Perspectives

I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.

Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.

There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
 

When should a patient be referred to palliative care?

Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.

For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.

But don’t get me wrong. I’m not discouraging referrals to palliative care, instead I’m suggesting the careful triage of patients.
 

Palliative care for all?

In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.

The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.

This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.

In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.

Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
 

When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?

I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.

A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.

At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.

Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.

There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
 

When should a patient be referred to palliative care?

Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.

For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.

But don’t get me wrong. I’m not discouraging referrals to palliative care, instead I’m suggesting the careful triage of patients.
 

Palliative care for all?

In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.

The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.

This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.

In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.

Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
 

When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?

I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.

A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.

At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.

Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.

There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
 

When should a patient be referred to palliative care?

Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.

For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.

But don’t get me wrong. I’m not discouraging referrals to palliative care, instead I’m suggesting the careful triage of patients.
 

Palliative care for all?

In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.

The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.

This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.

In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.

Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
 

When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?

I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.

A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.

At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

Childhood and adolescence are periods of life with rapid growth and development in which the psychosocial factors of one’s environment can have a profound effect on health. There is increasing evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have significant negative effects on long-term health with effects persisting into subsequent generations.¹ Youth themselves, however, often do not have the voice, ability, or political power to advocate for safe and more supportive environments that are essential to their well-being. Thus, advocacy has been central to the profession of pediatrics since its inception, where providers can partner with their patients, families, and communities to push for changes in the environments in which youth live and grow.²

LGBTQ+ youth are known to be at increased risk for ACEs because of the stress that comes from being part of a minority group and the discrimination they experience by their families, communities, and society at large. These factors within their environments have been shown to be associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, sexually transmitted infections, and homelessness.³ As with other health outcomes that have been linked to the social determinants of health, these disparities are not inevitable and could be greatly improved upon through advocacy and changes in the environments of LGBTQ+ youth.

Marriage equality (the recognition that same-sex couples have the same legal right to marry as opposite-sex couples) has been shown to be not only a political issue, but one that affects health. The debates surrounding marriage equality have contributed to minority stress by questioning the validity of same-sex relationships and assigning them less value relative to opposite-sex relationships.⁴ In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being legally recognized only between opposite-sex couples.

Individual states then continued the marriage equality debate by passing individual state laws either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. During this time, it was shown that, in states where same-sex marriage was legally prohibited, LGBTQ+ adults reported significantly higher rates of generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, any mood disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity when compared with states without a legal ban on same-sex marriage.⁵

Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, it was shown that state policies recognizing same-sex marriage were associated with a 7% relative reduction in suicide attempts reported by adolescent sexual minority students compared with before these policies.⁶ It was also shown that children with same-sex parents were overall less likely to have private health insurance, but this disparity was improved in states that legally recognized same-sex marriage and allowed second-parent adoptions.⁷

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court further ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, requiring that all states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These rulings were associated with a decrease in reported levels of stigma over time and increased reported levels of family support, particularly for those in same-sex relationships.⁸

The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 13, 2022. This law officially repeals DOMA and requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory.⁹

If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 marriage equality decision, individual state laws ensuring or banning same-sex marriage would again be in effect. However, the RFMA ensures that all states continue to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory (even if that state itself bans same-sex marriage). While we do not yet have any studies or data regarding the effect of the RFMA on public health, we can expect positive effects by drawing on the previous evidence on the effect of marriage equality and its effect on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. By establishing marriage equality in the United States, our government institutions are affirming the relationships and identities of those in same-sex relationships, with the potential effect of helping to destigmatize the LGBTQ+ community.

Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians “support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children,” acknowledging that “legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners … can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.”¹⁰ While changes in legal marriage equality are likely to have a positive effect on those within the LGBTQ+ community, it should also be understood that this will not solve all of the psychosocial effects and resultant health disparities that these children face.

A recent scoping review highlights that, as the result of marriage equality progress, sexual minority adults have reported increased social acceptance and reduced stigma across individual, community, and societal levels, but that sexual minority stigma continues to persist across all levels.¹¹

As pediatricians, we can continue to support LGBTQ+ patients and parents by providing care in a safe and affirming environment in which families understand and embrace the healthy development of gender identity and sexuality in an open and destigmatized manner. Delivering care using this approach in and of itself can be seen as advocacy to promote health and well-being within minoritized populations. Pediatricians are also encouraged to become engaged in local and national advocacy initiatives to have a broader effect in the fight for health equity in minority populations, including LGBTQ+ families and youth.

Pediatricians should work with their patients, families, and communities to advocate for structural change needed to address the social determinants of health for optimal growth and development.
 

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Resources

Bright Futures – Promoting Healthy Development of Sexuality and Gender Identity (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/BF_HealthySexualityGenderIdentity_Tipsheet.pdf

Bright Futures – Implementing Social Determinants of Health Into Health Supervision Visits (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/Bright%20Futures/BF_IntegrateSDoH_Tipsheet.pdf?_ga=2.214227031.1330574154.1673910248-58875083.1673910248

American Academy of Pediatrics – Advocacy Website: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/

References

1. Hughes K et al. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356-66.

2. Camero K and Javier JR. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2023;70:43-51.

3. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021;48:179-89.

4. Buffie WC. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):986-90.

5. Hatzenbuehler ML et al. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:452-9.

6. Raifman J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):350-6.

7. Gonzales G and Blewett LA. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):703-11.

8. Ogolsky BG et al. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(4):422-32.

9. Library of Congress. H.R.8404 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. 2022 Dec 13. www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text.

10. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):341-4.

11. Drabble LA et al. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0249125.

Childhood and adolescence are periods of life with rapid growth and development in which the psychosocial factors of one’s environment can have a profound effect on health. There is increasing evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have significant negative effects on long-term health with effects persisting into subsequent generations.¹ Youth themselves, however, often do not have the voice, ability, or political power to advocate for safe and more supportive environments that are essential to their well-being. Thus, advocacy has been central to the profession of pediatrics since its inception, where providers can partner with their patients, families, and communities to push for changes in the environments in which youth live and grow.²

LGBTQ+ youth are known to be at increased risk for ACEs because of the stress that comes from being part of a minority group and the discrimination they experience by their families, communities, and society at large. These factors within their environments have been shown to be associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, sexually transmitted infections, and homelessness.³ As with other health outcomes that have been linked to the social determinants of health, these disparities are not inevitable and could be greatly improved upon through advocacy and changes in the environments of LGBTQ+ youth.

Marriage equality (the recognition that same-sex couples have the same legal right to marry as opposite-sex couples) has been shown to be not only a political issue, but one that affects health. The debates surrounding marriage equality have contributed to minority stress by questioning the validity of same-sex relationships and assigning them less value relative to opposite-sex relationships.⁴ In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being legally recognized only between opposite-sex couples.

Individual states then continued the marriage equality debate by passing individual state laws either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. During this time, it was shown that, in states where same-sex marriage was legally prohibited, LGBTQ+ adults reported significantly higher rates of generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, any mood disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity when compared with states without a legal ban on same-sex marriage.⁵

Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, it was shown that state policies recognizing same-sex marriage were associated with a 7% relative reduction in suicide attempts reported by adolescent sexual minority students compared with before these policies.⁶ It was also shown that children with same-sex parents were overall less likely to have private health insurance, but this disparity was improved in states that legally recognized same-sex marriage and allowed second-parent adoptions.⁷

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court further ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, requiring that all states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These rulings were associated with a decrease in reported levels of stigma over time and increased reported levels of family support, particularly for those in same-sex relationships.⁸

The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 13, 2022. This law officially repeals DOMA and requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory.⁹

If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 marriage equality decision, individual state laws ensuring or banning same-sex marriage would again be in effect. However, the RFMA ensures that all states continue to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory (even if that state itself bans same-sex marriage). While we do not yet have any studies or data regarding the effect of the RFMA on public health, we can expect positive effects by drawing on the previous evidence on the effect of marriage equality and its effect on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. By establishing marriage equality in the United States, our government institutions are affirming the relationships and identities of those in same-sex relationships, with the potential effect of helping to destigmatize the LGBTQ+ community.

Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians “support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children,” acknowledging that “legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners … can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.”¹⁰ While changes in legal marriage equality are likely to have a positive effect on those within the LGBTQ+ community, it should also be understood that this will not solve all of the psychosocial effects and resultant health disparities that these children face.

A recent scoping review highlights that, as the result of marriage equality progress, sexual minority adults have reported increased social acceptance and reduced stigma across individual, community, and societal levels, but that sexual minority stigma continues to persist across all levels.¹¹

As pediatricians, we can continue to support LGBTQ+ patients and parents by providing care in a safe and affirming environment in which families understand and embrace the healthy development of gender identity and sexuality in an open and destigmatized manner. Delivering care using this approach in and of itself can be seen as advocacy to promote health and well-being within minoritized populations. Pediatricians are also encouraged to become engaged in local and national advocacy initiatives to have a broader effect in the fight for health equity in minority populations, including LGBTQ+ families and youth.

Pediatricians should work with their patients, families, and communities to advocate for structural change needed to address the social determinants of health for optimal growth and development.
 

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Resources

Bright Futures – Promoting Healthy Development of Sexuality and Gender Identity (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/BF_HealthySexualityGenderIdentity_Tipsheet.pdf

Bright Futures – Implementing Social Determinants of Health Into Health Supervision Visits (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/Bright%20Futures/BF_IntegrateSDoH_Tipsheet.pdf?_ga=2.214227031.1330574154.1673910248-58875083.1673910248

American Academy of Pediatrics – Advocacy Website: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/

References

1. Hughes K et al. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356-66.

2. Camero K and Javier JR. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2023;70:43-51.

3. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021;48:179-89.

4. Buffie WC. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):986-90.

5. Hatzenbuehler ML et al. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:452-9.

6. Raifman J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):350-6.

7. Gonzales G and Blewett LA. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):703-11.

8. Ogolsky BG et al. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(4):422-32.

9. Library of Congress. H.R.8404 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. 2022 Dec 13. www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text.

10. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):341-4.

11. Drabble LA et al. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0249125.

Childhood and adolescence are periods of life with rapid growth and development in which the psychosocial factors of one’s environment can have a profound effect on health. There is increasing evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have significant negative effects on long-term health with effects persisting into subsequent generations.¹ Youth themselves, however, often do not have the voice, ability, or political power to advocate for safe and more supportive environments that are essential to their well-being. Thus, advocacy has been central to the profession of pediatrics since its inception, where providers can partner with their patients, families, and communities to push for changes in the environments in which youth live and grow.²

LGBTQ+ youth are known to be at increased risk for ACEs because of the stress that comes from being part of a minority group and the discrimination they experience by their families, communities, and society at large. These factors within their environments have been shown to be associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, sexually transmitted infections, and homelessness.³ As with other health outcomes that have been linked to the social determinants of health, these disparities are not inevitable and could be greatly improved upon through advocacy and changes in the environments of LGBTQ+ youth.

Marriage equality (the recognition that same-sex couples have the same legal right to marry as opposite-sex couples) has been shown to be not only a political issue, but one that affects health. The debates surrounding marriage equality have contributed to minority stress by questioning the validity of same-sex relationships and assigning them less value relative to opposite-sex relationships.⁴ In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being legally recognized only between opposite-sex couples.

Individual states then continued the marriage equality debate by passing individual state laws either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. During this time, it was shown that, in states where same-sex marriage was legally prohibited, LGBTQ+ adults reported significantly higher rates of generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, any mood disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity when compared with states without a legal ban on same-sex marriage.⁵

Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, it was shown that state policies recognizing same-sex marriage were associated with a 7% relative reduction in suicide attempts reported by adolescent sexual minority students compared with before these policies.⁶ It was also shown that children with same-sex parents were overall less likely to have private health insurance, but this disparity was improved in states that legally recognized same-sex marriage and allowed second-parent adoptions.⁷

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court further ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, requiring that all states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These rulings were associated with a decrease in reported levels of stigma over time and increased reported levels of family support, particularly for those in same-sex relationships.⁸

The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 13, 2022. This law officially repeals DOMA and requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory.⁹

If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 marriage equality decision, individual state laws ensuring or banning same-sex marriage would again be in effect. However, the RFMA ensures that all states continue to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory (even if that state itself bans same-sex marriage). While we do not yet have any studies or data regarding the effect of the RFMA on public health, we can expect positive effects by drawing on the previous evidence on the effect of marriage equality and its effect on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. By establishing marriage equality in the United States, our government institutions are affirming the relationships and identities of those in same-sex relationships, with the potential effect of helping to destigmatize the LGBTQ+ community.

Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians “support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children,” acknowledging that “legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners … can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.”¹⁰ While changes in legal marriage equality are likely to have a positive effect on those within the LGBTQ+ community, it should also be understood that this will not solve all of the psychosocial effects and resultant health disparities that these children face.

A recent scoping review highlights that, as the result of marriage equality progress, sexual minority adults have reported increased social acceptance and reduced stigma across individual, community, and societal levels, but that sexual minority stigma continues to persist across all levels.¹¹

As pediatricians, we can continue to support LGBTQ+ patients and parents by providing care in a safe and affirming environment in which families understand and embrace the healthy development of gender identity and sexuality in an open and destigmatized manner. Delivering care using this approach in and of itself can be seen as advocacy to promote health and well-being within minoritized populations. Pediatricians are also encouraged to become engaged in local and national advocacy initiatives to have a broader effect in the fight for health equity in minority populations, including LGBTQ+ families and youth.

Pediatricians should work with their patients, families, and communities to advocate for structural change needed to address the social determinants of health for optimal growth and development.
 

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Resources

Bright Futures – Promoting Healthy Development of Sexuality and Gender Identity (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/BF_HealthySexualityGenderIdentity_Tipsheet.pdf

Bright Futures – Implementing Social Determinants of Health Into Health Supervision Visits (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/Bright%20Futures/BF_IntegrateSDoH_Tipsheet.pdf?_ga=2.214227031.1330574154.1673910248-58875083.1673910248

American Academy of Pediatrics – Advocacy Website: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/

References

1. Hughes K et al. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356-66.

2. Camero K and Javier JR. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2023;70:43-51.

3. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021;48:179-89.

4. Buffie WC. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):986-90.

5. Hatzenbuehler ML et al. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:452-9.

6. Raifman J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):350-6.

7. Gonzales G and Blewett LA. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):703-11.

8. Ogolsky BG et al. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(4):422-32.

9. Library of Congress. H.R.8404 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. 2022 Dec 13. www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text.

10. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):341-4.

11. Drabble LA et al. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0249125.

Some of our worst decisions seemed like really good ideas at the time. We wouldn’t make them otherwise; but often we fall into the unintended consequence of “the cure being worse than the poison.” We have seen this when government is trying to fix a problem, often an emotionally charged problem, without considering the long-term consequences of the “fix.” We have seen the unintended consequences of certain health care policies and programs lead to abuse and negative downstream effects on the same population that they were intended to protect.

It has been postulated that unintended consequences fall into a framework that’s “based upon level of knowledge and the scope for avoidance.” Essentially, that means these consequences fall into one of four categories: knowable and avoidable, knowable and unavoidable, unknowable and avoidable, and unknowable and unavoidable.

What category do the following policies fall into?
 

Pharmacy benefit managers’ safe harbor from the Anti-Kickback Statute

Let’s start with the “safe harbor” from the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) for payments from drug companies to health insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The AKS was created in 1972 and its “main purpose is to protect patients and the federal health care programs from fraud and abuse by curtailing the corrupting influence of money on health care decisions.” During the 1990s, a number of safe harbor provisions under the AKS were instituted for certain payments to health insurance companies, PBMs, and other providers. The thinking was that these payments needed a safe harbor because, although they might meet the statutory definition of “kickbacks,” they were beneficial because they would reduce the cost of care and, more specifically, the prices of drugs.

While well-intentioned, those safe harbors now protect a system of such perverse incentives that patients are whipsawed back and forth onto drugs that are the most profitable for the PBMs, who create the annual list of insurance covered drugs (i.e., the formulary). It is clear now that protected kickbacks ($$), in the form of rebates and fees paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to PBMs, determine what drugs will be on the formulary. PBMs then use utilization management tools such as step therapy to force patients to take those drugs first. Consequently, safe harbor protection from the AKS allows manufacturers to buy market share at the expense of patient’s health. Because these protected kickbacks are based on a percentage of the list price of the drugs, PBMs profit more from higher priced drugs, which PBMs call the lowest cost medications (for them, that is). These bids from various manufacturers can change over the course of a year, allowing PBMs to change formulary coverage (even mid-year) and nonmedically switch stable patients to the drug that is the most profitable. Much of this happens as a result of the unintended consequence of this particular safe harbor from the AKS. Ironically, the safe harbor has helped to create the very behavior that the law was supposed to prevent and has harmed the patients it was supposed to protect. Health care decisions are being corrupted by the influence of profits allowed by safe harbor from the AKS.
 

340B drug program lacks oversight

Helping hospitals pay for care of the indigent: What could go wrong with that? The 340B Drug Pricing Program was created in 1992 to help low-income patients have better access to outpatient medications. The program requires drug companies to offer deep discounts to safety-net providers and qualified “disproportionate share hospitals,” which have a minimum percentage threshold of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The idea was that these qualified entities would pass these savings through to their low-income patients who needed the medications. Sounds like a great idea!

Apparently, there is a lot of money to be made under the 340B program because what started in 1992 with 90 covered entities had expanded by 2017 to more than 12,000 covered entities. The program became a profit center in part because reimbursement for 340B-acquired drugs far exceeds the acquisition costs. Over the years, in order to increase profits, qualified entities, such as disproportionate share hospitals, added for-profit contracted outpatient pharmacies, significantly increasing the amount of 340B drugs dispensed to commercial patients. From 2010 to 2020, the number of contract pharmacy arrangements increased from 2,000 to over 100,000, massively increasing profits for the qualified hospitals and their for-profit contracted pharmacies, which included a number of Fortune 25 companies.

Unfortunately, there is no oversight of 340B programs, and there are no requirements that the 340B drug profits be used for charitable care. In fact, nearly 10 years ago, two experts stated in Health Affairs that, “our findings support the criticism that the 340B program is being converted from one that serves vulnerable patient populations to one that enriches hospitals and their affiliated clinics.” In spite of the immense profits generated at 340B hospitals, an analysis by Avalere Health revealed that “65 percent of 340B hospitals provide less charity care than the national average for all short-term acute care hospitals, including for-profit hospitals.”

I have seen this dynamic at work in my own community in south Louisiana. There is a major expanding 340B hospital system that refuses Medicaid patients into its clinics once the hospital has reached its minimum disproportionate share of Medicaid patients. Our community has many young female African American patients with lupus, many of whom are covered by Medicaid. Even though this 340B hospital system has rheumatology fellows, it closes its rheumatology clinic doors to patients with lupus who have Medicaid as soon as it has reached its 11.75% of Medicaid patients. Clearly, this is an abuse of a program instituted specifically to take care of those in need – and here in our community, it creates inequitable access to rheumatologic care for patients with lupus.

The statute that created 340B specifically listed certain nonhospital providers who need – and should continue to receive – access to 340B discounts, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers and others. There are many deserving safety net providers and special disease clinics that are taking care of the truly needy and deserve to get the 340B highly discounted drug pricing. However, many so-called nonprofit hospital systems are spreading into wealthy neighborhoods with contracted pharmacies making large profits without caring for those in need. Five years ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that more oversight of the 340B program was needed, but that still hasn’t happened. The combination of vague statutory language and a lack of oversight has led to unintended consequences of fraud and abuse of the system, with indigent patients not realizing the benefit of the steep discounts, being sued when they can’t pay their bills, and even turned away from clinics when the qualified hospital reaches it mandated minimum of Medicaid patients.
 

Knowable and avoidable?

Should it have been known that these abuses would result from these policies and programs? And if so, could guardrails have been put in place from the start to avoid these abuses? Maybe the answers to these questions are irrelevant: All we can do now is fix what is not working, which will require changes and oversight to ensure that the safe harbor policy and 340B drug discount program are achieving the desired ends. At this point, unfortunately, it is clear that they’re not. In fact, it looks like they have enabled “profits over patients” all the way.

As recently stated by Dr. Megan Ranney of Brown University: “In this country, we continually forget that the profit motive is not sufficient for the public’s health.” Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But now we need to take off our blinders, see what is happening, and act to finally put “patients over profits.”

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].

Some of our worst decisions seemed like really good ideas at the time. We wouldn’t make them otherwise; but often we fall into the unintended consequence of “the cure being worse than the poison.” We have seen this when government is trying to fix a problem, often an emotionally charged problem, without considering the long-term consequences of the “fix.” We have seen the unintended consequences of certain health care policies and programs lead to abuse and negative downstream effects on the same population that they were intended to protect.

It has been postulated that unintended consequences fall into a framework that’s “based upon level of knowledge and the scope for avoidance.” Essentially, that means these consequences fall into one of four categories: knowable and avoidable, knowable and unavoidable, unknowable and avoidable, and unknowable and unavoidable.

What category do the following policies fall into?
 

Pharmacy benefit managers’ safe harbor from the Anti-Kickback Statute

Let’s start with the “safe harbor” from the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) for payments from drug companies to health insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The AKS was created in 1972 and its “main purpose is to protect patients and the federal health care programs from fraud and abuse by curtailing the corrupting influence of money on health care decisions.” During the 1990s, a number of safe harbor provisions under the AKS were instituted for certain payments to health insurance companies, PBMs, and other providers. The thinking was that these payments needed a safe harbor because, although they might meet the statutory definition of “kickbacks,” they were beneficial because they would reduce the cost of care and, more specifically, the prices of drugs.

While well-intentioned, those safe harbors now protect a system of such perverse incentives that patients are whipsawed back and forth onto drugs that are the most profitable for the PBMs, who create the annual list of insurance covered drugs (i.e., the formulary). It is clear now that protected kickbacks ($$), in the form of rebates and fees paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to PBMs, determine what drugs will be on the formulary. PBMs then use utilization management tools such as step therapy to force patients to take those drugs first. Consequently, safe harbor protection from the AKS allows manufacturers to buy market share at the expense of patient’s health. Because these protected kickbacks are based on a percentage of the list price of the drugs, PBMs profit more from higher priced drugs, which PBMs call the lowest cost medications (for them, that is). These bids from various manufacturers can change over the course of a year, allowing PBMs to change formulary coverage (even mid-year) and nonmedically switch stable patients to the drug that is the most profitable. Much of this happens as a result of the unintended consequence of this particular safe harbor from the AKS. Ironically, the safe harbor has helped to create the very behavior that the law was supposed to prevent and has harmed the patients it was supposed to protect. Health care decisions are being corrupted by the influence of profits allowed by safe harbor from the AKS.
 

340B drug program lacks oversight

Helping hospitals pay for care of the indigent: What could go wrong with that? The 340B Drug Pricing Program was created in 1992 to help low-income patients have better access to outpatient medications. The program requires drug companies to offer deep discounts to safety-net providers and qualified “disproportionate share hospitals,” which have a minimum percentage threshold of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The idea was that these qualified entities would pass these savings through to their low-income patients who needed the medications. Sounds like a great idea!

Apparently, there is a lot of money to be made under the 340B program because what started in 1992 with 90 covered entities had expanded by 2017 to more than 12,000 covered entities. The program became a profit center in part because reimbursement for 340B-acquired drugs far exceeds the acquisition costs. Over the years, in order to increase profits, qualified entities, such as disproportionate share hospitals, added for-profit contracted outpatient pharmacies, significantly increasing the amount of 340B drugs dispensed to commercial patients. From 2010 to 2020, the number of contract pharmacy arrangements increased from 2,000 to over 100,000, massively increasing profits for the qualified hospitals and their for-profit contracted pharmacies, which included a number of Fortune 25 companies.

Unfortunately, there is no oversight of 340B programs, and there are no requirements that the 340B drug profits be used for charitable care. In fact, nearly 10 years ago, two experts stated in Health Affairs that, “our findings support the criticism that the 340B program is being converted from one that serves vulnerable patient populations to one that enriches hospitals and their affiliated clinics.” In spite of the immense profits generated at 340B hospitals, an analysis by Avalere Health revealed that “65 percent of 340B hospitals provide less charity care than the national average for all short-term acute care hospitals, including for-profit hospitals.”

I have seen this dynamic at work in my own community in south Louisiana. There is a major expanding 340B hospital system that refuses Medicaid patients into its clinics once the hospital has reached its minimum disproportionate share of Medicaid patients. Our community has many young female African American patients with lupus, many of whom are covered by Medicaid. Even though this 340B hospital system has rheumatology fellows, it closes its rheumatology clinic doors to patients with lupus who have Medicaid as soon as it has reached its 11.75% of Medicaid patients. Clearly, this is an abuse of a program instituted specifically to take care of those in need – and here in our community, it creates inequitable access to rheumatologic care for patients with lupus.

The statute that created 340B specifically listed certain nonhospital providers who need – and should continue to receive – access to 340B discounts, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers and others. There are many deserving safety net providers and special disease clinics that are taking care of the truly needy and deserve to get the 340B highly discounted drug pricing. However, many so-called nonprofit hospital systems are spreading into wealthy neighborhoods with contracted pharmacies making large profits without caring for those in need. Five years ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that more oversight of the 340B program was needed, but that still hasn’t happened. The combination of vague statutory language and a lack of oversight has led to unintended consequences of fraud and abuse of the system, with indigent patients not realizing the benefit of the steep discounts, being sued when they can’t pay their bills, and even turned away from clinics when the qualified hospital reaches it mandated minimum of Medicaid patients.
 

Knowable and avoidable?

Should it have been known that these abuses would result from these policies and programs? And if so, could guardrails have been put in place from the start to avoid these abuses? Maybe the answers to these questions are irrelevant: All we can do now is fix what is not working, which will require changes and oversight to ensure that the safe harbor policy and 340B drug discount program are achieving the desired ends. At this point, unfortunately, it is clear that they’re not. In fact, it looks like they have enabled “profits over patients” all the way.

As recently stated by Dr. Megan Ranney of Brown University: “In this country, we continually forget that the profit motive is not sufficient for the public’s health.” Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But now we need to take off our blinders, see what is happening, and act to finally put “patients over profits.”

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].

Some of our worst decisions seemed like really good ideas at the time. We wouldn’t make them otherwise; but often we fall into the unintended consequence of “the cure being worse than the poison.” We have seen this when government is trying to fix a problem, often an emotionally charged problem, without considering the long-term consequences of the “fix.” We have seen the unintended consequences of certain health care policies and programs lead to abuse and negative downstream effects on the same population that they were intended to protect.

It has been postulated that unintended consequences fall into a framework that’s “based upon level of knowledge and the scope for avoidance.” Essentially, that means these consequences fall into one of four categories: knowable and avoidable, knowable and unavoidable, unknowable and avoidable, and unknowable and unavoidable.

What category do the following policies fall into?
 

Pharmacy benefit managers’ safe harbor from the Anti-Kickback Statute

Let’s start with the “safe harbor” from the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) for payments from drug companies to health insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The AKS was created in 1972 and its “main purpose is to protect patients and the federal health care programs from fraud and abuse by curtailing the corrupting influence of money on health care decisions.” During the 1990s, a number of safe harbor provisions under the AKS were instituted for certain payments to health insurance companies, PBMs, and other providers. The thinking was that these payments needed a safe harbor because, although they might meet the statutory definition of “kickbacks,” they were beneficial because they would reduce the cost of care and, more specifically, the prices of drugs.

While well-intentioned, those safe harbors now protect a system of such perverse incentives that patients are whipsawed back and forth onto drugs that are the most profitable for the PBMs, who create the annual list of insurance covered drugs (i.e., the formulary). It is clear now that protected kickbacks ($$), in the form of rebates and fees paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to PBMs, determine what drugs will be on the formulary. PBMs then use utilization management tools such as step therapy to force patients to take those drugs first. Consequently, safe harbor protection from the AKS allows manufacturers to buy market share at the expense of patient’s health. Because these protected kickbacks are based on a percentage of the list price of the drugs, PBMs profit more from higher priced drugs, which PBMs call the lowest cost medications (for them, that is). These bids from various manufacturers can change over the course of a year, allowing PBMs to change formulary coverage (even mid-year) and nonmedically switch stable patients to the drug that is the most profitable. Much of this happens as a result of the unintended consequence of this particular safe harbor from the AKS. Ironically, the safe harbor has helped to create the very behavior that the law was supposed to prevent and has harmed the patients it was supposed to protect. Health care decisions are being corrupted by the influence of profits allowed by safe harbor from the AKS.
 

340B drug program lacks oversight

Helping hospitals pay for care of the indigent: What could go wrong with that? The 340B Drug Pricing Program was created in 1992 to help low-income patients have better access to outpatient medications. The program requires drug companies to offer deep discounts to safety-net providers and qualified “disproportionate share hospitals,” which have a minimum percentage threshold of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The idea was that these qualified entities would pass these savings through to their low-income patients who needed the medications. Sounds like a great idea!

Apparently, there is a lot of money to be made under the 340B program because what started in 1992 with 90 covered entities had expanded by 2017 to more than 12,000 covered entities. The program became a profit center in part because reimbursement for 340B-acquired drugs far exceeds the acquisition costs. Over the years, in order to increase profits, qualified entities, such as disproportionate share hospitals, added for-profit contracted outpatient pharmacies, significantly increasing the amount of 340B drugs dispensed to commercial patients. From 2010 to 2020, the number of contract pharmacy arrangements increased from 2,000 to over 100,000, massively increasing profits for the qualified hospitals and their for-profit contracted pharmacies, which included a number of Fortune 25 companies.

Unfortunately, there is no oversight of 340B programs, and there are no requirements that the 340B drug profits be used for charitable care. In fact, nearly 10 years ago, two experts stated in Health Affairs that, “our findings support the criticism that the 340B program is being converted from one that serves vulnerable patient populations to one that enriches hospitals and their affiliated clinics.” In spite of the immense profits generated at 340B hospitals, an analysis by Avalere Health revealed that “65 percent of 340B hospitals provide less charity care than the national average for all short-term acute care hospitals, including for-profit hospitals.”

I have seen this dynamic at work in my own community in south Louisiana. There is a major expanding 340B hospital system that refuses Medicaid patients into its clinics once the hospital has reached its minimum disproportionate share of Medicaid patients. Our community has many young female African American patients with lupus, many of whom are covered by Medicaid. Even though this 340B hospital system has rheumatology fellows, it closes its rheumatology clinic doors to patients with lupus who have Medicaid as soon as it has reached its 11.75% of Medicaid patients. Clearly, this is an abuse of a program instituted specifically to take care of those in need – and here in our community, it creates inequitable access to rheumatologic care for patients with lupus.

The statute that created 340B specifically listed certain nonhospital providers who need – and should continue to receive – access to 340B discounts, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers and others. There are many deserving safety net providers and special disease clinics that are taking care of the truly needy and deserve to get the 340B highly discounted drug pricing. However, many so-called nonprofit hospital systems are spreading into wealthy neighborhoods with contracted pharmacies making large profits without caring for those in need. Five years ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that more oversight of the 340B program was needed, but that still hasn’t happened. The combination of vague statutory language and a lack of oversight has led to unintended consequences of fraud and abuse of the system, with indigent patients not realizing the benefit of the steep discounts, being sued when they can’t pay their bills, and even turned away from clinics when the qualified hospital reaches it mandated minimum of Medicaid patients.
 

Knowable and avoidable?

Should it have been known that these abuses would result from these policies and programs? And if so, could guardrails have been put in place from the start to avoid these abuses? Maybe the answers to these questions are irrelevant: All we can do now is fix what is not working, which will require changes and oversight to ensure that the safe harbor policy and 340B drug discount program are achieving the desired ends. At this point, unfortunately, it is clear that they’re not. In fact, it looks like they have enabled “profits over patients” all the way.

As recently stated by Dr. Megan Ranney of Brown University: “In this country, we continually forget that the profit motive is not sufficient for the public’s health.” Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But now we need to take off our blinders, see what is happening, and act to finally put “patients over profits.”

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].

When I was a resident (back in the Cretaceous era), the idea of autoimmune encephalitis was just beginning to take hold. It was kind of like Bigfoot. A few reports, vague articles, the occasional sighting of what may or may not be a case. …

Unlike Bigfoot, however, the evidence quickly added up until there was no question that such a disorder existed. Then disorder became disorders, and now it seems a few more types are added to the list each year.

This doesn’t change the fact that they’re still, in the grand scheme of general neurology, relatively rare, though no one questions that they exist.

Today people still wishfully take pictures of Bigfoot, but they turn out to be images of bears or other animals, or tricks of light and shadow.

This is an issue with human thought. Many times we see what we want to see, especially if it’s more interesting than a mundane alternative.

An autoimmune encephalitis article in the January 2023 issue of JAMA Neurology looked into this. On reviewing 393 patients diagnosed with the disorder, the researchers found that 27% of them actually didn’t have it at all. Such things as functional disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and primary psychiatric diagnoses were, instead, the culprits.

I’m not criticizing those who made an incorrect diagnosis. We all do. That’s the nature of medicine.

Which is worse? Missing the diagnosis entirely and not treating, or diagnosing a patient with something else and treating incorrectly? I guess it depends on the disease and nature of treatment.

Certainly, finding a case of autoimmune encephalitis is more interesting than, say toxic-metabolic encephalopathy from a bladder infection, just as getting a picture of Bigfoot is way more cool than one of a bear with mange.

But we need to be careful when faced with equivocal labs and data lest we read too much into them. There are too many gray zones in medicine to lead you astray. Not to say we won’t be. Even well-intentioned physicians (which I assume is pretty much all of us) are going to make mistakes.

But it’s not just rare diseases. In the early 1990s two different studies found that 24% of patients diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease were found to have something else on autopsy.

That was 30 years ago. Now we have DaT scans to help. Maybe our abilities as neurologists have also gotten better (though I don’t think the neurological exam has changed much since Charcot).

Our gadgets, labs, and treatments get better every year. We have tools available to us now that were unthinkable a generation ago. For that matter, they were unthinkable when I began my career.

But they don’t change the fact that human error never goes away. All of us are susceptible to it, and all of us make mistakes.

Such is the way of medicine now, and likely always. All we can do is our best and keep moving forward.

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

When I was a resident (back in the Cretaceous era), the idea of autoimmune encephalitis was just beginning to take hold. It was kind of like Bigfoot. A few reports, vague articles, the occasional sighting of what may or may not be a case. …

Unlike Bigfoot, however, the evidence quickly added up until there was no question that such a disorder existed. Then disorder became disorders, and now it seems a few more types are added to the list each year.

This doesn’t change the fact that they’re still, in the grand scheme of general neurology, relatively rare, though no one questions that they exist.

Today people still wishfully take pictures of Bigfoot, but they turn out to be images of bears or other animals, or tricks of light and shadow.

This is an issue with human thought. Many times we see what we want to see, especially if it’s more interesting than a mundane alternative.

An autoimmune encephalitis article in the January 2023 issue of JAMA Neurology looked into this. On reviewing 393 patients diagnosed with the disorder, the researchers found that 27% of them actually didn’t have it at all. Such things as functional disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and primary psychiatric diagnoses were, instead, the culprits.

I’m not criticizing those who made an incorrect diagnosis. We all do. That’s the nature of medicine.

Which is worse? Missing the diagnosis entirely and not treating, or diagnosing a patient with something else and treating incorrectly? I guess it depends on the disease and nature of treatment.

Certainly, finding a case of autoimmune encephalitis is more interesting than, say toxic-metabolic encephalopathy from a bladder infection, just as getting a picture of Bigfoot is way more cool than one of a bear with mange.

But we need to be careful when faced with equivocal labs and data lest we read too much into them. There are too many gray zones in medicine to lead you astray. Not to say we won’t be. Even well-intentioned physicians (which I assume is pretty much all of us) are going to make mistakes.

But it’s not just rare diseases. In the early 1990s two different studies found that 24% of patients diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease were found to have something else on autopsy.

That was 30 years ago. Now we have DaT scans to help. Maybe our abilities as neurologists have also gotten better (though I don’t think the neurological exam has changed much since Charcot).

Our gadgets, labs, and treatments get better every year. We have tools available to us now that were unthinkable a generation ago. For that matter, they were unthinkable when I began my career.

But they don’t change the fact that human error never goes away. All of us are susceptible to it, and all of us make mistakes.

Such is the way of medicine now, and likely always. All we can do is our best and keep moving forward.

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

When I was a resident (back in the Cretaceous era), the idea of autoimmune encephalitis was just beginning to take hold. It was kind of like Bigfoot. A few reports, vague articles, the occasional sighting of what may or may not be a case. …

Unlike Bigfoot, however, the evidence quickly added up until there was no question that such a disorder existed. Then disorder became disorders, and now it seems a few more types are added to the list each year.

This doesn’t change the fact that they’re still, in the grand scheme of general neurology, relatively rare, though no one questions that they exist.

Today people still wishfully take pictures of Bigfoot, but they turn out to be images of bears or other animals, or tricks of light and shadow.

This is an issue with human thought. Many times we see what we want to see, especially if it’s more interesting than a mundane alternative.

An autoimmune encephalitis article in the January 2023 issue of JAMA Neurology looked into this. On reviewing 393 patients diagnosed with the disorder, the researchers found that 27% of them actually didn’t have it at all. Such things as functional disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and primary psychiatric diagnoses were, instead, the culprits.

I’m not criticizing those who made an incorrect diagnosis. We all do. That’s the nature of medicine.

Which is worse? Missing the diagnosis entirely and not treating, or diagnosing a patient with something else and treating incorrectly? I guess it depends on the disease and nature of treatment.

Certainly, finding a case of autoimmune encephalitis is more interesting than, say toxic-metabolic encephalopathy from a bladder infection, just as getting a picture of Bigfoot is way more cool than one of a bear with mange.

But we need to be careful when faced with equivocal labs and data lest we read too much into them. There are too many gray zones in medicine to lead you astray. Not to say we won’t be. Even well-intentioned physicians (which I assume is pretty much all of us) are going to make mistakes.

But it’s not just rare diseases. In the early 1990s two different studies found that 24% of patients diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease were found to have something else on autopsy.

That was 30 years ago. Now we have DaT scans to help. Maybe our abilities as neurologists have also gotten better (though I don’t think the neurological exam has changed much since Charcot).

Our gadgets, labs, and treatments get better every year. We have tools available to us now that were unthinkable a generation ago. For that matter, they were unthinkable when I began my career.

But they don’t change the fact that human error never goes away. All of us are susceptible to it, and all of us make mistakes.

Such is the way of medicine now, and likely always. All we can do is our best and keep moving forward.

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

Every year, during the relatively slow winter-months period, I like to take a tour of my office from the paradigm of a patient visiting our facility for the first time. When was the last time you did a comprehensive inspection, looking for problems that your patients might see?

We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.

When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.

Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.

If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.

During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.

If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.

Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.

Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.

If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.

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

Every year, during the relatively slow winter-months period, I like to take a tour of my office from the paradigm of a patient visiting our facility for the first time. When was the last time you did a comprehensive inspection, looking for problems that your patients might see?

We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.

When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.

Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.

If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.

During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.

If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.

Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.

Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.

If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.

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

Every year, during the relatively slow winter-months period, I like to take a tour of my office from the paradigm of a patient visiting our facility for the first time. When was the last time you did a comprehensive inspection, looking for problems that your patients might see?

We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.

When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.

Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.

If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.

During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.

If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.

Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.

Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.

If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.

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

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

It’s pretty clear at this point that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is a complication, albeit a very rare one, of the mRNA COVID vaccines. The big question, of course, is why?

To date, it has been a mystery, like “Glass Onion.” And in the spirit of all the great mysteries, to get to the bottom of this, we’ll need to round up the usual suspects.

Appearing in Circulation, a new study does a great job of systematically evaluating multiple hypotheses linking vaccination to myocarditis, and eliminating them, Poirot-style, one by one until only one remains. We’ll get there.

But first, let’s review the suspects. Why do the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis in a small subset of people?

There are a few leading candidates.

Number one: antibody responses. There are two flavors here. The quantitative hypothesis suggests that some people simply generate too many antibodies to the vaccine, leading to increased inflammation and heart damage.

The qualitative hypothesis suggests that maybe it’s the nature of the antibodies generated rather than the amount; they might cross-react with some protein on the surface of heart cells for instance.

Or maybe it is driven by T-cell responses, which, of course, are independent of antibody levels.

There’s the idea that myocarditis is due to excessive cytokine release – sort of like what we see in the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Or it could be due to the viral antigens themselves – the spike protein the mRNA codes for that is generated after vaccination.

Dr. F. Perry Wlson

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Of course, all good detectives need to wrap up the case with a good story: How was it all done?

And here’s where we could use Agatha Christie’s help. How could this all work? The vaccine gets injected; mRNA is taken up into cells, where spike protein is generated and released, generating antibody and T-cell responses all the while. Those responses rapidly clear that spike protein from the system – this has been demonstrated in multiple studies – in adults, at least. But in some small number of people, apparently, spike protein is not cleared. Why? It makes no damn sense. Compels me, though. Some have suggested that inadvertent intravenous injection of vaccine, compared with the appropriate intramuscular route, might distribute the vaccine to sites with less immune surveillance. But that is definitely not proven yet.

We are on the path for sure, but this is, as Benoit Blanc would say, a twisted web – and we are not finished untangling it. Not yet.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available for preorder now. He reports no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

It’s pretty clear at this point that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is a complication, albeit a very rare one, of the mRNA COVID vaccines. The big question, of course, is why?

To date, it has been a mystery, like “Glass Onion.” And in the spirit of all the great mysteries, to get to the bottom of this, we’ll need to round up the usual suspects.

Appearing in Circulation, a new study does a great job of systematically evaluating multiple hypotheses linking vaccination to myocarditis, and eliminating them, Poirot-style, one by one until only one remains. We’ll get there.

But first, let’s review the suspects. Why do the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis in a small subset of people?

There are a few leading candidates.

Number one: antibody responses. There are two flavors here. The quantitative hypothesis suggests that some people simply generate too many antibodies to the vaccine, leading to increased inflammation and heart damage.

The qualitative hypothesis suggests that maybe it’s the nature of the antibodies generated rather than the amount; they might cross-react with some protein on the surface of heart cells for instance.

Or maybe it is driven by T-cell responses, which, of course, are independent of antibody levels.

There’s the idea that myocarditis is due to excessive cytokine release – sort of like what we see in the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Or it could be due to the viral antigens themselves – the spike protein the mRNA codes for that is generated after vaccination.

Dr. F. Perry Wlson

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Of course, all good detectives need to wrap up the case with a good story: How was it all done?

And here’s where we could use Agatha Christie’s help. How could this all work? The vaccine gets injected; mRNA is taken up into cells, where spike protein is generated and released, generating antibody and T-cell responses all the while. Those responses rapidly clear that spike protein from the system – this has been demonstrated in multiple studies – in adults, at least. But in some small number of people, apparently, spike protein is not cleared. Why? It makes no damn sense. Compels me, though. Some have suggested that inadvertent intravenous injection of vaccine, compared with the appropriate intramuscular route, might distribute the vaccine to sites with less immune surveillance. But that is definitely not proven yet.

We are on the path for sure, but this is, as Benoit Blanc would say, a twisted web – and we are not finished untangling it. Not yet.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available for preorder now. He reports no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

It’s pretty clear at this point that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is a complication, albeit a very rare one, of the mRNA COVID vaccines. The big question, of course, is why?

To date, it has been a mystery, like “Glass Onion.” And in the spirit of all the great mysteries, to get to the bottom of this, we’ll need to round up the usual suspects.

Appearing in Circulation, a new study does a great job of systematically evaluating multiple hypotheses linking vaccination to myocarditis, and eliminating them, Poirot-style, one by one until only one remains. We’ll get there.

But first, let’s review the suspects. Why do the mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis in a small subset of people?

There are a few leading candidates.

Number one: antibody responses. There are two flavors here. The quantitative hypothesis suggests that some people simply generate too many antibodies to the vaccine, leading to increased inflammation and heart damage.

The qualitative hypothesis suggests that maybe it’s the nature of the antibodies generated rather than the amount; they might cross-react with some protein on the surface of heart cells for instance.

Or maybe it is driven by T-cell responses, which, of course, are independent of antibody levels.

There’s the idea that myocarditis is due to excessive cytokine release – sort of like what we see in the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Or it could be due to the viral antigens themselves – the spike protein the mRNA codes for that is generated after vaccination.

Dr. F. Perry Wlson

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Circulation

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Of course, all good detectives need to wrap up the case with a good story: How was it all done?

And here’s where we could use Agatha Christie’s help. How could this all work? The vaccine gets injected; mRNA is taken up into cells, where spike protein is generated and released, generating antibody and T-cell responses all the while. Those responses rapidly clear that spike protein from the system – this has been demonstrated in multiple studies – in adults, at least. But in some small number of people, apparently, spike protein is not cleared. Why? It makes no damn sense. Compels me, though. Some have suggested that inadvertent intravenous injection of vaccine, compared with the appropriate intramuscular route, might distribute the vaccine to sites with less immune surveillance. But that is definitely not proven yet.

We are on the path for sure, but this is, as Benoit Blanc would say, a twisted web – and we are not finished untangling it. Not yet.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available for preorder now. He reports no conflicts of interest.
 

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

I received a call late one night from a colleague in the emergency department of the children’s hospital. “This 2-year-old has a fever, cough, red eyes, and an impressive rash. I’ve personally never seen a case of measles, but I’m worried given that this child has never received the MMR vaccine.”

By the end of the call, I was worried too. Measles is a febrile respiratory illness classically accompanied by cough, coryza, conjunctivitis, and a characteristic maculopapular rash that begins on the face and spreads to the trunk and limbs. It is also highly contagious: 90% percent of susceptible, exposed individuals become infected.

Admittedly, measles is rare. Just 118 cases were reported in the United States in 2022, but 83 of those were in Columbus just 3 hours from where my colleague and I live and work. According to City of Columbus officials, the outbreak occurred almost exclusively in unimmunized children, the majority of whom were 5 years and younger. An unexpectedly high number of children were hospitalized. Typically, one in five people with measles will require hospitalization. In this outbreak, 33 children have been hospitalized as of Jan. 10.

Public health experts warn that 2023 could be much worse unless we increase measles immunization rates in the United States and globally. Immunization of around 95% of eligible people with two doses of measles-containing vaccine is associated with herd immunity. Globally, we’re falling short. Only 81% of the world’s children have received their first measle vaccine dose and only 71% have received the second dose. These are the lowest coverage rates for measles vaccine since 2008.

A 2022 joint press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization noted that “measles anywhere is a threat everywhere, as the virus can quickly spread to multiple communities and across international borders.” Some prior measles outbreaks in the United States have started with a case in an international traveler or a U.S. resident who contracted measles during travel abroad.

In the United States, the number of children immunized with multiple routine vaccines has fallen in the last couple of years, in part because of pandemic-related disruptions in health care delivery. Increasing vaccine hesitancy, fueled by debates over the COVID-19 vaccine, may be slowing catch-up immunization in kids who fell behind.

Investigators from Emory University, Atlanta, and Marshfield Clinic Research Institute recently estimated that 9,145,026 U.S. children are susceptible to measles. If pandemic-level immunization rates continue without effective catch-up immunization, that number could rise to more than 15 million.

School vaccination requirements support efforts to ensure that kids are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases, but some data suggest that opposition to requiring MMR vaccine to attend public school is growing. According to a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation Vaccine Monitor survey, 28% of U.S. adults – and 35% of parents of children under 18 – now say that parents should be able to decide to not vaccinate their children for measles, mumps, and rubella. That’s up from 16% of adults and 23% of parents in a 2019 Pew Research Center poll.

Public confidence in the benefits of MMR has also dropped modestly. About 85% of adults surveyed said that the benefits of MMR vaccine outweigh the risk, down from 88% in 2019. Among adults not vaccinated against COVID-19, only 70% said that benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks.

While the WHO ramps up efforts to improve measles vaccination globally, pediatric clinicians can take steps now to mitigate the risk of measles outbreaks in their own communities. Query health records to understand how many eligible children in your practice have not yet received MMR vaccine. Notify families that vaccination is strongly recommended and make scheduling an appointment to receive vaccine easy. Some practices may have the bandwidth to offer evening and weekend hours for vaccine catch-up visits.

Curious about immunization rates in your state? The American Academy of Pediatrics has an interactive map that reports immunization coverage levels by state and provides comparisons to national rates and goals.

Prompt recognition and isolation of individuals with measles, along with prophylaxis of susceptible contacts, can limit community transmission. Measles can resemble other illnesses associated with fever and rash. Washington state has developed a screening tool to assist with recognition of measles. The CDC also has a measles outbreak toolkit that includes resources that outline clinical features and diagnoses, as well as strategies for talking to parents about vaccines.
 

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 disclosed that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected].

I received a call late one night from a colleague in the emergency department of the children’s hospital. “This 2-year-old has a fever, cough, red eyes, and an impressive rash. I’ve personally never seen a case of measles, but I’m worried given that this child has never received the MMR vaccine.”

By the end of the call, I was worried too. Measles is a febrile respiratory illness classically accompanied by cough, coryza, conjunctivitis, and a characteristic maculopapular rash that begins on the face and spreads to the trunk and limbs. It is also highly contagious: 90% percent of susceptible, exposed individuals become infected.

Admittedly, measles is rare. Just 118 cases were reported in the United States in 2022, but 83 of those were in Columbus just 3 hours from where my colleague and I live and work. According to City of Columbus officials, the outbreak occurred almost exclusively in unimmunized children, the majority of whom were 5 years and younger. An unexpectedly high number of children were hospitalized. Typically, one in five people with measles will require hospitalization. In this outbreak, 33 children have been hospitalized as of Jan. 10.

Public health experts warn that 2023 could be much worse unless we increase measles immunization rates in the United States and globally. Immunization of around 95% of eligible people with two doses of measles-containing vaccine is associated with herd immunity. Globally, we’re falling short. Only 81% of the world’s children have received their first measle vaccine dose and only 71% have received the second dose. These are the lowest coverage rates for measles vaccine since 2008.

A 2022 joint press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization noted that “measles anywhere is a threat everywhere, as the virus can quickly spread to multiple communities and across international borders.” Some prior measles outbreaks in the United States have started with a case in an international traveler or a U.S. resident who contracted measles during travel abroad.

In the United States, the number of children immunized with multiple routine vaccines has fallen in the last couple of years, in part because of pandemic-related disruptions in health care delivery. Increasing vaccine hesitancy, fueled by debates over the COVID-19 vaccine, may be slowing catch-up immunization in kids who fell behind.

Investigators from Emory University, Atlanta, and Marshfield Clinic Research Institute recently estimated that 9,145,026 U.S. children are susceptible to measles. If pandemic-level immunization rates continue without effective catch-up immunization, that number could rise to more than 15 million.

School vaccination requirements support efforts to ensure that kids are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases, but some data suggest that opposition to requiring MMR vaccine to attend public school is growing. According to a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation Vaccine Monitor survey, 28% of U.S. adults – and 35% of parents of children under 18 – now say that parents should be able to decide to not vaccinate their children for measles, mumps, and rubella. That’s up from 16% of adults and 23% of parents in a 2019 Pew Research Center poll.

Public confidence in the benefits of MMR has also dropped modestly. About 85% of adults surveyed said that the benefits of MMR vaccine outweigh the risk, down from 88% in 2019. Among adults not vaccinated against COVID-19, only 70% said that benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks.

While the WHO ramps up efforts to improve measles vaccination globally, pediatric clinicians can take steps now to mitigate the risk of measles outbreaks in their own communities. Query health records to understand how many eligible children in your practice have not yet received MMR vaccine. Notify families that vaccination is strongly recommended and make scheduling an appointment to receive vaccine easy. Some practices may have the bandwidth to offer evening and weekend hours for vaccine catch-up visits.

Curious about immunization rates in your state? The American Academy of Pediatrics has an interactive map that reports immunization coverage levels by state and provides comparisons to national rates and goals.

Prompt recognition and isolation of individuals with measles, along with prophylaxis of susceptible contacts, can limit community transmission. Measles can resemble other illnesses associated with fever and rash. Washington state has developed a screening tool to assist with recognition of measles. The CDC also has a measles outbreak toolkit that includes resources that outline clinical features and diagnoses, as well as strategies for talking to parents about vaccines.
 

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 disclosed that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected].

I received a call late one night from a colleague in the emergency department of the children’s hospital. “This 2-year-old has a fever, cough, red eyes, and an impressive rash. I’ve personally never seen a case of measles, but I’m worried given that this child has never received the MMR vaccine.”

By the end of the call, I was worried too. Measles is a febrile respiratory illness classically accompanied by cough, coryza, conjunctivitis, and a characteristic maculopapular rash that begins on the face and spreads to the trunk and limbs. It is also highly contagious: 90% percent of susceptible, exposed individuals become infected.

Admittedly, measles is rare. Just 118 cases were reported in the United States in 2022, but 83 of those were in Columbus just 3 hours from where my colleague and I live and work. According to City of Columbus officials, the outbreak occurred almost exclusively in unimmunized children, the majority of whom were 5 years and younger. An unexpectedly high number of children were hospitalized. Typically, one in five people with measles will require hospitalization. In this outbreak, 33 children have been hospitalized as of Jan. 10.

Public health experts warn that 2023 could be much worse unless we increase measles immunization rates in the United States and globally. Immunization of around 95% of eligible people with two doses of measles-containing vaccine is associated with herd immunity. Globally, we’re falling short. Only 81% of the world’s children have received their first measle vaccine dose and only 71% have received the second dose. These are the lowest coverage rates for measles vaccine since 2008.

A 2022 joint press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization noted that “measles anywhere is a threat everywhere, as the virus can quickly spread to multiple communities and across international borders.” Some prior measles outbreaks in the United States have started with a case in an international traveler or a U.S. resident who contracted measles during travel abroad.

In the United States, the number of children immunized with multiple routine vaccines has fallen in the last couple of years, in part because of pandemic-related disruptions in health care delivery. Increasing vaccine hesitancy, fueled by debates over the COVID-19 vaccine, may be slowing catch-up immunization in kids who fell behind.

Investigators from Emory University, Atlanta, and Marshfield Clinic Research Institute recently estimated that 9,145,026 U.S. children are susceptible to measles. If pandemic-level immunization rates continue without effective catch-up immunization, that number could rise to more than 15 million.

School vaccination requirements support efforts to ensure that kids are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases, but some data suggest that opposition to requiring MMR vaccine to attend public school is growing. According to a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation Vaccine Monitor survey, 28% of U.S. adults – and 35% of parents of children under 18 – now say that parents should be able to decide to not vaccinate their children for measles, mumps, and rubella. That’s up from 16% of adults and 23% of parents in a 2019 Pew Research Center poll.

Public confidence in the benefits of MMR has also dropped modestly. About 85% of adults surveyed said that the benefits of MMR vaccine outweigh the risk, down from 88% in 2019. Among adults not vaccinated against COVID-19, only 70% said that benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks.

While the WHO ramps up efforts to improve measles vaccination globally, pediatric clinicians can take steps now to mitigate the risk of measles outbreaks in their own communities. Query health records to understand how many eligible children in your practice have not yet received MMR vaccine. Notify families that vaccination is strongly recommended and make scheduling an appointment to receive vaccine easy. Some practices may have the bandwidth to offer evening and weekend hours for vaccine catch-up visits.

Curious about immunization rates in your state? The American Academy of Pediatrics has an interactive map that reports immunization coverage levels by state and provides comparisons to national rates and goals.

Prompt recognition and isolation of individuals with measles, along with prophylaxis of susceptible contacts, can limit community transmission. Measles can resemble other illnesses associated with fever and rash. Washington state has developed a screening tool to assist with recognition of measles. The CDC also has a measles outbreak toolkit that includes resources that outline clinical features and diagnoses, as well as strategies for talking to parents about vaccines.
 

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 disclosed that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected].