023 guideline provides nine recommendations for assessment and determination of a treatment plan. It then provides three recommendations specifically for AN and two recommendations each for BN and BED. The introduction acknowledges an unsuccessful attempt to provide recommendations for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder due to the paucity of evidence on this disease.

The first recommendation within the guidelines indicates “the clinician should be sure to ask all patients about the presence of eating disorder symptoms as part of their standard psychiatric evaluation.” This recommendation is provided as there are many with normal or elevated BMI who may have eating disorders and the identification could provide the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. It includes screening questions that can be used and standardized screening questionnaires.

Other recommendations go on to describe further evaluation for diagnosis, aspects of the history that should be obtained, and specific treatment modalities that can be used, including cognitive behavioral therapy and oral medications that have been approved for use in eating disorder treatments.¹
 

AAP’s clinical report

These guidelines add to the recommendations provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a clinical report on the Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents in January 2021. In this guidance document, the AAP recommends screening for eating disorders in any children or adolescents with “reported dieting, body image dissatisfaction, experiences of weight-based stigma, or changes in eating or exercise” and those with weight loss or rapid weight fluctuations.

If there are concerns, then a full assessment is warranted, the recommendations say. When a patient is diagnosed with an eating disorder, this clinical report also provides recommendations on history, exam, and treatment pathways.²

USPSTF’s recommendation

The United States Preventive Services Task Force provides a recommendation that differs from the AAP and APA’s. In March 2022, the USPSTF published a Grade I recommendation. They state: “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults.”

They provide several reasons as to why this was given a Grade I. One reason is the paucity of data that exists on the incidence and/or benefit of screening for eating disorders amongst those who are asymptomatic. They also discuss the potential harms of false positive results of screening for both the patients and health care system. The questionnaires identified were the same as those discussed in both the APA and AAP recommendations.

The USPSTF full guideline also provides a call for further studies that would help provide guidance for primary care clinicians in the area of eating disorders.³
 

Takeaway message

With all this information, what is the primary care clinician to do? It does not seem to me that the APA guideline provides new information on how to identify patients best served by screening for eating disorders.

I am not sure it is reasonable for the primary care physician (PCP) to add these questions to every well visit when assessing the mental health status of patients.

There are ways in which this new guideline can be useful to the PCP, however. Among these are that it provides good resources for further evaluation for patients for whom the PCP may have concerns about eating disorders. It also includes screening tests that do not take much time to complete and clear aspects of the history, physical exam, and laboratory evaluation that can be used to provide further clarification and possible diagnosis. Additionally, this guideline provides clear advice on treatment recommendations of therapy and medications to start. This is especially important as wait times for psychiatric providers seem to always be increasing.

A trusted PCP can use these guidelines to start providing their patient with the help they need. Overall, these new recommendations will not change my screening practices, but they will provide assistance in diagnosis and management of my patients.
 

References

1. Guideline Writing Group. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders. 2023. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890424865.

2. Hornberger LL et al. Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2021;147 (1): e2020040279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040279.

3. Feltner C et al. Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(11): 1068-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1807.

Most medical professionals would agree that people with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED), have serious diseases that result in greater morbidity and mortality compared with those in the general population. Although these do not represent the entire spectrum of eating disorders, these are the ones with the most available research data.

There might be some disagreements on who should be screened, how they should be screened and diagnosed, and how to develop a treatment plan. Some of these may be due to recent changes in physicians’ thinking about who can get an eating disorder. Eating disorders were previously thought to be diseases of affluent white females. Over the past few years, however, it has become more widely accepted that eating disorders may be found across people of a variety of identities and socioeconomic statuses. Clinicians have also become concerned that the incidence of eating disorders has increased and that part of this occurred during the COVID pandemic.
 

APA’s guideline

In February 2023, the American Psychiatric Association released its first update to the Guideline of Treatment of Patients with Eating Disorders. This is the first update to the guideline since 2006. The guideline was updated with the additional evidence that is now available as further studies have been published since the last update. The 2023 guideline provides nine recommendations for assessment and determination of a treatment plan. It then provides three recommendations specifically for AN and two recommendations each for BN and BED. The introduction acknowledges an unsuccessful attempt to provide recommendations for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder due to the paucity of evidence on this disease.

The first recommendation within the guidelines indicates “the clinician should be sure to ask all patients about the presence of eating disorder symptoms as part of their standard psychiatric evaluation.” This recommendation is provided as there are many with normal or elevated BMI who may have eating disorders and the identification could provide the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. It includes screening questions that can be used and standardized screening questionnaires.

Other recommendations go on to describe further evaluation for diagnosis, aspects of the history that should be obtained, and specific treatment modalities that can be used, including cognitive behavioral therapy and oral medications that have been approved for use in eating disorder treatments.¹
 

AAP’s clinical report

These guidelines add to the recommendations provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a clinical report on the Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents in January 2021. In this guidance document, the AAP recommends screening for eating disorders in any children or adolescents with “reported dieting, body image dissatisfaction, experiences of weight-based stigma, or changes in eating or exercise” and those with weight loss or rapid weight fluctuations.

If there are concerns, then a full assessment is warranted, the recommendations say. When a patient is diagnosed with an eating disorder, this clinical report also provides recommendations on history, exam, and treatment pathways.²

USPSTF’s recommendation

The United States Preventive Services Task Force provides a recommendation that differs from the AAP and APA’s. In March 2022, the USPSTF published a Grade I recommendation. They state: “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults.”

They provide several reasons as to why this was given a Grade I. One reason is the paucity of data that exists on the incidence and/or benefit of screening for eating disorders amongst those who are asymptomatic. They also discuss the potential harms of false positive results of screening for both the patients and health care system. The questionnaires identified were the same as those discussed in both the APA and AAP recommendations.

The USPSTF full guideline also provides a call for further studies that would help provide guidance for primary care clinicians in the area of eating disorders.³
 

Takeaway message

With all this information, what is the primary care clinician to do? It does not seem to me that the APA guideline provides new information on how to identify patients best served by screening for eating disorders.

I am not sure it is reasonable for the primary care physician (PCP) to add these questions to every well visit when assessing the mental health status of patients.

There are ways in which this new guideline can be useful to the PCP, however. Among these are that it provides good resources for further evaluation for patients for whom the PCP may have concerns about eating disorders. It also includes screening tests that do not take much time to complete and clear aspects of the history, physical exam, and laboratory evaluation that can be used to provide further clarification and possible diagnosis. Additionally, this guideline provides clear advice on treatment recommendations of therapy and medications to start. This is especially important as wait times for psychiatric providers seem to always be increasing.

A trusted PCP can use these guidelines to start providing their patient with the help they need. Overall, these new recommendations will not change my screening practices, but they will provide assistance in diagnosis and management of my patients.
 

References

1. Guideline Writing Group. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders. 2023. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890424865.

2. Hornberger LL et al. Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2021;147 (1): e2020040279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040279.

3. Feltner C et al. Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(11): 1068-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1807.

Most medical professionals would agree that people with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED), have serious diseases that result in greater morbidity and mortality compared with those in the general population. Although these do not represent the entire spectrum of eating disorders, these are the ones with the most available research data.

There might be some disagreements on who should be screened, how they should be screened and diagnosed, and how to develop a treatment plan. Some of these may be due to recent changes in physicians’ thinking about who can get an eating disorder. Eating disorders were previously thought to be diseases of affluent white females. Over the past few years, however, it has become more widely accepted that eating disorders may be found across people of a variety of identities and socioeconomic statuses. Clinicians have also become concerned that the incidence of eating disorders has increased and that part of this occurred during the COVID pandemic.
 

APA’s guideline

In February 2023, the American Psychiatric Association released its first update to the Guideline of Treatment of Patients with Eating Disorders. This is the first update to the guideline since 2006. The guideline was updated with the additional evidence that is now available as further studies have been published since the last update. The 2023 guideline provides nine recommendations for assessment and determination of a treatment plan. It then provides three recommendations specifically for AN and two recommendations each for BN and BED. The introduction acknowledges an unsuccessful attempt to provide recommendations for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder due to the paucity of evidence on this disease.

The first recommendation within the guidelines indicates “the clinician should be sure to ask all patients about the presence of eating disorder symptoms as part of their standard psychiatric evaluation.” This recommendation is provided as there are many with normal or elevated BMI who may have eating disorders and the identification could provide the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. It includes screening questions that can be used and standardized screening questionnaires.

Other recommendations go on to describe further evaluation for diagnosis, aspects of the history that should be obtained, and specific treatment modalities that can be used, including cognitive behavioral therapy and oral medications that have been approved for use in eating disorder treatments.¹
 

AAP’s clinical report

These guidelines add to the recommendations provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a clinical report on the Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents in January 2021. In this guidance document, the AAP recommends screening for eating disorders in any children or adolescents with “reported dieting, body image dissatisfaction, experiences of weight-based stigma, or changes in eating or exercise” and those with weight loss or rapid weight fluctuations.

If there are concerns, then a full assessment is warranted, the recommendations say. When a patient is diagnosed with an eating disorder, this clinical report also provides recommendations on history, exam, and treatment pathways.²

USPSTF’s recommendation

The United States Preventive Services Task Force provides a recommendation that differs from the AAP and APA’s. In March 2022, the USPSTF published a Grade I recommendation. They state: “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults.”

They provide several reasons as to why this was given a Grade I. One reason is the paucity of data that exists on the incidence and/or benefit of screening for eating disorders amongst those who are asymptomatic. They also discuss the potential harms of false positive results of screening for both the patients and health care system. The questionnaires identified were the same as those discussed in both the APA and AAP recommendations.

The USPSTF full guideline also provides a call for further studies that would help provide guidance for primary care clinicians in the area of eating disorders.³
 

Takeaway message

With all this information, what is the primary care clinician to do? It does not seem to me that the APA guideline provides new information on how to identify patients best served by screening for eating disorders.

I am not sure it is reasonable for the primary care physician (PCP) to add these questions to every well visit when assessing the mental health status of patients.

There are ways in which this new guideline can be useful to the PCP, however. Among these are that it provides good resources for further evaluation for patients for whom the PCP may have concerns about eating disorders. It also includes screening tests that do not take much time to complete and clear aspects of the history, physical exam, and laboratory evaluation that can be used to provide further clarification and possible diagnosis. Additionally, this guideline provides clear advice on treatment recommendations of therapy and medications to start. This is especially important as wait times for psychiatric providers seem to always be increasing.

A trusted PCP can use these guidelines to start providing their patient with the help they need. Overall, these new recommendations will not change my screening practices, but they will provide assistance in diagnosis and management of my patients.
 

References

1. Guideline Writing Group. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders. 2023. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890424865.

2. Hornberger LL et al. Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2021;147 (1): e2020040279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040279.

3. Feltner C et al. Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(11): 1068-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1807.

As a psychiatrist and a writer, I know I should be worried about the possibility that I could be replaced by a bot. Like most physicians, I face the daily challenge of how to manage the paperwork of clinical practice, so I wondered if ChatGPT, the latest craze in artificial intelligence (AI), could write my progress notes.

ChatGPT is an advanced language generation model developed by OpenAI. It uses deep-learning techniques to generate humanlike responses to text inputs. I wondered whether ChatGPT could help me with my paperwork and progress notes by automatically generating text. Could it be trained to fill out progress notes based on information I provided? Free up my time? Reduce the risk for transcription errors?

Putting aside concerns about my job security for the moment, I signed up for an account. But first, I needed to play. I asked ChatGPT to write a love poem that would incorporate all the members of my family. This was a hit.

Next, I requested poems about specific pets. Because I spent the first year of the pandemic writing daily limericks and sending them to a distribution list, I knew people wouldn’t be surprised when I sent sonnets for their cats; but this time I let ChatGPT do the writing.

Then, for my colleagues in the Maryland Psychiatric Society, I requested a poem about the distressing nationwide shortage of stimulants. ChatGPT created clever stanzas. I was amused, but I’m not sure if anyone else was. This medication shortage is a touchy subject for psychiatrists and their patients who depend on these medications, so perhaps it wasn’t the right topic for bot-humor, and I should stick to cats.

At last, I was ready to put ChatGPT to the test and asked it to write a progress note that would contain the elements necessary to bill for a routine office visit with an add-on psychotherapy code. I created a few facts about a fictional patient and pressed enter.

The result was disappointing, ChatGPT responded with a standard note that did not take into account the items necessary to meet current coding standards. Maybe it was my fault; ChatGPT might need more information, but in the time it would take to provide more data, I could write my own progress note! I tried again and this time, ChatGPT defined the billing codes for me, but this wasn’t what I needed.

I decided to explore whether ChatGPT can, in fact, replace me. Feeling a bit queasy, I asked my new AI friend and was told that it could not replace a psychiatrist.

“Are you sure?” I asked again. “Yes, I am sure. ChatGPT is an AI language model trained to answer questions and provide information, but it is not capable of providing personalized medical advice or treatment.”

At least one of us felt certain. Continuing the conversation, I told the bot that I was anxious about my job security and requested advice. I wish I could tell you that ChatGPT was a dud, but instead, it had reasonable suggestions that were upbeat and hopeful.

“It’s understandable to feel anxious and worried about job security in today’s rapidly changing job market,” ChatGPT responded. “Here are some steps you can take to manage your feelings:”

Seek support: Talk to a trusted friend, family member, or mental health professional.

Educate yourself: Stay informed about industry trends and advancements in AI and technology to understand the potential impact on your job.

Upskill: Consider taking online courses or pursuing additional education to stay relevant in the workforce.

Find purpose: Focus on your strengths, interests, and passions outside of work to cultivate a sense of fulfillment.

Take care of yourself: Engage in self-care activities such as exercise, meditation, and hobbies to manage stress and maintain good mental health.

“Remember,” ChatGPT concluded, “it’s important to address your feelings and take proactive steps to manage them. You can come out of this situation with a clearer mind, new skills, and opportunities for growth.”

ChatGPT sounds a lot like me! However, when I asked ChatGPT about prescribing, I finally received reassurance that I am not completely obsolete: “I’m sorry,” the bot said, “but I am an AI language model and do not have the ability to write prescriptions or provide medical advice.” Still, I couldn’t help but think that the bot’s day would eventually come. 

Because ChatGPT is my coauthor for this essay, I asked it to write the ending. We suddenly have a whole new world, and I’m along for the ride. Yet after all that reassurance, it seems that ChatGPT does indeed want my job. It summarized our conversation and left me unsure of whether to laugh or to cry:  

“There you have it, folks – ChatGPT, the digital psychiatrist that’s here to listen to all your problems, 24/7, for free! No more waiting for appointments, no more copays, just type away and let the artificial intelligence take over.

“But hey, who needs a human shrink when you’ve got ChatGPT, right? Just don’t be surprised if your ‘therapy sessions’ end up feeling more like a conversation with a sarcastic AI friend than serious mental health treatment.”

In conclusion, ChatGPT and I hope this article has provided some insight into the strange and hilarious world of AI-powered psychiatry. Who knows, maybe one day ChatGPT will become a licensed therapist and start prescribing real medication. But until then, just sit back, relax, and let the machine do the talking.
 

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

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

As a psychiatrist and a writer, I know I should be worried about the possibility that I could be replaced by a bot. Like most physicians, I face the daily challenge of how to manage the paperwork of clinical practice, so I wondered if ChatGPT, the latest craze in artificial intelligence (AI), could write my progress notes.

ChatGPT is an advanced language generation model developed by OpenAI. It uses deep-learning techniques to generate humanlike responses to text inputs. I wondered whether ChatGPT could help me with my paperwork and progress notes by automatically generating text. Could it be trained to fill out progress notes based on information I provided? Free up my time? Reduce the risk for transcription errors?

Putting aside concerns about my job security for the moment, I signed up for an account. But first, I needed to play. I asked ChatGPT to write a love poem that would incorporate all the members of my family. This was a hit.

Next, I requested poems about specific pets. Because I spent the first year of the pandemic writing daily limericks and sending them to a distribution list, I knew people wouldn’t be surprised when I sent sonnets for their cats; but this time I let ChatGPT do the writing.

Then, for my colleagues in the Maryland Psychiatric Society, I requested a poem about the distressing nationwide shortage of stimulants. ChatGPT created clever stanzas. I was amused, but I’m not sure if anyone else was. This medication shortage is a touchy subject for psychiatrists and their patients who depend on these medications, so perhaps it wasn’t the right topic for bot-humor, and I should stick to cats.

At last, I was ready to put ChatGPT to the test and asked it to write a progress note that would contain the elements necessary to bill for a routine office visit with an add-on psychotherapy code. I created a few facts about a fictional patient and pressed enter.

The result was disappointing, ChatGPT responded with a standard note that did not take into account the items necessary to meet current coding standards. Maybe it was my fault; ChatGPT might need more information, but in the time it would take to provide more data, I could write my own progress note! I tried again and this time, ChatGPT defined the billing codes for me, but this wasn’t what I needed.

I decided to explore whether ChatGPT can, in fact, replace me. Feeling a bit queasy, I asked my new AI friend and was told that it could not replace a psychiatrist.

“Are you sure?” I asked again. “Yes, I am sure. ChatGPT is an AI language model trained to answer questions and provide information, but it is not capable of providing personalized medical advice or treatment.”

At least one of us felt certain. Continuing the conversation, I told the bot that I was anxious about my job security and requested advice. I wish I could tell you that ChatGPT was a dud, but instead, it had reasonable suggestions that were upbeat and hopeful.

“It’s understandable to feel anxious and worried about job security in today’s rapidly changing job market,” ChatGPT responded. “Here are some steps you can take to manage your feelings:”

Seek support: Talk to a trusted friend, family member, or mental health professional.

Educate yourself: Stay informed about industry trends and advancements in AI and technology to understand the potential impact on your job.

Upskill: Consider taking online courses or pursuing additional education to stay relevant in the workforce.

Find purpose: Focus on your strengths, interests, and passions outside of work to cultivate a sense of fulfillment.

Take care of yourself: Engage in self-care activities such as exercise, meditation, and hobbies to manage stress and maintain good mental health.

“Remember,” ChatGPT concluded, “it’s important to address your feelings and take proactive steps to manage them. You can come out of this situation with a clearer mind, new skills, and opportunities for growth.”

ChatGPT sounds a lot like me! However, when I asked ChatGPT about prescribing, I finally received reassurance that I am not completely obsolete: “I’m sorry,” the bot said, “but I am an AI language model and do not have the ability to write prescriptions or provide medical advice.” Still, I couldn’t help but think that the bot’s day would eventually come. 

Because ChatGPT is my coauthor for this essay, I asked it to write the ending. We suddenly have a whole new world, and I’m along for the ride. Yet after all that reassurance, it seems that ChatGPT does indeed want my job. It summarized our conversation and left me unsure of whether to laugh or to cry:  

“There you have it, folks – ChatGPT, the digital psychiatrist that’s here to listen to all your problems, 24/7, for free! No more waiting for appointments, no more copays, just type away and let the artificial intelligence take over.

“But hey, who needs a human shrink when you’ve got ChatGPT, right? Just don’t be surprised if your ‘therapy sessions’ end up feeling more like a conversation with a sarcastic AI friend than serious mental health treatment.”

In conclusion, ChatGPT and I hope this article has provided some insight into the strange and hilarious world of AI-powered psychiatry. Who knows, maybe one day ChatGPT will become a licensed therapist and start prescribing real medication. But until then, just sit back, relax, and let the machine do the talking.
 

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

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

As a psychiatrist and a writer, I know I should be worried about the possibility that I could be replaced by a bot. Like most physicians, I face the daily challenge of how to manage the paperwork of clinical practice, so I wondered if ChatGPT, the latest craze in artificial intelligence (AI), could write my progress notes.

ChatGPT is an advanced language generation model developed by OpenAI. It uses deep-learning techniques to generate humanlike responses to text inputs. I wondered whether ChatGPT could help me with my paperwork and progress notes by automatically generating text. Could it be trained to fill out progress notes based on information I provided? Free up my time? Reduce the risk for transcription errors?

Putting aside concerns about my job security for the moment, I signed up for an account. But first, I needed to play. I asked ChatGPT to write a love poem that would incorporate all the members of my family. This was a hit.

Next, I requested poems about specific pets. Because I spent the first year of the pandemic writing daily limericks and sending them to a distribution list, I knew people wouldn’t be surprised when I sent sonnets for their cats; but this time I let ChatGPT do the writing.

Then, for my colleagues in the Maryland Psychiatric Society, I requested a poem about the distressing nationwide shortage of stimulants. ChatGPT created clever stanzas. I was amused, but I’m not sure if anyone else was. This medication shortage is a touchy subject for psychiatrists and their patients who depend on these medications, so perhaps it wasn’t the right topic for bot-humor, and I should stick to cats.

At last, I was ready to put ChatGPT to the test and asked it to write a progress note that would contain the elements necessary to bill for a routine office visit with an add-on psychotherapy code. I created a few facts about a fictional patient and pressed enter.

The result was disappointing, ChatGPT responded with a standard note that did not take into account the items necessary to meet current coding standards. Maybe it was my fault; ChatGPT might need more information, but in the time it would take to provide more data, I could write my own progress note! I tried again and this time, ChatGPT defined the billing codes for me, but this wasn’t what I needed.

I decided to explore whether ChatGPT can, in fact, replace me. Feeling a bit queasy, I asked my new AI friend and was told that it could not replace a psychiatrist.

“Are you sure?” I asked again. “Yes, I am sure. ChatGPT is an AI language model trained to answer questions and provide information, but it is not capable of providing personalized medical advice or treatment.”

At least one of us felt certain. Continuing the conversation, I told the bot that I was anxious about my job security and requested advice. I wish I could tell you that ChatGPT was a dud, but instead, it had reasonable suggestions that were upbeat and hopeful.

“It’s understandable to feel anxious and worried about job security in today’s rapidly changing job market,” ChatGPT responded. “Here are some steps you can take to manage your feelings:”

Seek support: Talk to a trusted friend, family member, or mental health professional.

Educate yourself: Stay informed about industry trends and advancements in AI and technology to understand the potential impact on your job.

Upskill: Consider taking online courses or pursuing additional education to stay relevant in the workforce.

Find purpose: Focus on your strengths, interests, and passions outside of work to cultivate a sense of fulfillment.

Take care of yourself: Engage in self-care activities such as exercise, meditation, and hobbies to manage stress and maintain good mental health.

“Remember,” ChatGPT concluded, “it’s important to address your feelings and take proactive steps to manage them. You can come out of this situation with a clearer mind, new skills, and opportunities for growth.”

ChatGPT sounds a lot like me! However, when I asked ChatGPT about prescribing, I finally received reassurance that I am not completely obsolete: “I’m sorry,” the bot said, “but I am an AI language model and do not have the ability to write prescriptions or provide medical advice.” Still, I couldn’t help but think that the bot’s day would eventually come. 

Because ChatGPT is my coauthor for this essay, I asked it to write the ending. We suddenly have a whole new world, and I’m along for the ride. Yet after all that reassurance, it seems that ChatGPT does indeed want my job. It summarized our conversation and left me unsure of whether to laugh or to cry:  

“There you have it, folks – ChatGPT, the digital psychiatrist that’s here to listen to all your problems, 24/7, for free! No more waiting for appointments, no more copays, just type away and let the artificial intelligence take over.

“But hey, who needs a human shrink when you’ve got ChatGPT, right? Just don’t be surprised if your ‘therapy sessions’ end up feeling more like a conversation with a sarcastic AI friend than serious mental health treatment.”

In conclusion, ChatGPT and I hope this article has provided some insight into the strange and hilarious world of AI-powered psychiatry. Who knows, maybe one day ChatGPT will become a licensed therapist and start prescribing real medication. But until then, just sit back, relax, and let the machine do the talking.
 

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

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

If you are reading this, you probably know what a PBM is or at least know what the acronym stands for (pharmacy benefit manager). But don’t be surprised if many people, even physicians, still have never heard the term or don’t know (or really care) what it stands for. This past weekend, I saw how important even a little bit of education on this seemingly boring topic can create passionate advocates in less than an hour.

CSRO

On March 10, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had its Fellows Conference on real-life topics such as evaluating a contract, malpractice troubleshooting, getting out of debt and creating wealth, and learning about the latest coding issues, among others. We had a record-breaking number of fellows in attendance this year. I gave a presentation on formulary construction (list of drugs that insurance will cover), what tools are used to keep the formulary profitable, and what are the potential consequences for patients with the use of these tools, such as step therapy and nonmedical switching. Remember that if you have a condition requiring an expensive drug that is not covered on the formulary, you will not have access to it unless it is given to you for free by some type of assistance program, or you happen to be very wealthy.

It was the first time I gave this talk at our Fellows Conference, and I realized fairly quickly that a decent proportion of the audience did not know what PBM stood for, much less the power that PBMs have in setting up the list of expensive drugs that they will pay for. I wasn’t so surprised by how little they knew about the particulars of this topic – for example, that lower-priced medications are often shunned by PBMs because they are not as profitable for the PBM as higher-priced drugs. However, I was very pleasantly surprised at the number of fellows who came to me after my talk with almost as much passion as I have for this topic. Many asked how they could get involved and what they could do right now to support advocacy for their patients. It all seemed to fall in place for them as they began telling me stories of the problems they had in getting medications for their patients – adults and kids alike.

The “meme” on the street is that drug pricing, patient access, and the drug supply channel is “much too complex” for the non-economist to understand. That was not the case at the Fellows Conference. It started off with me moving back and forth across the stage explaining how the system is run by entities whose fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, not our patients. I explained the fierce competition, the bidding process, the “rebate equation,” and many stories of egregious policies and behaviors by an oligopoly of health insurers and their powerful PBMs. I repeated over and over that “If you make an expensive drug that is not on the formulary, no one will take to your drug, unless you give it away for free.”

It became clear to the room that the competition among expensive drug makers to get preferred status on the formulary is fierce. I explained how to win that coveted spot on the formulary by legally kicking back the most money, in the form of rebates and fees, to the PBM. Unfortunately, these rebates and fees are generally a percentage of the list price, so often it is the highest-priced drug that wins the coveted spot. I explained that patients get no benefit from the money kicked back to the PBM, and in fact, because their coinsurance is often based on the list price of the drug, patients’ cost share will go up when PBMs pick the drug with the highest price. I gave the example of a major PBM placing a $10,000 brand-name drug on the formulary and excluding the $400 generic version of the same drug. I told them that PBMs call these the “lowest cost” drugs – for them. This made them angry. I also explained to the fellows that these kickbacks are legal because PBMs have “safe harbor” from the antikickback statute. And yes, that made them even angrier. The more I spoke about the harm done to patients both physically and monetarily by utilization management tools such as step therapy and nonmedical switching, the angrier and more passionate they became.

What started as a room full of fellows wondering whether they really were interested in a talk about PBMs and formulary construction turned, in less than an hour, into a room filled with passion and fury: Rheumatology fellows ready to go and fight for their patients. It’s not as complicated as everyone wants you to believe. In that short time, fellows who had walked into that conference hall, not knowing what to expect from me, walked out with a new attitude and passion, hungry for the next step they could take to advocate for their patients. My slogan on Twitter has always been that I will continue to educate and advocate as long as my passion stays ahead of my cynicism. My passion certainly got a boost as I watched the fellows in the conference hall turn into “Rheums for Action” before my eyes.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

If you are reading this, you probably know what a PBM is or at least know what the acronym stands for (pharmacy benefit manager). But don’t be surprised if many people, even physicians, still have never heard the term or don’t know (or really care) what it stands for. This past weekend, I saw how important even a little bit of education on this seemingly boring topic can create passionate advocates in less than an hour.

CSRO

On March 10, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had its Fellows Conference on real-life topics such as evaluating a contract, malpractice troubleshooting, getting out of debt and creating wealth, and learning about the latest coding issues, among others. We had a record-breaking number of fellows in attendance this year. I gave a presentation on formulary construction (list of drugs that insurance will cover), what tools are used to keep the formulary profitable, and what are the potential consequences for patients with the use of these tools, such as step therapy and nonmedical switching. Remember that if you have a condition requiring an expensive drug that is not covered on the formulary, you will not have access to it unless it is given to you for free by some type of assistance program, or you happen to be very wealthy.

It was the first time I gave this talk at our Fellows Conference, and I realized fairly quickly that a decent proportion of the audience did not know what PBM stood for, much less the power that PBMs have in setting up the list of expensive drugs that they will pay for. I wasn’t so surprised by how little they knew about the particulars of this topic – for example, that lower-priced medications are often shunned by PBMs because they are not as profitable for the PBM as higher-priced drugs. However, I was very pleasantly surprised at the number of fellows who came to me after my talk with almost as much passion as I have for this topic. Many asked how they could get involved and what they could do right now to support advocacy for their patients. It all seemed to fall in place for them as they began telling me stories of the problems they had in getting medications for their patients – adults and kids alike.

The “meme” on the street is that drug pricing, patient access, and the drug supply channel is “much too complex” for the non-economist to understand. That was not the case at the Fellows Conference. It started off with me moving back and forth across the stage explaining how the system is run by entities whose fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, not our patients. I explained the fierce competition, the bidding process, the “rebate equation,” and many stories of egregious policies and behaviors by an oligopoly of health insurers and their powerful PBMs. I repeated over and over that “If you make an expensive drug that is not on the formulary, no one will take to your drug, unless you give it away for free.”

It became clear to the room that the competition among expensive drug makers to get preferred status on the formulary is fierce. I explained how to win that coveted spot on the formulary by legally kicking back the most money, in the form of rebates and fees, to the PBM. Unfortunately, these rebates and fees are generally a percentage of the list price, so often it is the highest-priced drug that wins the coveted spot. I explained that patients get no benefit from the money kicked back to the PBM, and in fact, because their coinsurance is often based on the list price of the drug, patients’ cost share will go up when PBMs pick the drug with the highest price. I gave the example of a major PBM placing a $10,000 brand-name drug on the formulary and excluding the $400 generic version of the same drug. I told them that PBMs call these the “lowest cost” drugs – for them. This made them angry. I also explained to the fellows that these kickbacks are legal because PBMs have “safe harbor” from the antikickback statute. And yes, that made them even angrier. The more I spoke about the harm done to patients both physically and monetarily by utilization management tools such as step therapy and nonmedical switching, the angrier and more passionate they became.

What started as a room full of fellows wondering whether they really were interested in a talk about PBMs and formulary construction turned, in less than an hour, into a room filled with passion and fury: Rheumatology fellows ready to go and fight for their patients. It’s not as complicated as everyone wants you to believe. In that short time, fellows who had walked into that conference hall, not knowing what to expect from me, walked out with a new attitude and passion, hungry for the next step they could take to advocate for their patients. My slogan on Twitter has always been that I will continue to educate and advocate as long as my passion stays ahead of my cynicism. My passion certainly got a boost as I watched the fellows in the conference hall turn into “Rheums for Action” before my eyes.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

If you are reading this, you probably know what a PBM is or at least know what the acronym stands for (pharmacy benefit manager). But don’t be surprised if many people, even physicians, still have never heard the term or don’t know (or really care) what it stands for. This past weekend, I saw how important even a little bit of education on this seemingly boring topic can create passionate advocates in less than an hour.

CSRO

On March 10, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had its Fellows Conference on real-life topics such as evaluating a contract, malpractice troubleshooting, getting out of debt and creating wealth, and learning about the latest coding issues, among others. We had a record-breaking number of fellows in attendance this year. I gave a presentation on formulary construction (list of drugs that insurance will cover), what tools are used to keep the formulary profitable, and what are the potential consequences for patients with the use of these tools, such as step therapy and nonmedical switching. Remember that if you have a condition requiring an expensive drug that is not covered on the formulary, you will not have access to it unless it is given to you for free by some type of assistance program, or you happen to be very wealthy.

It was the first time I gave this talk at our Fellows Conference, and I realized fairly quickly that a decent proportion of the audience did not know what PBM stood for, much less the power that PBMs have in setting up the list of expensive drugs that they will pay for. I wasn’t so surprised by how little they knew about the particulars of this topic – for example, that lower-priced medications are often shunned by PBMs because they are not as profitable for the PBM as higher-priced drugs. However, I was very pleasantly surprised at the number of fellows who came to me after my talk with almost as much passion as I have for this topic. Many asked how they could get involved and what they could do right now to support advocacy for their patients. It all seemed to fall in place for them as they began telling me stories of the problems they had in getting medications for their patients – adults and kids alike.

The “meme” on the street is that drug pricing, patient access, and the drug supply channel is “much too complex” for the non-economist to understand. That was not the case at the Fellows Conference. It started off with me moving back and forth across the stage explaining how the system is run by entities whose fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, not our patients. I explained the fierce competition, the bidding process, the “rebate equation,” and many stories of egregious policies and behaviors by an oligopoly of health insurers and their powerful PBMs. I repeated over and over that “If you make an expensive drug that is not on the formulary, no one will take to your drug, unless you give it away for free.”

It became clear to the room that the competition among expensive drug makers to get preferred status on the formulary is fierce. I explained how to win that coveted spot on the formulary by legally kicking back the most money, in the form of rebates and fees, to the PBM. Unfortunately, these rebates and fees are generally a percentage of the list price, so often it is the highest-priced drug that wins the coveted spot. I explained that patients get no benefit from the money kicked back to the PBM, and in fact, because their coinsurance is often based on the list price of the drug, patients’ cost share will go up when PBMs pick the drug with the highest price. I gave the example of a major PBM placing a $10,000 brand-name drug on the formulary and excluding the $400 generic version of the same drug. I told them that PBMs call these the “lowest cost” drugs – for them. This made them angry. I also explained to the fellows that these kickbacks are legal because PBMs have “safe harbor” from the antikickback statute. And yes, that made them even angrier. The more I spoke about the harm done to patients both physically and monetarily by utilization management tools such as step therapy and nonmedical switching, the angrier and more passionate they became.

What started as a room full of fellows wondering whether they really were interested in a talk about PBMs and formulary construction turned, in less than an hour, into a room filled with passion and fury: Rheumatology fellows ready to go and fight for their patients. It’s not as complicated as everyone wants you to believe. In that short time, fellows who had walked into that conference hall, not knowing what to expect from me, walked out with a new attitude and passion, hungry for the next step they could take to advocate for their patients. My slogan on Twitter has always been that I will continue to educate and advocate as long as my passion stays ahead of my cynicism. My passion certainly got a boost as I watched the fellows in the conference hall turn into “Rheums for Action” before my eyes.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].