MDedge Surgery

Up to one in four patients who undergo metabolic/bariatric surgery have less than 20% weight loss and patients need additional strategies to help them reach their goals.

In the new BARI-OPTIMISE trial, patients with poor weight loss after such surgery were randomized to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide 3.0 mg/day or placebo. Liraglutide was safe and well-tolerated and led to a clinically meaningful 8% further reduction in bodyweight, compared with placebo, report Jessica Mok, BMBS, MPhil, University College London and colleagues, in their study published online in JAMA Surgery.

Weight loss in BARI-OPTIMISE (–9.2 kg or –20 lb) was greater than the weight loss in the earlier GRAVITAS trial of 80 patients with persistent or recurrent type 2 diabetes randomized to liraglutide 1.8 mg/day or placebo, Dr. Mok and colleagues note. And more patients in BARI-OPTIMISE than in GRAVITAS lost 5% or more of their baseline weight (72% vs. 46%).

“Our findings therefore suggest that liraglutide, 3.0 mg, may have a role in the treatment of people with poor weight loss following metabolic surgery,” they write.  

However, newer gut hormone–based therapies with greater efficacy than liraglutide 3.0 mg (for example, semaglutide and tirzepatide) are emerging, they add.

Therefore, “randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of novel pharmaceutical agents will be needed to generate the evidence required to deliver individualized precision-medicine approaches to patients with obesity and suboptimal weight loss following metabolic surgery,” the researchers urge.
 

‘Extremely welcome tools for severe obesity’

“The additional weight loss with associated favorable metabolic changes achieved with liraglutide reported in [the BARI-OPTIMISE and GRAVITAS trials] is extremely welcomed with the new antiobesity medications ... adding another effective tool in the toolbox for the treatment of severe obesity,” Paulina Salminen, MD, PhD, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, and Ali Aminian, MD, Cleveland Clinic, write in an accompanying editorial.

However, they also point to limitations of the current trial.

Almost all patients (65 of 70 [93%]) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in BARI-OPTIMISE. However, “there are safe and more effective surgical options that can be considered in patients with suboptimal initial clinical response or recurrent weight gain” after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, such as “conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), duodenal switch, or single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass,” they note.

The small number of patients and low follow-up rate of 81% (57 of 70 patients) for the short intervention are other limitations.

“In treating a patient with ischemic heart disease, a combination of lifestyle intervention, risk factor modification, pharmacotherapy, coronary stenting, and open-heart surgery may be needed,” note the editorialists. “A very similar concept would be applicable in the management of severe obesity.”

In the past, they add, there was not much progress with combination therapies for obesity because of a lack of effective antiobesity medications.

However, “with the better availability of potent [antiobesity medications] now and in the near future, the practice of combination therapy will grow as [metabolic and bariatric surgery] and [antiobesity medications] work in synergy in both treating severe obesity and hopefully also in enabling increased access to effective obesity treatment,” Dr. Salminen and Dr. Aminian speculate.

“Hopefully, based on findings of future studies and the use of global uniform criteria for evaluating treatment outcomes,” the editorialists conclude, “we can develop practice guidelines to assist and optimize phenotype-tailored multimodal treatment of this heterogeneous chronic disease of severe obesity.”
 

Most patients had severe obesity, sleeve gastrectomy

Individuals with poor weight loss after surgery have increased appetite coupled with an unfavorable gut hormone profile, including lower circulating GLP-1 levels, Dr. Mok and colleagues note.

In 2018 and 2019, they recruited and randomized 70 adults who had had metabolic surgery at two hospitals in London at least a year earlier and had 20% or less weight loss, compared with the day of surgery, as well as a suboptimal nutrient-stimulated GLP-1 response.

Patients were excluded if they had type 1 diabetes or were taking a GLP-1 agonist, insulin, or other medications that can affect weight, among other criteria.

The mean age of patients was 48 years, and 74% were women; 13% had type 2 diabetes.

Participants had a mean weight of 120 kg, and a mean body mass index of 43 kg/m² (57% had a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²). Almost all patients (93%) had had sleeve gastrectomy and 7% had RYGB.

On average, they had surgery 4.3 years earlier and had lost 7% of their initial weight.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo daily for 24 weeks. All patients received dietary counseling and aimed for a 500 kcal/day energy deficit. They were encouraged to do a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week.

The primary endpoint, percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 24, was –8.8% with liraglutide versus –0.53% with placebo.

Adverse effects were predominantly gastrointestinal in nature and were more frequent with liraglutide (80%) than placebo (57%). There were no serious adverse events.

This study was funded by the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Novo Nordisk provided the liraglutide and placebo pens. Author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aminian has reported receiving received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Up to one in four patients who undergo metabolic/bariatric surgery have less than 20% weight loss and patients need additional strategies to help them reach their goals.

In the new BARI-OPTIMISE trial, patients with poor weight loss after such surgery were randomized to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide 3.0 mg/day or placebo. Liraglutide was safe and well-tolerated and led to a clinically meaningful 8% further reduction in bodyweight, compared with placebo, report Jessica Mok, BMBS, MPhil, University College London and colleagues, in their study published online in JAMA Surgery.

Weight loss in BARI-OPTIMISE (–9.2 kg or –20 lb) was greater than the weight loss in the earlier GRAVITAS trial of 80 patients with persistent or recurrent type 2 diabetes randomized to liraglutide 1.8 mg/day or placebo, Dr. Mok and colleagues note. And more patients in BARI-OPTIMISE than in GRAVITAS lost 5% or more of their baseline weight (72% vs. 46%).

“Our findings therefore suggest that liraglutide, 3.0 mg, may have a role in the treatment of people with poor weight loss following metabolic surgery,” they write.  

However, newer gut hormone–based therapies with greater efficacy than liraglutide 3.0 mg (for example, semaglutide and tirzepatide) are emerging, they add.

Therefore, “randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of novel pharmaceutical agents will be needed to generate the evidence required to deliver individualized precision-medicine approaches to patients with obesity and suboptimal weight loss following metabolic surgery,” the researchers urge.
 

‘Extremely welcome tools for severe obesity’

“The additional weight loss with associated favorable metabolic changes achieved with liraglutide reported in [the BARI-OPTIMISE and GRAVITAS trials] is extremely welcomed with the new antiobesity medications ... adding another effective tool in the toolbox for the treatment of severe obesity,” Paulina Salminen, MD, PhD, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, and Ali Aminian, MD, Cleveland Clinic, write in an accompanying editorial.

However, they also point to limitations of the current trial.

Almost all patients (65 of 70 [93%]) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in BARI-OPTIMISE. However, “there are safe and more effective surgical options that can be considered in patients with suboptimal initial clinical response or recurrent weight gain” after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, such as “conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), duodenal switch, or single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass,” they note.

The small number of patients and low follow-up rate of 81% (57 of 70 patients) for the short intervention are other limitations.

“In treating a patient with ischemic heart disease, a combination of lifestyle intervention, risk factor modification, pharmacotherapy, coronary stenting, and open-heart surgery may be needed,” note the editorialists. “A very similar concept would be applicable in the management of severe obesity.”

In the past, they add, there was not much progress with combination therapies for obesity because of a lack of effective antiobesity medications.

However, “with the better availability of potent [antiobesity medications] now and in the near future, the practice of combination therapy will grow as [metabolic and bariatric surgery] and [antiobesity medications] work in synergy in both treating severe obesity and hopefully also in enabling increased access to effective obesity treatment,” Dr. Salminen and Dr. Aminian speculate.

“Hopefully, based on findings of future studies and the use of global uniform criteria for evaluating treatment outcomes,” the editorialists conclude, “we can develop practice guidelines to assist and optimize phenotype-tailored multimodal treatment of this heterogeneous chronic disease of severe obesity.”
 

Most patients had severe obesity, sleeve gastrectomy

Individuals with poor weight loss after surgery have increased appetite coupled with an unfavorable gut hormone profile, including lower circulating GLP-1 levels, Dr. Mok and colleagues note.

In 2018 and 2019, they recruited and randomized 70 adults who had had metabolic surgery at two hospitals in London at least a year earlier and had 20% or less weight loss, compared with the day of surgery, as well as a suboptimal nutrient-stimulated GLP-1 response.

Patients were excluded if they had type 1 diabetes or were taking a GLP-1 agonist, insulin, or other medications that can affect weight, among other criteria.

The mean age of patients was 48 years, and 74% were women; 13% had type 2 diabetes.

Participants had a mean weight of 120 kg, and a mean body mass index of 43 kg/m² (57% had a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²). Almost all patients (93%) had had sleeve gastrectomy and 7% had RYGB.

On average, they had surgery 4.3 years earlier and had lost 7% of their initial weight.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo daily for 24 weeks. All patients received dietary counseling and aimed for a 500 kcal/day energy deficit. They were encouraged to do a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week.

The primary endpoint, percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 24, was –8.8% with liraglutide versus –0.53% with placebo.

Adverse effects were predominantly gastrointestinal in nature and were more frequent with liraglutide (80%) than placebo (57%). There were no serious adverse events.

This study was funded by the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Novo Nordisk provided the liraglutide and placebo pens. Author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aminian has reported receiving received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Up to one in four patients who undergo metabolic/bariatric surgery have less than 20% weight loss and patients need additional strategies to help them reach their goals.

In the new BARI-OPTIMISE trial, patients with poor weight loss after such surgery were randomized to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide 3.0 mg/day or placebo. Liraglutide was safe and well-tolerated and led to a clinically meaningful 8% further reduction in bodyweight, compared with placebo, report Jessica Mok, BMBS, MPhil, University College London and colleagues, in their study published online in JAMA Surgery.

Weight loss in BARI-OPTIMISE (–9.2 kg or –20 lb) was greater than the weight loss in the earlier GRAVITAS trial of 80 patients with persistent or recurrent type 2 diabetes randomized to liraglutide 1.8 mg/day or placebo, Dr. Mok and colleagues note. And more patients in BARI-OPTIMISE than in GRAVITAS lost 5% or more of their baseline weight (72% vs. 46%).

“Our findings therefore suggest that liraglutide, 3.0 mg, may have a role in the treatment of people with poor weight loss following metabolic surgery,” they write.  

However, newer gut hormone–based therapies with greater efficacy than liraglutide 3.0 mg (for example, semaglutide and tirzepatide) are emerging, they add.

Therefore, “randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of novel pharmaceutical agents will be needed to generate the evidence required to deliver individualized precision-medicine approaches to patients with obesity and suboptimal weight loss following metabolic surgery,” the researchers urge.
 

‘Extremely welcome tools for severe obesity’

“The additional weight loss with associated favorable metabolic changes achieved with liraglutide reported in [the BARI-OPTIMISE and GRAVITAS trials] is extremely welcomed with the new antiobesity medications ... adding another effective tool in the toolbox for the treatment of severe obesity,” Paulina Salminen, MD, PhD, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, and Ali Aminian, MD, Cleveland Clinic, write in an accompanying editorial.

However, they also point to limitations of the current trial.

Almost all patients (65 of 70 [93%]) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in BARI-OPTIMISE. However, “there are safe and more effective surgical options that can be considered in patients with suboptimal initial clinical response or recurrent weight gain” after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, such as “conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), duodenal switch, or single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass,” they note.

The small number of patients and low follow-up rate of 81% (57 of 70 patients) for the short intervention are other limitations.

“In treating a patient with ischemic heart disease, a combination of lifestyle intervention, risk factor modification, pharmacotherapy, coronary stenting, and open-heart surgery may be needed,” note the editorialists. “A very similar concept would be applicable in the management of severe obesity.”

In the past, they add, there was not much progress with combination therapies for obesity because of a lack of effective antiobesity medications.

However, “with the better availability of potent [antiobesity medications] now and in the near future, the practice of combination therapy will grow as [metabolic and bariatric surgery] and [antiobesity medications] work in synergy in both treating severe obesity and hopefully also in enabling increased access to effective obesity treatment,” Dr. Salminen and Dr. Aminian speculate.

“Hopefully, based on findings of future studies and the use of global uniform criteria for evaluating treatment outcomes,” the editorialists conclude, “we can develop practice guidelines to assist and optimize phenotype-tailored multimodal treatment of this heterogeneous chronic disease of severe obesity.”
 

Most patients had severe obesity, sleeve gastrectomy

Individuals with poor weight loss after surgery have increased appetite coupled with an unfavorable gut hormone profile, including lower circulating GLP-1 levels, Dr. Mok and colleagues note.

In 2018 and 2019, they recruited and randomized 70 adults who had had metabolic surgery at two hospitals in London at least a year earlier and had 20% or less weight loss, compared with the day of surgery, as well as a suboptimal nutrient-stimulated GLP-1 response.

Patients were excluded if they had type 1 diabetes or were taking a GLP-1 agonist, insulin, or other medications that can affect weight, among other criteria.

The mean age of patients was 48 years, and 74% were women; 13% had type 2 diabetes.

Participants had a mean weight of 120 kg, and a mean body mass index of 43 kg/m² (57% had a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²). Almost all patients (93%) had had sleeve gastrectomy and 7% had RYGB.

On average, they had surgery 4.3 years earlier and had lost 7% of their initial weight.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo daily for 24 weeks. All patients received dietary counseling and aimed for a 500 kcal/day energy deficit. They were encouraged to do a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week.

The primary endpoint, percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 24, was –8.8% with liraglutide versus –0.53% with placebo.

Adverse effects were predominantly gastrointestinal in nature and were more frequent with liraglutide (80%) than placebo (57%). There were no serious adverse events.

This study was funded by the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Novo Nordisk provided the liraglutide and placebo pens. Author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aminian has reported receiving received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A woman who was born without a uterus has given birth to a boy in Alabama.

It’s the first time that a baby has been born to a woman with a transplanted uterus outside of a clinical trial. Officials from University of Alabama–Birmingham Hospital, where the 2-year process took place, said in a statement on July 24 that the birth sets its uterus transplant program on track to perhaps become covered under insurance plans.

The process of uterus transplant, in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy involves 50 medical providers and is open to women who have uterine factor infertility (UFI). The condition may affect up to 5% of reproductive-age women worldwide. Women with UFI cannot carry a pregnancy to term because they were either born without a uterus, had it removed via hysterectomy, or have a uterus that does not function properly.

The woman, whom the hospital identified as Mallory, moved with her family to the Birmingham area to enter the transplant program, which is one of four programs operating in the United States. Mallory learned when she was 17 years old that she was born without a uterus because of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Her first child, a daughter, was born after her sister carried the pregnancy as a surrogate.

Mallory received her uterus from a deceased donor. Her son was born in May.

“As with other types of organ transplants, the woman must take immunosuppressive medications to prevent the body from rejecting the transplanted uterus,” the transplant program’s website states. “After the baby is born and if the woman does not want more children, the transplanted uterus is removed with a hysterectomy procedure, and the woman no longer needs to take antirejection medications.”

“There are all different ways to grow your family if you have uterine factor infertility, but this [uterus transplantation] is what I feel like I knew that I was supposed to do,” Mallory said in a statement. “I mean, just hearing the cry at first was just, you know, mind blowing.”

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

A woman who was born without a uterus has given birth to a boy in Alabama.

It’s the first time that a baby has been born to a woman with a transplanted uterus outside of a clinical trial. Officials from University of Alabama–Birmingham Hospital, where the 2-year process took place, said in a statement on July 24 that the birth sets its uterus transplant program on track to perhaps become covered under insurance plans.

The process of uterus transplant, in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy involves 50 medical providers and is open to women who have uterine factor infertility (UFI). The condition may affect up to 5% of reproductive-age women worldwide. Women with UFI cannot carry a pregnancy to term because they were either born without a uterus, had it removed via hysterectomy, or have a uterus that does not function properly.

The woman, whom the hospital identified as Mallory, moved with her family to the Birmingham area to enter the transplant program, which is one of four programs operating in the United States. Mallory learned when she was 17 years old that she was born without a uterus because of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Her first child, a daughter, was born after her sister carried the pregnancy as a surrogate.

Mallory received her uterus from a deceased donor. Her son was born in May.

“As with other types of organ transplants, the woman must take immunosuppressive medications to prevent the body from rejecting the transplanted uterus,” the transplant program’s website states. “After the baby is born and if the woman does not want more children, the transplanted uterus is removed with a hysterectomy procedure, and the woman no longer needs to take antirejection medications.”

“There are all different ways to grow your family if you have uterine factor infertility, but this [uterus transplantation] is what I feel like I knew that I was supposed to do,” Mallory said in a statement. “I mean, just hearing the cry at first was just, you know, mind blowing.”

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

A woman who was born without a uterus has given birth to a boy in Alabama.

It’s the first time that a baby has been born to a woman with a transplanted uterus outside of a clinical trial. Officials from University of Alabama–Birmingham Hospital, where the 2-year process took place, said in a statement on July 24 that the birth sets its uterus transplant program on track to perhaps become covered under insurance plans.

The process of uterus transplant, in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy involves 50 medical providers and is open to women who have uterine factor infertility (UFI). The condition may affect up to 5% of reproductive-age women worldwide. Women with UFI cannot carry a pregnancy to term because they were either born without a uterus, had it removed via hysterectomy, or have a uterus that does not function properly.

The woman, whom the hospital identified as Mallory, moved with her family to the Birmingham area to enter the transplant program, which is one of four programs operating in the United States. Mallory learned when she was 17 years old that she was born without a uterus because of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Her first child, a daughter, was born after her sister carried the pregnancy as a surrogate.

Mallory received her uterus from a deceased donor. Her son was born in May.

“As with other types of organ transplants, the woman must take immunosuppressive medications to prevent the body from rejecting the transplanted uterus,” the transplant program’s website states. “After the baby is born and if the woman does not want more children, the transplanted uterus is removed with a hysterectomy procedure, and the woman no longer needs to take antirejection medications.”

“There are all different ways to grow your family if you have uterine factor infertility, but this [uterus transplantation] is what I feel like I knew that I was supposed to do,” Mallory said in a statement. “I mean, just hearing the cry at first was just, you know, mind blowing.”

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

California’s highest court has revived a high-profile lawsuit that could have a major impact on whether insurers can punish physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers.

The case, which has bounced around courts in the Golden State since 2012, pits the nearly 50,000-member California Medical Association (CMA) against Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers. The physician group alleges that Aetna illegally retaliated against physicians who sent patients to certain out-of-network clinics.

Out-of-network providers and clinics were involved in just 4.7% of professional medical claims in 2020, according to a federal report released July 6, 2023. Such claims are more likely than others to be denied, and they result in unexpected medical bills, which have led to the passage of state and federal laws that target “surprise billing.”

In a July 17 ruling, the California Supreme Court unanimously resurrected the CMA v. Aetna case after a judge and a state appeals court killed it on the grounds that the CMA - which is affiliated with the American Medical Association (AMA) - had no standing to sue Aetna. The high state court declared that the CMA could sue on its own behalf, but the justices noted that their ruling says nothing about the merits of the case.

The ruling appears to mean that CMA’s lawsuit will head back to Superior Court in Los Angeles County. The outcome of the case won’t have a direct national effect, since the case is in state court, not federal court. However, state rulings can influence the thinking of judges elsewhere.

The case, filed in 2012, alleges that Aetna harmed patient care by harassing and sacking contract physicians who referred patients to out-of-network ambulatory surgery centers.

According to the new ruling, Aetna responded by saying that “its policy, rather than interfering in medical judgments, was designed simply to encourage participating physicians, consistent with their judgment, to use in-network care providers, such as ambulatory surgery centers, and was adopted in part in response to physicians referring patients to facilities in which they had financial interests.”

In a 2012 letter to CMA, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, an Aetna attorney went further and claimed that “physicians and their business partners secure outsized and improper windfalls at the expense of Aetna’s plan members and employer plan sponsors.”

The CMA received support for its lawsuit via friend-of-the-court legal briefs from the California attorney general, city attorneys for several major California cities, the AMA, several major labor unions, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and the advocacy organization Consumer Watchdog. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the California Association of Health Plans, and the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies filed briefs supporting Aetna.

Aetna, now part of CVS Health, declined to comment about the new ruling.

The CMA released a statement from its president, internist/hospitalist Donaldo M. Hernandez, MD: “The practice of threatening physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers is unlawful, and we are pleased that the court agrees that CMA has the right to challenge these practices in court.”

In an interview, research professor emeritus Jack Hoadley, PhD, of the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, noted that many health plans don’t cover out-of-network care. Those that do – including PPOs and hybrid plans – often require that patients pay a larger share of the total cost or pay a separate or higher deductible, he said.

So why would an insurer punish doctors who refer patients to health care providers who are outside the insurer’s approved network? In some cases, patients may blame insurers when they’re forced to pay higher rates for out-of-network care, Dr. Hoadley said. Insurers may also be miffed when physicians send patients out of network, he said, because insurers contract with physicians to send a certain number of patients within the insurer’s network.

The federal No Surprises Act, passed by Congress in 2020, hasn’t decreased tension between providers and insurers over out-of-network fees, Dr. Hoadley said. As the effects of the law are hammered out in court, he said, there’s still an adversarial relationship.

In California, the out-of-network landscape changed 3 years before the No Surprises Act. In 2017, the state passed its own no-surprise-billing law, which “protects consumers from surprise medical bills when they get non-emergency services, go to an in-network health facility and receive care from an out-of-network provider without their consent.” In these cases, the law says patients need to pay only in accordance with in-network cost sharing.

In 2019, a USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy report found signs that out-of-network care was fading in California other than in the emergency setting, possibly as a result of the law.

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

California’s highest court has revived a high-profile lawsuit that could have a major impact on whether insurers can punish physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers.

The case, which has bounced around courts in the Golden State since 2012, pits the nearly 50,000-member California Medical Association (CMA) against Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers. The physician group alleges that Aetna illegally retaliated against physicians who sent patients to certain out-of-network clinics.

Out-of-network providers and clinics were involved in just 4.7% of professional medical claims in 2020, according to a federal report released July 6, 2023. Such claims are more likely than others to be denied, and they result in unexpected medical bills, which have led to the passage of state and federal laws that target “surprise billing.”

In a July 17 ruling, the California Supreme Court unanimously resurrected the CMA v. Aetna case after a judge and a state appeals court killed it on the grounds that the CMA - which is affiliated with the American Medical Association (AMA) - had no standing to sue Aetna. The high state court declared that the CMA could sue on its own behalf, but the justices noted that their ruling says nothing about the merits of the case.

The ruling appears to mean that CMA’s lawsuit will head back to Superior Court in Los Angeles County. The outcome of the case won’t have a direct national effect, since the case is in state court, not federal court. However, state rulings can influence the thinking of judges elsewhere.

The case, filed in 2012, alleges that Aetna harmed patient care by harassing and sacking contract physicians who referred patients to out-of-network ambulatory surgery centers.

According to the new ruling, Aetna responded by saying that “its policy, rather than interfering in medical judgments, was designed simply to encourage participating physicians, consistent with their judgment, to use in-network care providers, such as ambulatory surgery centers, and was adopted in part in response to physicians referring patients to facilities in which they had financial interests.”

In a 2012 letter to CMA, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, an Aetna attorney went further and claimed that “physicians and their business partners secure outsized and improper windfalls at the expense of Aetna’s plan members and employer plan sponsors.”

The CMA received support for its lawsuit via friend-of-the-court legal briefs from the California attorney general, city attorneys for several major California cities, the AMA, several major labor unions, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and the advocacy organization Consumer Watchdog. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the California Association of Health Plans, and the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies filed briefs supporting Aetna.

Aetna, now part of CVS Health, declined to comment about the new ruling.

The CMA released a statement from its president, internist/hospitalist Donaldo M. Hernandez, MD: “The practice of threatening physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers is unlawful, and we are pleased that the court agrees that CMA has the right to challenge these practices in court.”

In an interview, research professor emeritus Jack Hoadley, PhD, of the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, noted that many health plans don’t cover out-of-network care. Those that do – including PPOs and hybrid plans – often require that patients pay a larger share of the total cost or pay a separate or higher deductible, he said.

So why would an insurer punish doctors who refer patients to health care providers who are outside the insurer’s approved network? In some cases, patients may blame insurers when they’re forced to pay higher rates for out-of-network care, Dr. Hoadley said. Insurers may also be miffed when physicians send patients out of network, he said, because insurers contract with physicians to send a certain number of patients within the insurer’s network.

The federal No Surprises Act, passed by Congress in 2020, hasn’t decreased tension between providers and insurers over out-of-network fees, Dr. Hoadley said. As the effects of the law are hammered out in court, he said, there’s still an adversarial relationship.

In California, the out-of-network landscape changed 3 years before the No Surprises Act. In 2017, the state passed its own no-surprise-billing law, which “protects consumers from surprise medical bills when they get non-emergency services, go to an in-network health facility and receive care from an out-of-network provider without their consent.” In these cases, the law says patients need to pay only in accordance with in-network cost sharing.

In 2019, a USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy report found signs that out-of-network care was fading in California other than in the emergency setting, possibly as a result of the law.

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

California’s highest court has revived a high-profile lawsuit that could have a major impact on whether insurers can punish physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers.

The case, which has bounced around courts in the Golden State since 2012, pits the nearly 50,000-member California Medical Association (CMA) against Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers. The physician group alleges that Aetna illegally retaliated against physicians who sent patients to certain out-of-network clinics.

Out-of-network providers and clinics were involved in just 4.7% of professional medical claims in 2020, according to a federal report released July 6, 2023. Such claims are more likely than others to be denied, and they result in unexpected medical bills, which have led to the passage of state and federal laws that target “surprise billing.”

In a July 17 ruling, the California Supreme Court unanimously resurrected the CMA v. Aetna case after a judge and a state appeals court killed it on the grounds that the CMA - which is affiliated with the American Medical Association (AMA) - had no standing to sue Aetna. The high state court declared that the CMA could sue on its own behalf, but the justices noted that their ruling says nothing about the merits of the case.

The ruling appears to mean that CMA’s lawsuit will head back to Superior Court in Los Angeles County. The outcome of the case won’t have a direct national effect, since the case is in state court, not federal court. However, state rulings can influence the thinking of judges elsewhere.

The case, filed in 2012, alleges that Aetna harmed patient care by harassing and sacking contract physicians who referred patients to out-of-network ambulatory surgery centers.

According to the new ruling, Aetna responded by saying that “its policy, rather than interfering in medical judgments, was designed simply to encourage participating physicians, consistent with their judgment, to use in-network care providers, such as ambulatory surgery centers, and was adopted in part in response to physicians referring patients to facilities in which they had financial interests.”

In a 2012 letter to CMA, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, an Aetna attorney went further and claimed that “physicians and their business partners secure outsized and improper windfalls at the expense of Aetna’s plan members and employer plan sponsors.”

The CMA received support for its lawsuit via friend-of-the-court legal briefs from the California attorney general, city attorneys for several major California cities, the AMA, several major labor unions, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and the advocacy organization Consumer Watchdog. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the California Association of Health Plans, and the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies filed briefs supporting Aetna.

Aetna, now part of CVS Health, declined to comment about the new ruling.

The CMA released a statement from its president, internist/hospitalist Donaldo M. Hernandez, MD: “The practice of threatening physicians who refer patients to out-of-network providers is unlawful, and we are pleased that the court agrees that CMA has the right to challenge these practices in court.”

In an interview, research professor emeritus Jack Hoadley, PhD, of the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, noted that many health plans don’t cover out-of-network care. Those that do – including PPOs and hybrid plans – often require that patients pay a larger share of the total cost or pay a separate or higher deductible, he said.

So why would an insurer punish doctors who refer patients to health care providers who are outside the insurer’s approved network? In some cases, patients may blame insurers when they’re forced to pay higher rates for out-of-network care, Dr. Hoadley said. Insurers may also be miffed when physicians send patients out of network, he said, because insurers contract with physicians to send a certain number of patients within the insurer’s network.

The federal No Surprises Act, passed by Congress in 2020, hasn’t decreased tension between providers and insurers over out-of-network fees, Dr. Hoadley said. As the effects of the law are hammered out in court, he said, there’s still an adversarial relationship.

In California, the out-of-network landscape changed 3 years before the No Surprises Act. In 2017, the state passed its own no-surprise-billing law, which “protects consumers from surprise medical bills when they get non-emergency services, go to an in-network health facility and receive care from an out-of-network provider without their consent.” In these cases, the law says patients need to pay only in accordance with in-network cost sharing.

In 2019, a USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy report found signs that out-of-network care was fading in California other than in the emergency setting, possibly as a result of the law.

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

In March 2023, four “medical tourists” from South Carolina who were seeking health care in Mexico were kidnapped by a drug cartel. Two were killed when they were trapped in a shootout. One of them was scheduled for tummy-tuck surgery, and others were seeking cheaper prescription drugs.

The news reached Bruce Hermann, MD, a plastic surgeon in Denton, Tex., who brought up the incident in a segment of his podcast, “Nip Talk,” in which he talked about the risks of medical tourism. But violence in foreign countries isn’t Dr. Hermann’s primary concern.

“Being the victim of a crime is lower down the risk strata,” Dr. Hermann said in an interview. “A bigger concern is the lack of regulations of doctors and facilities in countries like Mexico.”

The savings from medical tourism may be tempting, but the unpredictable clinical risks are daunting. Some employers pay for treatment at certain foreign clinics, and Blue Shield of California’s HMO plan, Access Baja, covers care in certain clinics in Mexico’s Baja peninsula. But U.S. health insurance generally does not cover medical tourism.

Despite its popularity, medical tourism is not siphoning off a significant number of patients from U.S. doctors, with the possible exception of plastic surgery. One study found that medical tourism accounts for less than 2% of U.S. spending on noncosmetic health care.

Still, as many as 1.2 million Americans travel to Mexico each year seeking health care at lower costs, particularly dental care, bariatric surgery, and cosmetic procedures.

Physicians such as Dr. Hermann see the results when things go awry. Dr. Hermann said when he takes calls at a nearby level II trauma center, he sees, on average, one patient a month with complications from plastic surgeries performed abroad.

Patients tell Dr. Hermann they often had little preoperative time with the surgeons, and some may not even see their surgeon. They have to fly back home just days after their procedures, so complications that typically arise later are missed, he said.
 

Who opts for medical tourism?

There are few statistics on the number of medical tourists or the clinical problems they have. Josef Woodman, CEO of Patients Beyond Borders, a medical tourism consultancy in Chapel Hill, N.C., has developed a profile of medical tourism that is based on his close contacts within the industry.

Mr. Woodman said the vast majority of U.S. medical tourists go to Mexico, which accounts for an estimated 1 million to 1.2 million medical visitors a year. He said Costa Rica is another popular destination, followed by other Latin American countries and some in the Far East, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

Mr. Woodman estimates that dental treatments make up 65% of all medical tourism. Cosmetic procedures come in a distant second, at 15%. Cosmetic procedures can be expensive and are rarely covered by insurance. They can be performed at half the price abroad, he said.

According to Mr. Woodman, other significant fields for medical tourism are orthopedics, which accounts for 5% of all visits, and bariatrics, with 3%-5%. Hip and knee replacements are expensive, and in the case of bariatrics, U.S. insurers often deny coverage, he said.

People also go abroad for fertility care and organ transplants, and one Jamaica company even offered dialysis vacations for U.S. tourists.

On the other hand, medical tourism does not work well for cancer treatments, because cancer care involves long periods of treatment and cannot be completed in a trip or two, Mr. Woodman said. “The media also plays up major procedures like open heart surgery, but they are in fact very rare,” he added.
 

What patients are looking for

Medical tourists typically pay 50%-70% of what they would pay in the United States for the same procedure, Mr. Woodman said. Prices are lower because patients pay in cash, foreign wages are lower, and expenses such as malpractice insurance are much lower.

“Many medical tourists don’t have a choice,” Mr. Woodman said. “They cannot afford the U.S. price for the procedure, even if they have health insurance, because they often have a high deductible.” In one study, the majority of medical tourists to Mexico reported an income of $25,000-$50,000 a year.

That same study also found that the average age of medical tourists was just under 65. These older patients often come for a vacation. “A sizable number of medical tourists are looking for surgery plus a vacation, a tummy-tuck and a stay at an all-inclusive resort,” said Steven P. Davison, MD, DDS, a plastic surgeon in Washington, who has written on the phenomenon.

Another large group of medical tourists are immigrants to the United States who want surgery in their country of origin, such as Brazil or Iran, Dr. Davison said, perhaps because they feel more comfortable or have family members who can act as caregivers. He said some go to places that have expertise in a certain procedure.

“For instance, they get their hair transplantation done in Turkey because surgeons there have the expertise and it’s cheaper than in the United States,” Dr. Davison said.
 

Arranging the trip

Patients often find foreign providers through online brokers who can arrange the flight, hotel, clinic, and physician. Brokers are not unbiased because they are usually paid by the clinic. Mr. Woodman said this arrangement works when the broker can offer a wide variety of options but not when the broker represents just a few clinics.

Mr. Woodman said patients could conceivably make their own arrangements without a broker, and some do so. “All the tools are on the Internet,” he said. “However, many people don’t trust themselves to do this work.”

Even for patients who depend on brokers, Mr. Woodman advises verifying the quality of the clinic and its doctors before signing on. Most countries have online lists of registered doctors, and patients seeking health care can research complaints against a doctor.

There is no insurance that patients can have to guard against the risks of medical tourism, Mr. Woodman said. “When you could get it, it was prohibitively expensive,” he said. “You can get travel insurance, but that just covers peripheral problems, such as flight cancellations, accidental injury, and emergency care. It has nothing to do with problems stemming from planned procedures.

“Some clinics and hospitals serving medical tourists provide warranties on their work,” he added. “However, plastic surgery clinics are less likely to offer warranties, because patients are so frequently dissatisfied.”
 

How things can go wrong

Mr. Woodman said medical tourists may often receive substandard care when they select a provider who offers unusually large savings, such as 80% off the U.S. price. “Those providers are likely cutting corners to get that kind of savings, and you should stay away from them,” he said.

Even when receiving care at an excellent clinic, patients can get infections if postoperative requirements are not followed, according to Darrick E. Antell, MD, a plastic surgeon in New York, who has treated medical tourists upon their return to the United States.

Typically, patients are told to stay in their rooms for several days after the operation, but friends may push them to go out and have fun, he said. Sometimes patients choose exotic arrangements that place them at risk for infection. As an example, Dr. Antell mentioned a broker who offered a safari in combination with plastic surgery.

Dr. Hermann said tummy tucks are riskier because they involve large incisions, and many such patients are overweight, which impairs healing. “Tummy-tuck patients need a longer recovery, and they often have more discomfort than other plastic surgery,” he said.

When things go wrong, medical tourists have few legal protections. “They usually don’t go to an accredited facility, there is no credentialing of physicians, and their ability to sue is extremely limited,” Dr. Davison said. Patients would have to return to the foreign country and hire a lawyer there, and even then, it is harder to win a case and to receive an award as high as in the United States, he added.
 

Dealing with follow-ups

An inherent flaw with medical tourism, Dr. Antell said, is that patients typically go back home before postoperative care is fully completed. “They may stay just a few days after surgery, and then fly back home,” he said.

“Patients who have complex operations abroad should stay for 8-10 days to have a proper follow-up,” he said. “But they fly back early, which can also lead to getting pulmonary embolisms on the flight.

“A checkup right after surgery doesn’t uncover many complications, because these tend to occur 7-12 days after surgery,” Dr. Hermann said.

“If they come to me within 3 months after surgery, I charge an upfront fee just to see them, because it takes an hour of my time,” Dr. Davison said. “Then I will take care of acute emergency, such as taking out an infected implant.”

Hermann said many patients wait too long to have their complications treated in the United States. “They may first try calling their doctor in Mexico, who tells them to take some antibiotics or something,” he said. “So when they finally do seek care, the infection is pretty far along.”
 

What U.S. doctors can do

Patients rarely tell their U.S. doctors that they are planning a trip to a foreign country to undergo medical treatment, even though they have to request a copy of their medical records for the foreign doctor, Mr. Woodman said.

Dr. Hermann said only one of his patients told him she was planning to go aboard for plastic surgery. “She was a young mom, and I tried to talk her out of it,” he said. “I don’t know what happened because she didn’t come back.”

Dr. Hermann said doctors should assume that they won’t be able to change their patients’ minds, and they should try to help their patients make the best of it.

“They should insist on seeing the doctor ahead of time and make sure they get along with them,” he said. “Ask for credentialing of the doctor and the facility, and stay there several weeks post op. But they’re probably not going to do all of this.”

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

In March 2023, four “medical tourists” from South Carolina who were seeking health care in Mexico were kidnapped by a drug cartel. Two were killed when they were trapped in a shootout. One of them was scheduled for tummy-tuck surgery, and others were seeking cheaper prescription drugs.

The news reached Bruce Hermann, MD, a plastic surgeon in Denton, Tex., who brought up the incident in a segment of his podcast, “Nip Talk,” in which he talked about the risks of medical tourism. But violence in foreign countries isn’t Dr. Hermann’s primary concern.

“Being the victim of a crime is lower down the risk strata,” Dr. Hermann said in an interview. “A bigger concern is the lack of regulations of doctors and facilities in countries like Mexico.”

The savings from medical tourism may be tempting, but the unpredictable clinical risks are daunting. Some employers pay for treatment at certain foreign clinics, and Blue Shield of California’s HMO plan, Access Baja, covers care in certain clinics in Mexico’s Baja peninsula. But U.S. health insurance generally does not cover medical tourism.

Despite its popularity, medical tourism is not siphoning off a significant number of patients from U.S. doctors, with the possible exception of plastic surgery. One study found that medical tourism accounts for less than 2% of U.S. spending on noncosmetic health care.

Still, as many as 1.2 million Americans travel to Mexico each year seeking health care at lower costs, particularly dental care, bariatric surgery, and cosmetic procedures.

Physicians such as Dr. Hermann see the results when things go awry. Dr. Hermann said when he takes calls at a nearby level II trauma center, he sees, on average, one patient a month with complications from plastic surgeries performed abroad.

Patients tell Dr. Hermann they often had little preoperative time with the surgeons, and some may not even see their surgeon. They have to fly back home just days after their procedures, so complications that typically arise later are missed, he said.
 

Who opts for medical tourism?

There are few statistics on the number of medical tourists or the clinical problems they have. Josef Woodman, CEO of Patients Beyond Borders, a medical tourism consultancy in Chapel Hill, N.C., has developed a profile of medical tourism that is based on his close contacts within the industry.

Mr. Woodman said the vast majority of U.S. medical tourists go to Mexico, which accounts for an estimated 1 million to 1.2 million medical visitors a year. He said Costa Rica is another popular destination, followed by other Latin American countries and some in the Far East, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

Mr. Woodman estimates that dental treatments make up 65% of all medical tourism. Cosmetic procedures come in a distant second, at 15%. Cosmetic procedures can be expensive and are rarely covered by insurance. They can be performed at half the price abroad, he said.

According to Mr. Woodman, other significant fields for medical tourism are orthopedics, which accounts for 5% of all visits, and bariatrics, with 3%-5%. Hip and knee replacements are expensive, and in the case of bariatrics, U.S. insurers often deny coverage, he said.

People also go abroad for fertility care and organ transplants, and one Jamaica company even offered dialysis vacations for U.S. tourists.

On the other hand, medical tourism does not work well for cancer treatments, because cancer care involves long periods of treatment and cannot be completed in a trip or two, Mr. Woodman said. “The media also plays up major procedures like open heart surgery, but they are in fact very rare,” he added.
 

What patients are looking for

Medical tourists typically pay 50%-70% of what they would pay in the United States for the same procedure, Mr. Woodman said. Prices are lower because patients pay in cash, foreign wages are lower, and expenses such as malpractice insurance are much lower.

“Many medical tourists don’t have a choice,” Mr. Woodman said. “They cannot afford the U.S. price for the procedure, even if they have health insurance, because they often have a high deductible.” In one study, the majority of medical tourists to Mexico reported an income of $25,000-$50,000 a year.

That same study also found that the average age of medical tourists was just under 65. These older patients often come for a vacation. “A sizable number of medical tourists are looking for surgery plus a vacation, a tummy-tuck and a stay at an all-inclusive resort,” said Steven P. Davison, MD, DDS, a plastic surgeon in Washington, who has written on the phenomenon.

Another large group of medical tourists are immigrants to the United States who want surgery in their country of origin, such as Brazil or Iran, Dr. Davison said, perhaps because they feel more comfortable or have family members who can act as caregivers. He said some go to places that have expertise in a certain procedure.

“For instance, they get their hair transplantation done in Turkey because surgeons there have the expertise and it’s cheaper than in the United States,” Dr. Davison said.
 

Arranging the trip

Patients often find foreign providers through online brokers who can arrange the flight, hotel, clinic, and physician. Brokers are not unbiased because they are usually paid by the clinic. Mr. Woodman said this arrangement works when the broker can offer a wide variety of options but not when the broker represents just a few clinics.

Mr. Woodman said patients could conceivably make their own arrangements without a broker, and some do so. “All the tools are on the Internet,” he said. “However, many people don’t trust themselves to do this work.”

Even for patients who depend on brokers, Mr. Woodman advises verifying the quality of the clinic and its doctors before signing on. Most countries have online lists of registered doctors, and patients seeking health care can research complaints against a doctor.

There is no insurance that patients can have to guard against the risks of medical tourism, Mr. Woodman said. “When you could get it, it was prohibitively expensive,” he said. “You can get travel insurance, but that just covers peripheral problems, such as flight cancellations, accidental injury, and emergency care. It has nothing to do with problems stemming from planned procedures.

“Some clinics and hospitals serving medical tourists provide warranties on their work,” he added. “However, plastic surgery clinics are less likely to offer warranties, because patients are so frequently dissatisfied.”
 

How things can go wrong

Mr. Woodman said medical tourists may often receive substandard care when they select a provider who offers unusually large savings, such as 80% off the U.S. price. “Those providers are likely cutting corners to get that kind of savings, and you should stay away from them,” he said.

Even when receiving care at an excellent clinic, patients can get infections if postoperative requirements are not followed, according to Darrick E. Antell, MD, a plastic surgeon in New York, who has treated medical tourists upon their return to the United States.

Typically, patients are told to stay in their rooms for several days after the operation, but friends may push them to go out and have fun, he said. Sometimes patients choose exotic arrangements that place them at risk for infection. As an example, Dr. Antell mentioned a broker who offered a safari in combination with plastic surgery.

Dr. Hermann said tummy tucks are riskier because they involve large incisions, and many such patients are overweight, which impairs healing. “Tummy-tuck patients need a longer recovery, and they often have more discomfort than other plastic surgery,” he said.

When things go wrong, medical tourists have few legal protections. “They usually don’t go to an accredited facility, there is no credentialing of physicians, and their ability to sue is extremely limited,” Dr. Davison said. Patients would have to return to the foreign country and hire a lawyer there, and even then, it is harder to win a case and to receive an award as high as in the United States, he added.
 

Dealing with follow-ups

An inherent flaw with medical tourism, Dr. Antell said, is that patients typically go back home before postoperative care is fully completed. “They may stay just a few days after surgery, and then fly back home,” he said.

“Patients who have complex operations abroad should stay for 8-10 days to have a proper follow-up,” he said. “But they fly back early, which can also lead to getting pulmonary embolisms on the flight.

“A checkup right after surgery doesn’t uncover many complications, because these tend to occur 7-12 days after surgery,” Dr. Hermann said.

“If they come to me within 3 months after surgery, I charge an upfront fee just to see them, because it takes an hour of my time,” Dr. Davison said. “Then I will take care of acute emergency, such as taking out an infected implant.”

Hermann said many patients wait too long to have their complications treated in the United States. “They may first try calling their doctor in Mexico, who tells them to take some antibiotics or something,” he said. “So when they finally do seek care, the infection is pretty far along.”
 

What U.S. doctors can do

Patients rarely tell their U.S. doctors that they are planning a trip to a foreign country to undergo medical treatment, even though they have to request a copy of their medical records for the foreign doctor, Mr. Woodman said.

Dr. Hermann said only one of his patients told him she was planning to go aboard for plastic surgery. “She was a young mom, and I tried to talk her out of it,” he said. “I don’t know what happened because she didn’t come back.”

Dr. Hermann said doctors should assume that they won’t be able to change their patients’ minds, and they should try to help their patients make the best of it.

“They should insist on seeing the doctor ahead of time and make sure they get along with them,” he said. “Ask for credentialing of the doctor and the facility, and stay there several weeks post op. But they’re probably not going to do all of this.”

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

In March 2023, four “medical tourists” from South Carolina who were seeking health care in Mexico were kidnapped by a drug cartel. Two were killed when they were trapped in a shootout. One of them was scheduled for tummy-tuck surgery, and others were seeking cheaper prescription drugs.

The news reached Bruce Hermann, MD, a plastic surgeon in Denton, Tex., who brought up the incident in a segment of his podcast, “Nip Talk,” in which he talked about the risks of medical tourism. But violence in foreign countries isn’t Dr. Hermann’s primary concern.

“Being the victim of a crime is lower down the risk strata,” Dr. Hermann said in an interview. “A bigger concern is the lack of regulations of doctors and facilities in countries like Mexico.”

The savings from medical tourism may be tempting, but the unpredictable clinical risks are daunting. Some employers pay for treatment at certain foreign clinics, and Blue Shield of California’s HMO plan, Access Baja, covers care in certain clinics in Mexico’s Baja peninsula. But U.S. health insurance generally does not cover medical tourism.

Despite its popularity, medical tourism is not siphoning off a significant number of patients from U.S. doctors, with the possible exception of plastic surgery. One study found that medical tourism accounts for less than 2% of U.S. spending on noncosmetic health care.

Still, as many as 1.2 million Americans travel to Mexico each year seeking health care at lower costs, particularly dental care, bariatric surgery, and cosmetic procedures.

Physicians such as Dr. Hermann see the results when things go awry. Dr. Hermann said when he takes calls at a nearby level II trauma center, he sees, on average, one patient a month with complications from plastic surgeries performed abroad.

Patients tell Dr. Hermann they often had little preoperative time with the surgeons, and some may not even see their surgeon. They have to fly back home just days after their procedures, so complications that typically arise later are missed, he said.
 

Who opts for medical tourism?

There are few statistics on the number of medical tourists or the clinical problems they have. Josef Woodman, CEO of Patients Beyond Borders, a medical tourism consultancy in Chapel Hill, N.C., has developed a profile of medical tourism that is based on his close contacts within the industry.

Mr. Woodman said the vast majority of U.S. medical tourists go to Mexico, which accounts for an estimated 1 million to 1.2 million medical visitors a year. He said Costa Rica is another popular destination, followed by other Latin American countries and some in the Far East, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

Mr. Woodman estimates that dental treatments make up 65% of all medical tourism. Cosmetic procedures come in a distant second, at 15%. Cosmetic procedures can be expensive and are rarely covered by insurance. They can be performed at half the price abroad, he said.

According to Mr. Woodman, other significant fields for medical tourism are orthopedics, which accounts for 5% of all visits, and bariatrics, with 3%-5%. Hip and knee replacements are expensive, and in the case of bariatrics, U.S. insurers often deny coverage, he said.

People also go abroad for fertility care and organ transplants, and one Jamaica company even offered dialysis vacations for U.S. tourists.

On the other hand, medical tourism does not work well for cancer treatments, because cancer care involves long periods of treatment and cannot be completed in a trip or two, Mr. Woodman said. “The media also plays up major procedures like open heart surgery, but they are in fact very rare,” he added.
 

What patients are looking for

Medical tourists typically pay 50%-70% of what they would pay in the United States for the same procedure, Mr. Woodman said. Prices are lower because patients pay in cash, foreign wages are lower, and expenses such as malpractice insurance are much lower.

“Many medical tourists don’t have a choice,” Mr. Woodman said. “They cannot afford the U.S. price for the procedure, even if they have health insurance, because they often have a high deductible.” In one study, the majority of medical tourists to Mexico reported an income of $25,000-$50,000 a year.

That same study also found that the average age of medical tourists was just under 65. These older patients often come for a vacation. “A sizable number of medical tourists are looking for surgery plus a vacation, a tummy-tuck and a stay at an all-inclusive resort,” said Steven P. Davison, MD, DDS, a plastic surgeon in Washington, who has written on the phenomenon.

Another large group of medical tourists are immigrants to the United States who want surgery in their country of origin, such as Brazil or Iran, Dr. Davison said, perhaps because they feel more comfortable or have family members who can act as caregivers. He said some go to places that have expertise in a certain procedure.

“For instance, they get their hair transplantation done in Turkey because surgeons there have the expertise and it’s cheaper than in the United States,” Dr. Davison said.
 

Arranging the trip

Patients often find foreign providers through online brokers who can arrange the flight, hotel, clinic, and physician. Brokers are not unbiased because they are usually paid by the clinic. Mr. Woodman said this arrangement works when the broker can offer a wide variety of options but not when the broker represents just a few clinics.

Mr. Woodman said patients could conceivably make their own arrangements without a broker, and some do so. “All the tools are on the Internet,” he said. “However, many people don’t trust themselves to do this work.”

Even for patients who depend on brokers, Mr. Woodman advises verifying the quality of the clinic and its doctors before signing on. Most countries have online lists of registered doctors, and patients seeking health care can research complaints against a doctor.

There is no insurance that patients can have to guard against the risks of medical tourism, Mr. Woodman said. “When you could get it, it was prohibitively expensive,” he said. “You can get travel insurance, but that just covers peripheral problems, such as flight cancellations, accidental injury, and emergency care. It has nothing to do with problems stemming from planned procedures.

“Some clinics and hospitals serving medical tourists provide warranties on their work,” he added. “However, plastic surgery clinics are less likely to offer warranties, because patients are so frequently dissatisfied.”
 

How things can go wrong

Mr. Woodman said medical tourists may often receive substandard care when they select a provider who offers unusually large savings, such as 80% off the U.S. price. “Those providers are likely cutting corners to get that kind of savings, and you should stay away from them,” he said.

Even when receiving care at an excellent clinic, patients can get infections if postoperative requirements are not followed, according to Darrick E. Antell, MD, a plastic surgeon in New York, who has treated medical tourists upon their return to the United States.

Typically, patients are told to stay in their rooms for several days after the operation, but friends may push them to go out and have fun, he said. Sometimes patients choose exotic arrangements that place them at risk for infection. As an example, Dr. Antell mentioned a broker who offered a safari in combination with plastic surgery.

Dr. Hermann said tummy tucks are riskier because they involve large incisions, and many such patients are overweight, which impairs healing. “Tummy-tuck patients need a longer recovery, and they often have more discomfort than other plastic surgery,” he said.

When things go wrong, medical tourists have few legal protections. “They usually don’t go to an accredited facility, there is no credentialing of physicians, and their ability to sue is extremely limited,” Dr. Davison said. Patients would have to return to the foreign country and hire a lawyer there, and even then, it is harder to win a case and to receive an award as high as in the United States, he added.
 

Dealing with follow-ups

An inherent flaw with medical tourism, Dr. Antell said, is that patients typically go back home before postoperative care is fully completed. “They may stay just a few days after surgery, and then fly back home,” he said.

“Patients who have complex operations abroad should stay for 8-10 days to have a proper follow-up,” he said. “But they fly back early, which can also lead to getting pulmonary embolisms on the flight.

“A checkup right after surgery doesn’t uncover many complications, because these tend to occur 7-12 days after surgery,” Dr. Hermann said.

“If they come to me within 3 months after surgery, I charge an upfront fee just to see them, because it takes an hour of my time,” Dr. Davison said. “Then I will take care of acute emergency, such as taking out an infected implant.”

Hermann said many patients wait too long to have their complications treated in the United States. “They may first try calling their doctor in Mexico, who tells them to take some antibiotics or something,” he said. “So when they finally do seek care, the infection is pretty far along.”
 

What U.S. doctors can do

Patients rarely tell their U.S. doctors that they are planning a trip to a foreign country to undergo medical treatment, even though they have to request a copy of their medical records for the foreign doctor, Mr. Woodman said.

Dr. Hermann said only one of his patients told him she was planning to go aboard for plastic surgery. “She was a young mom, and I tried to talk her out of it,” he said. “I don’t know what happened because she didn’t come back.”

Dr. Hermann said doctors should assume that they won’t be able to change their patients’ minds, and they should try to help their patients make the best of it.

“They should insist on seeing the doctor ahead of time and make sure they get along with them,” he said. “Ask for credentialing of the doctor and the facility, and stay there several weeks post op. But they’re probably not going to do all of this.”

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

The National Cancer Institute recently released a publicly available oral cancer survival calculator for people recently diagnosed with oral cancer.

This represents the first cancer survival calculator that provides “personalized estimates of the likelihood of surviving or dying from oral cancer or other causes,” according to the experts who developed the tool.

An analysis evaluating the new calculator revealed that people with oral cancer are more likely to die from other causes, compared with their peers without oral cancer, and that noncancer survival worsens with cancer stage.

With its unique design, the calculator “represents perhaps one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive tools to date by integrating multiple population-level data sources to account for general health status [and] disease exposures,” such as alcohol and tobacco, socioeconomic status, and coexisting conditions, the authors of an accompanying commentary wrote.

This calculator may just be the beginning. The broader aim of developing the tool, the study authors explained, is for this new calculator approach to be “applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person’s health in other cancers.”

The analysis was published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

When assessing survival, factors such as cancer stage and tumor size are key, but comorbidities also play a crucial role. For oral cancer in particular, where alcohol and tobacco use are notorious risk factors, comorbidities occur frequently and are often serious.

To create a model that provides more “holistic and personalized” estimates and includes a host of factors that can affect the risk of death, the authors tapped into data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to develop the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Alongside data from the SEER database, the calculator used data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Longitudinal Mortality Files to obtain estimates of general health status, life expectancy without cancer, and the probability of dying from the cancer or from other causes within 1-10 years among people with newly diagnosed oral cancer.

Overall, the data included 22,392 patients, aged 20-94, with oral squamous cell carcinoma, 60.5% of whom were male and 78% White, as well as 402,626 interviewees from the survey. The calculator did not include patients with tonsil- or tongue-based cancers, which were not considered anatomically part of the oral cavity.

The most common conditions coexisting with oral cancer were diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among older patients. Among those with oral cancer, more than half (52.8%) had none of the major coexisting conditions, which also included peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, compared with 80% of the Medicare population.

The researchers described and validated four models – one that estimated the probability of death due to oral cancer, and then three others that estimated the probability of death from other causes, with variations based on the specific data and covariates included.

Overall, the models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes, compared with the general population, and survival estimates for noncancer causes got worse with more advanced cancer stage.

For instance, for a patient diagnosed with stage 3 oral cancer after age 50, the chances of being alive at age 70 were 60% for females and 44% for males in the absence of cancer, whereas the corresponding survival estimates in the general U.S. population were 86% for females and 79% for males – an absolute difference of 26 and 35 percentage points.

One key reason for this trend is that patients with later-stage cancers likely also have more coexisting health conditions, first author Louise Davies, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., explained.

Another reason: For cancers with low enough mortality rates, people might be more likely to die from causes other than their cancer. This can also occur in ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer or papillary thyroid cancer, noted Dr. Davies, also from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt.

Commenting on the study, Eric Moore, MD, a head and neck surgeon with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that while such prediction tools are important, they also come with caveats.

“I think these calculators are helpful and certainly having them widely available to people gives them another piece of knowledge that can be powerful,” he told this news organization. “But you want to make sure you don’t interpret them as the end-all, be-all message, because there are an infinite number of variables that could influence survival that aren’t available in some of these datasets.”

Neil D. Gross, MD, a professor of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed. Although this new calculator uses a large dataset, such tools “can be imperfect” and some factors simply can’t be calculated, such as a person’s priorities, Dr. Gross said.

That’s why there’s no substitute for having a “very personal discussion between a patient and a physician to decide what’s best.” And this calculator is just one tool to help with that process, Dr. Gross said.

The commentary authors echoed these sentiments. “This calculator can potentially bridge the gaps between the survival estimates in the literature, life tables, clinical gestalt, and physician attempts to contextualize the inherent limitations of applying survival curves and averages to the one patient with the diagnosis,” wrote Leila J. Mady, MD, PhD, MPH, Wayne M. Koch, MD, and Carole Fakhry, MD, MPH, all from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.

But a caveat in providing such predictions is the possible psychological effect the news can have.

“Potential risks of revealing personalized prognostic survival estimates to patients include increased anxiety and distress surrounding competing causes of death [and] misinterpretation of data,” the commentary authors cautioned, adding that “we must present such information with grace and sensitivity.”

Dr. Davies recommends that clinicians ask patients what they want to know because that will vary by patient and potentially over time for the same patient.

“People are more than their cancer diagnosis,” said Dr. Davies. “Giving them the opportunity to consider their life as a whole is the aim.”

The oral cancer calculator can be publicly accessed through the National Cancer Institute. The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute as part of an interagency agreement. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Cancer Institute recently released a publicly available oral cancer survival calculator for people recently diagnosed with oral cancer.

This represents the first cancer survival calculator that provides “personalized estimates of the likelihood of surviving or dying from oral cancer or other causes,” according to the experts who developed the tool.

An analysis evaluating the new calculator revealed that people with oral cancer are more likely to die from other causes, compared with their peers without oral cancer, and that noncancer survival worsens with cancer stage.

With its unique design, the calculator “represents perhaps one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive tools to date by integrating multiple population-level data sources to account for general health status [and] disease exposures,” such as alcohol and tobacco, socioeconomic status, and coexisting conditions, the authors of an accompanying commentary wrote.

This calculator may just be the beginning. The broader aim of developing the tool, the study authors explained, is for this new calculator approach to be “applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person’s health in other cancers.”

The analysis was published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

When assessing survival, factors such as cancer stage and tumor size are key, but comorbidities also play a crucial role. For oral cancer in particular, where alcohol and tobacco use are notorious risk factors, comorbidities occur frequently and are often serious.

To create a model that provides more “holistic and personalized” estimates and includes a host of factors that can affect the risk of death, the authors tapped into data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to develop the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Alongside data from the SEER database, the calculator used data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Longitudinal Mortality Files to obtain estimates of general health status, life expectancy without cancer, and the probability of dying from the cancer or from other causes within 1-10 years among people with newly diagnosed oral cancer.

Overall, the data included 22,392 patients, aged 20-94, with oral squamous cell carcinoma, 60.5% of whom were male and 78% White, as well as 402,626 interviewees from the survey. The calculator did not include patients with tonsil- or tongue-based cancers, which were not considered anatomically part of the oral cavity.

The most common conditions coexisting with oral cancer were diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among older patients. Among those with oral cancer, more than half (52.8%) had none of the major coexisting conditions, which also included peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, compared with 80% of the Medicare population.

The researchers described and validated four models – one that estimated the probability of death due to oral cancer, and then three others that estimated the probability of death from other causes, with variations based on the specific data and covariates included.

Overall, the models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes, compared with the general population, and survival estimates for noncancer causes got worse with more advanced cancer stage.

For instance, for a patient diagnosed with stage 3 oral cancer after age 50, the chances of being alive at age 70 were 60% for females and 44% for males in the absence of cancer, whereas the corresponding survival estimates in the general U.S. population were 86% for females and 79% for males – an absolute difference of 26 and 35 percentage points.

One key reason for this trend is that patients with later-stage cancers likely also have more coexisting health conditions, first author Louise Davies, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., explained.

Another reason: For cancers with low enough mortality rates, people might be more likely to die from causes other than their cancer. This can also occur in ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer or papillary thyroid cancer, noted Dr. Davies, also from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt.

Commenting on the study, Eric Moore, MD, a head and neck surgeon with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that while such prediction tools are important, they also come with caveats.

“I think these calculators are helpful and certainly having them widely available to people gives them another piece of knowledge that can be powerful,” he told this news organization. “But you want to make sure you don’t interpret them as the end-all, be-all message, because there are an infinite number of variables that could influence survival that aren’t available in some of these datasets.”

Neil D. Gross, MD, a professor of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed. Although this new calculator uses a large dataset, such tools “can be imperfect” and some factors simply can’t be calculated, such as a person’s priorities, Dr. Gross said.

That’s why there’s no substitute for having a “very personal discussion between a patient and a physician to decide what’s best.” And this calculator is just one tool to help with that process, Dr. Gross said.

The commentary authors echoed these sentiments. “This calculator can potentially bridge the gaps between the survival estimates in the literature, life tables, clinical gestalt, and physician attempts to contextualize the inherent limitations of applying survival curves and averages to the one patient with the diagnosis,” wrote Leila J. Mady, MD, PhD, MPH, Wayne M. Koch, MD, and Carole Fakhry, MD, MPH, all from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.

But a caveat in providing such predictions is the possible psychological effect the news can have.

“Potential risks of revealing personalized prognostic survival estimates to patients include increased anxiety and distress surrounding competing causes of death [and] misinterpretation of data,” the commentary authors cautioned, adding that “we must present such information with grace and sensitivity.”

Dr. Davies recommends that clinicians ask patients what they want to know because that will vary by patient and potentially over time for the same patient.

“People are more than their cancer diagnosis,” said Dr. Davies. “Giving them the opportunity to consider their life as a whole is the aim.”

The oral cancer calculator can be publicly accessed through the National Cancer Institute. The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute as part of an interagency agreement. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Cancer Institute recently released a publicly available oral cancer survival calculator for people recently diagnosed with oral cancer.

This represents the first cancer survival calculator that provides “personalized estimates of the likelihood of surviving or dying from oral cancer or other causes,” according to the experts who developed the tool.

An analysis evaluating the new calculator revealed that people with oral cancer are more likely to die from other causes, compared with their peers without oral cancer, and that noncancer survival worsens with cancer stage.

With its unique design, the calculator “represents perhaps one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive tools to date by integrating multiple population-level data sources to account for general health status [and] disease exposures,” such as alcohol and tobacco, socioeconomic status, and coexisting conditions, the authors of an accompanying commentary wrote.

This calculator may just be the beginning. The broader aim of developing the tool, the study authors explained, is for this new calculator approach to be “applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person’s health in other cancers.”

The analysis was published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

When assessing survival, factors such as cancer stage and tumor size are key, but comorbidities also play a crucial role. For oral cancer in particular, where alcohol and tobacco use are notorious risk factors, comorbidities occur frequently and are often serious.

To create a model that provides more “holistic and personalized” estimates and includes a host of factors that can affect the risk of death, the authors tapped into data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to develop the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Alongside data from the SEER database, the calculator used data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Longitudinal Mortality Files to obtain estimates of general health status, life expectancy without cancer, and the probability of dying from the cancer or from other causes within 1-10 years among people with newly diagnosed oral cancer.

Overall, the data included 22,392 patients, aged 20-94, with oral squamous cell carcinoma, 60.5% of whom were male and 78% White, as well as 402,626 interviewees from the survey. The calculator did not include patients with tonsil- or tongue-based cancers, which were not considered anatomically part of the oral cavity.

The most common conditions coexisting with oral cancer were diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among older patients. Among those with oral cancer, more than half (52.8%) had none of the major coexisting conditions, which also included peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, compared with 80% of the Medicare population.

The researchers described and validated four models – one that estimated the probability of death due to oral cancer, and then three others that estimated the probability of death from other causes, with variations based on the specific data and covariates included.

Overall, the models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes, compared with the general population, and survival estimates for noncancer causes got worse with more advanced cancer stage.

For instance, for a patient diagnosed with stage 3 oral cancer after age 50, the chances of being alive at age 70 were 60% for females and 44% for males in the absence of cancer, whereas the corresponding survival estimates in the general U.S. population were 86% for females and 79% for males – an absolute difference of 26 and 35 percentage points.

One key reason for this trend is that patients with later-stage cancers likely also have more coexisting health conditions, first author Louise Davies, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., explained.

Another reason: For cancers with low enough mortality rates, people might be more likely to die from causes other than their cancer. This can also occur in ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer or papillary thyroid cancer, noted Dr. Davies, also from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt.

Commenting on the study, Eric Moore, MD, a head and neck surgeon with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that while such prediction tools are important, they also come with caveats.

“I think these calculators are helpful and certainly having them widely available to people gives them another piece of knowledge that can be powerful,” he told this news organization. “But you want to make sure you don’t interpret them as the end-all, be-all message, because there are an infinite number of variables that could influence survival that aren’t available in some of these datasets.”

Neil D. Gross, MD, a professor of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed. Although this new calculator uses a large dataset, such tools “can be imperfect” and some factors simply can’t be calculated, such as a person’s priorities, Dr. Gross said.

That’s why there’s no substitute for having a “very personal discussion between a patient and a physician to decide what’s best.” And this calculator is just one tool to help with that process, Dr. Gross said.

The commentary authors echoed these sentiments. “This calculator can potentially bridge the gaps between the survival estimates in the literature, life tables, clinical gestalt, and physician attempts to contextualize the inherent limitations of applying survival curves and averages to the one patient with the diagnosis,” wrote Leila J. Mady, MD, PhD, MPH, Wayne M. Koch, MD, and Carole Fakhry, MD, MPH, all from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.

But a caveat in providing such predictions is the possible psychological effect the news can have.

“Potential risks of revealing personalized prognostic survival estimates to patients include increased anxiety and distress surrounding competing causes of death [and] misinterpretation of data,” the commentary authors cautioned, adding that “we must present such information with grace and sensitivity.”

Dr. Davies recommends that clinicians ask patients what they want to know because that will vary by patient and potentially over time for the same patient.

“People are more than their cancer diagnosis,” said Dr. Davies. “Giving them the opportunity to consider their life as a whole is the aim.”

The oral cancer calculator can be publicly accessed through the National Cancer Institute. The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute as part of an interagency agreement. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties examined in a new report, with the most notable gains reported for oncology and gastroenterology.

The report was a collaboration of University of California, Berkeley, staff and researchers from two nonprofits, the American Antitrust Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. It provides “convincing evidence that incentives to put profits before patients have grown stronger with an increase in private equity ownership of physician practices,” lead author Richard Scheffler, PhD, of UC Berkeley said in a statement.

The report also noted that private equity acquisitions of physician groups have risen sixfold in just a decade, increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.

Separately, the American Medical Association earlier released a separate report on trends in physician practice arrangements, finding that the percentage of physicians working in private equity–owned groups was 4.5% in 2022, the same as in its previous 2020 report. The share of physicians working in private practices fell by 13 percentage points from 60.1% to 46.7% between 2012 and 2022, the AMA reported.

The Berkeley report and the AMA update come amid rising concerns about the effects of the decline of independent physician practices. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which oversees most federal health spending, held a June hearing examining the causes and consequences of increased corporate ownership in health care, including a look at physician practices.

“It’s increasingly clear that consolidation in health care is not lowering costs or increasing the quality of Americans’ health care,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email. “For private equity in health care in particular, there needs to be more transparency around ownership so the effect on these business relationships can be better understood.”

Federal and state agencies do not generally track acquisitions of physician practices.

The UC Berkeley report impressively documents the rising influence of private equity in health care, for which it’s tough to find good data, said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Maddox, a cardiologist and policy researcher who also has studied the effects of consolidation in health care, examined the new report at the request of this news organization.

“They did a great job with the data,” Dr. Maddox said. “One of the big issues around private equity, and in general, ‘corporatization’ and consolidation of health care, is that there’s not a great way to track ownership changes. It’s really difficult to study.”

Dr. Scheffler and colleagues used data from the commercial firm PitchBook to identify acquisitions of physician practices by private equity firms. They consulted IQVIA’s physician databases – OneKey and SK&A Office-Based Physicians Database – to learn about the location, size, and specialties of acquired practices. They also used data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which tracks commercial health plan claims, to assess how private equity acquisitions affected prices.

The researchers then matched the findings for practices acquired by private equity firms from 2015 to 2021 against those for comparable physician practices that remained independent from 2012 to 2021.

The authors then tied private-equity ownership to the following price increases:

• Gastroenterology (14%; 95% confidence interval, 7.9%-20.4%
• Oncology (16.4%; 95% CI, 5.5%-28.4%)
• Dermatology (4.0%; 95% CI, 1%-7.1%)
• Ob.gyn. (8.8%; 95% CI, 3.8%-14%)
• Ophthalmology (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.1%-12.3%)
• Radiology (8.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-16.1%)
• Orthopedics (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.2%-12.3%)
• Primary care (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-7%)

The analysis also found higher prices for cardiology (8.7%; 95% CI, –6.4% to 26.1%) and urology (4.2%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 11.1%), but neither of these findings was statistically significant, one of the authors, Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of UC Berkeley, said in an email. This was most likely caused by smaller sample sizes for these fields.
 

Factors driving consolidation

The two reports and the Senate Finance consolidation hearing raised similar issues, including calls to look at the factors driving more physicians out of independent practice, including Medicare reimbursement that may not keep up with rising inflation.

The Berkeley report authors called for Congress to add a broad inflation component to the Medicare physician fee schedule. It also called on Congress to add cases where Medicare, the biggest U.S. purchaser of health care, pays less for services when performed in independent practices than in hospital-affiliated ones.

Shawn Martin, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group appreciates how the report from UC Berkeley and nonprofit groups echoed recommendations many clinicians have made, including the call for a broad inflation adjustment for the fee schedule.

“To move the needle forward, Congress must advance site-neutral payment policies while also addressing the administrative requirements that take physicians away from the important work of caring for patients,” Mr. Martin said in an email.

Arnold Ventures provided funding for the report, which was a joint project of the American Antitrust Institute, the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare, UC Berkeley, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties examined in a new report, with the most notable gains reported for oncology and gastroenterology.

The report was a collaboration of University of California, Berkeley, staff and researchers from two nonprofits, the American Antitrust Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. It provides “convincing evidence that incentives to put profits before patients have grown stronger with an increase in private equity ownership of physician practices,” lead author Richard Scheffler, PhD, of UC Berkeley said in a statement.

The report also noted that private equity acquisitions of physician groups have risen sixfold in just a decade, increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.

Separately, the American Medical Association earlier released a separate report on trends in physician practice arrangements, finding that the percentage of physicians working in private equity–owned groups was 4.5% in 2022, the same as in its previous 2020 report. The share of physicians working in private practices fell by 13 percentage points from 60.1% to 46.7% between 2012 and 2022, the AMA reported.

The Berkeley report and the AMA update come amid rising concerns about the effects of the decline of independent physician practices. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which oversees most federal health spending, held a June hearing examining the causes and consequences of increased corporate ownership in health care, including a look at physician practices.

“It’s increasingly clear that consolidation in health care is not lowering costs or increasing the quality of Americans’ health care,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email. “For private equity in health care in particular, there needs to be more transparency around ownership so the effect on these business relationships can be better understood.”

Federal and state agencies do not generally track acquisitions of physician practices.

The UC Berkeley report impressively documents the rising influence of private equity in health care, for which it’s tough to find good data, said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Maddox, a cardiologist and policy researcher who also has studied the effects of consolidation in health care, examined the new report at the request of this news organization.

“They did a great job with the data,” Dr. Maddox said. “One of the big issues around private equity, and in general, ‘corporatization’ and consolidation of health care, is that there’s not a great way to track ownership changes. It’s really difficult to study.”

Dr. Scheffler and colleagues used data from the commercial firm PitchBook to identify acquisitions of physician practices by private equity firms. They consulted IQVIA’s physician databases – OneKey and SK&A Office-Based Physicians Database – to learn about the location, size, and specialties of acquired practices. They also used data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which tracks commercial health plan claims, to assess how private equity acquisitions affected prices.

The researchers then matched the findings for practices acquired by private equity firms from 2015 to 2021 against those for comparable physician practices that remained independent from 2012 to 2021.

The authors then tied private-equity ownership to the following price increases:

• Gastroenterology (14%; 95% confidence interval, 7.9%-20.4%
• Oncology (16.4%; 95% CI, 5.5%-28.4%)
• Dermatology (4.0%; 95% CI, 1%-7.1%)
• Ob.gyn. (8.8%; 95% CI, 3.8%-14%)
• Ophthalmology (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.1%-12.3%)
• Radiology (8.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-16.1%)
• Orthopedics (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.2%-12.3%)
• Primary care (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-7%)

The analysis also found higher prices for cardiology (8.7%; 95% CI, –6.4% to 26.1%) and urology (4.2%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 11.1%), but neither of these findings was statistically significant, one of the authors, Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of UC Berkeley, said in an email. This was most likely caused by smaller sample sizes for these fields.
 

Factors driving consolidation

The two reports and the Senate Finance consolidation hearing raised similar issues, including calls to look at the factors driving more physicians out of independent practice, including Medicare reimbursement that may not keep up with rising inflation.

The Berkeley report authors called for Congress to add a broad inflation component to the Medicare physician fee schedule. It also called on Congress to add cases where Medicare, the biggest U.S. purchaser of health care, pays less for services when performed in independent practices than in hospital-affiliated ones.

Shawn Martin, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group appreciates how the report from UC Berkeley and nonprofit groups echoed recommendations many clinicians have made, including the call for a broad inflation adjustment for the fee schedule.

“To move the needle forward, Congress must advance site-neutral payment policies while also addressing the administrative requirements that take physicians away from the important work of caring for patients,” Mr. Martin said in an email.

Arnold Ventures provided funding for the report, which was a joint project of the American Antitrust Institute, the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare, UC Berkeley, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties examined in a new report, with the most notable gains reported for oncology and gastroenterology.

The report was a collaboration of University of California, Berkeley, staff and researchers from two nonprofits, the American Antitrust Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. It provides “convincing evidence that incentives to put profits before patients have grown stronger with an increase in private equity ownership of physician practices,” lead author Richard Scheffler, PhD, of UC Berkeley said in a statement.

The report also noted that private equity acquisitions of physician groups have risen sixfold in just a decade, increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.

Separately, the American Medical Association earlier released a separate report on trends in physician practice arrangements, finding that the percentage of physicians working in private equity–owned groups was 4.5% in 2022, the same as in its previous 2020 report. The share of physicians working in private practices fell by 13 percentage points from 60.1% to 46.7% between 2012 and 2022, the AMA reported.

The Berkeley report and the AMA update come amid rising concerns about the effects of the decline of independent physician practices. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which oversees most federal health spending, held a June hearing examining the causes and consequences of increased corporate ownership in health care, including a look at physician practices.

“It’s increasingly clear that consolidation in health care is not lowering costs or increasing the quality of Americans’ health care,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email. “For private equity in health care in particular, there needs to be more transparency around ownership so the effect on these business relationships can be better understood.”

Federal and state agencies do not generally track acquisitions of physician practices.

The UC Berkeley report impressively documents the rising influence of private equity in health care, for which it’s tough to find good data, said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Maddox, a cardiologist and policy researcher who also has studied the effects of consolidation in health care, examined the new report at the request of this news organization.

“They did a great job with the data,” Dr. Maddox said. “One of the big issues around private equity, and in general, ‘corporatization’ and consolidation of health care, is that there’s not a great way to track ownership changes. It’s really difficult to study.”

Dr. Scheffler and colleagues used data from the commercial firm PitchBook to identify acquisitions of physician practices by private equity firms. They consulted IQVIA’s physician databases – OneKey and SK&A Office-Based Physicians Database – to learn about the location, size, and specialties of acquired practices. They also used data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which tracks commercial health plan claims, to assess how private equity acquisitions affected prices.

The researchers then matched the findings for practices acquired by private equity firms from 2015 to 2021 against those for comparable physician practices that remained independent from 2012 to 2021.

The authors then tied private-equity ownership to the following price increases:

• Gastroenterology (14%; 95% confidence interval, 7.9%-20.4%
• Oncology (16.4%; 95% CI, 5.5%-28.4%)
• Dermatology (4.0%; 95% CI, 1%-7.1%)
• Ob.gyn. (8.8%; 95% CI, 3.8%-14%)
• Ophthalmology (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.1%-12.3%)
• Radiology (8.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-16.1%)
• Orthopedics (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.2%-12.3%)
• Primary care (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-7%)

The analysis also found higher prices for cardiology (8.7%; 95% CI, –6.4% to 26.1%) and urology (4.2%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 11.1%), but neither of these findings was statistically significant, one of the authors, Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of UC Berkeley, said in an email. This was most likely caused by smaller sample sizes for these fields.
 

Factors driving consolidation

The two reports and the Senate Finance consolidation hearing raised similar issues, including calls to look at the factors driving more physicians out of independent practice, including Medicare reimbursement that may not keep up with rising inflation.

The Berkeley report authors called for Congress to add a broad inflation component to the Medicare physician fee schedule. It also called on Congress to add cases where Medicare, the biggest U.S. purchaser of health care, pays less for services when performed in independent practices than in hospital-affiliated ones.

Shawn Martin, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group appreciates how the report from UC Berkeley and nonprofit groups echoed recommendations many clinicians have made, including the call for a broad inflation adjustment for the fee schedule.

“To move the needle forward, Congress must advance site-neutral payment policies while also addressing the administrative requirements that take physicians away from the important work of caring for patients,” Mr. Martin said in an email.

Arnold Ventures provided funding for the report, which was a joint project of the American Antitrust Institute, the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare, UC Berkeley, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A short bout of preoperative high-intensity interval training (HIIT) improves cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) for patients slated for major surgery. It cuts the risk of postoperative complications and may shorten hospital length of stay and improve postoperative quality of life.

METHODOLOGY:

Evidence suggests CRF – which improves physical and cognitive function and is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk – can be enhanced before major surgeries, but reported postoperative outcomes in previous reviews have been inconsistent.

In the study, HIIT involved repeated aerobic high-intensity exercise intervals at about 80% of maximum heart rate, followed by active recovery.

The meta-analysis included 12 studies with 832 patients (mean age, 67) that compared preoperative HIIT – supervised at hospitals, gyms, or community or physical therapy centers, or unsupervised at home – with standard care for patients slated for major surgery, including liver, lung, colorectal, urologic, and mixed major abdominal operations.

The primary outcome was change in CRF by peak VO₂ or 6-minute walk test; other endpoints included change in endurance time and postoperative outcomes.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Preoperative HIIT (median total, 160 minutes; range, 80-240 minutes; intense exercise during 6-40 sessions) was associated with an increase in peak oxygen consumption (VO₂ peak) by 2.59 mL/kg/min (95% confidence interval, 1.52-3.65 mL/kg/min; P < .001), compared with standard care, which represents about a 10% increase in CRF.

In eight studies that involved 770 patients, there was moderate evidence that preoperative HIIT cut the odds ratio for postoperative complications by more than half (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32-0.60; P < .001); there was a similar apparent benefit in an analysis that was limited to patients who were slated for abdominal surgery (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.68; P < .001).

An analysis that was limited to studies that reported hospital length of stay showed a clinically relevant but nonsignificant 3-day reduction among patients in the HIIT groups.

Most quality of life assessments did not show post-HIIT improvements; some showed a significant benefit 6 weeks after surgery.
 

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest preoperative HIIT may improve postoperative outcomes. By extension, it could be cost-effective and “should be included in prehabilitation programs,” the report states.

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Kari Clifford, PhD, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, and colleagues. It was published online June 30, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Included studies were heterogeneous in methodology; for example, HIIT definitions and protocols varied across almost every study. Data reporting was incomplete, the samples sizes in the studies were limited, and patients could not be blinded to their intervention. The patients could not be stratified on the basis of frailty. There were limited HIIT data from patients who underwent orthopedic surgeries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the University of Otago. The authors reported no conflicts.

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

TOPLINE:

A short bout of preoperative high-intensity interval training (HIIT) improves cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) for patients slated for major surgery. It cuts the risk of postoperative complications and may shorten hospital length of stay and improve postoperative quality of life.

METHODOLOGY:

Evidence suggests CRF – which improves physical and cognitive function and is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk – can be enhanced before major surgeries, but reported postoperative outcomes in previous reviews have been inconsistent.

In the study, HIIT involved repeated aerobic high-intensity exercise intervals at about 80% of maximum heart rate, followed by active recovery.

The meta-analysis included 12 studies with 832 patients (mean age, 67) that compared preoperative HIIT – supervised at hospitals, gyms, or community or physical therapy centers, or unsupervised at home – with standard care for patients slated for major surgery, including liver, lung, colorectal, urologic, and mixed major abdominal operations.

The primary outcome was change in CRF by peak VO₂ or 6-minute walk test; other endpoints included change in endurance time and postoperative outcomes.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Preoperative HIIT (median total, 160 minutes; range, 80-240 minutes; intense exercise during 6-40 sessions) was associated with an increase in peak oxygen consumption (VO₂ peak) by 2.59 mL/kg/min (95% confidence interval, 1.52-3.65 mL/kg/min; P < .001), compared with standard care, which represents about a 10% increase in CRF.

In eight studies that involved 770 patients, there was moderate evidence that preoperative HIIT cut the odds ratio for postoperative complications by more than half (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32-0.60; P < .001); there was a similar apparent benefit in an analysis that was limited to patients who were slated for abdominal surgery (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.68; P < .001).

An analysis that was limited to studies that reported hospital length of stay showed a clinically relevant but nonsignificant 3-day reduction among patients in the HIIT groups.

Most quality of life assessments did not show post-HIIT improvements; some showed a significant benefit 6 weeks after surgery.
 

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest preoperative HIIT may improve postoperative outcomes. By extension, it could be cost-effective and “should be included in prehabilitation programs,” the report states.

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Kari Clifford, PhD, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, and colleagues. It was published online June 30, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Included studies were heterogeneous in methodology; for example, HIIT definitions and protocols varied across almost every study. Data reporting was incomplete, the samples sizes in the studies were limited, and patients could not be blinded to their intervention. The patients could not be stratified on the basis of frailty. There were limited HIIT data from patients who underwent orthopedic surgeries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the University of Otago. The authors reported no conflicts.

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

TOPLINE:

A short bout of preoperative high-intensity interval training (HIIT) improves cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) for patients slated for major surgery. It cuts the risk of postoperative complications and may shorten hospital length of stay and improve postoperative quality of life.

METHODOLOGY:

Evidence suggests CRF – which improves physical and cognitive function and is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular risk – can be enhanced before major surgeries, but reported postoperative outcomes in previous reviews have been inconsistent.

In the study, HIIT involved repeated aerobic high-intensity exercise intervals at about 80% of maximum heart rate, followed by active recovery.

The meta-analysis included 12 studies with 832 patients (mean age, 67) that compared preoperative HIIT – supervised at hospitals, gyms, or community or physical therapy centers, or unsupervised at home – with standard care for patients slated for major surgery, including liver, lung, colorectal, urologic, and mixed major abdominal operations.

The primary outcome was change in CRF by peak VO₂ or 6-minute walk test; other endpoints included change in endurance time and postoperative outcomes.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Preoperative HIIT (median total, 160 minutes; range, 80-240 minutes; intense exercise during 6-40 sessions) was associated with an increase in peak oxygen consumption (VO₂ peak) by 2.59 mL/kg/min (95% confidence interval, 1.52-3.65 mL/kg/min; P < .001), compared with standard care, which represents about a 10% increase in CRF.

In eight studies that involved 770 patients, there was moderate evidence that preoperative HIIT cut the odds ratio for postoperative complications by more than half (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32-0.60; P < .001); there was a similar apparent benefit in an analysis that was limited to patients who were slated for abdominal surgery (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.68; P < .001).

An analysis that was limited to studies that reported hospital length of stay showed a clinically relevant but nonsignificant 3-day reduction among patients in the HIIT groups.

Most quality of life assessments did not show post-HIIT improvements; some showed a significant benefit 6 weeks after surgery.
 

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest preoperative HIIT may improve postoperative outcomes. By extension, it could be cost-effective and “should be included in prehabilitation programs,” the report states.

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Kari Clifford, PhD, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, and colleagues. It was published online June 30, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Included studies were heterogeneous in methodology; for example, HIIT definitions and protocols varied across almost every study. Data reporting was incomplete, the samples sizes in the studies were limited, and patients could not be blinded to their intervention. The patients could not be stratified on the basis of frailty. There were limited HIIT data from patients who underwent orthopedic surgeries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the University of Otago. The authors reported no conflicts.

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

In a test of one of the nation’s most restrictive laws limiting noncompete clauses in medicine, an Indiana pediatric critical-care physician is suing to stop his former hospital employer from controlling his future employment prospects.

David Lankford, DO, acknowledges that he signed a contract with the Lutheran Health Network that included a noncompete clause. However, he claims in a lawsuit filed July 5 in Allen County Superior Court that an Indiana law that took effect 4 days earlier nullifies the clause because he quit his job with cause. 

Indiana’s law is notable among states because if a physician terminates his/her job for cause, the noncompete may be considered unenforceable.

“When you have physicians who are unable to work in their community, it creates a barrier for access to care for patients,” Dr. Lankford said in an interview. “I’m fighting to decrease barriers and continue to have patients be able to see their doctors in their own hometown or their own county.”

Lutheran Health’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.
 

Noncompete clauses ‘extremely common’

Non-compete clauses – which typically restrict when and where employees can take future jobs – are common in physician contracts, Anu Murthy, JD, who reviews employee contracts for a firm called Contract Diagnostics, said in an interview.

However, the tide has been turning against them.

About a dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to limit the use of noncompetes in employment contracts, and about half of states have pending legislation that could dilute noncompete clauses, Ms. Murthy said. In June, the state of New York sent a noncompete ban bill to the governor’s desk.

For more about state-by-state restrictions on noncompete clauses, check this chart.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Lankford said he was hired in 2017 to work at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne.

Dr. Lankford signed an employee renewal contract in 2020 that included a noncompete clause; his attorneys declined to provide details about the clause because of confidentiality restrictions. 

In 2022, the lawsuit says, Lutheran Hospital told Dr. Lankford that he’d need to take on more work due to layoffs of pediatric hospitalists. His patient load subsequently grew by 4-5 times, and he quit as of Jan. 7, 2023. 

Dr. Lankford wrote that he found a new job at Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, but his former employer threatened to take action under the noncompete clause, and Parkview withdrew its offer.

Among other things, the new Indiana law says that the clauses are not enforceable “if physician terminates the physician’s employment for cause.”

The lawsuit asks for a judge to prevent Lutheran Health Network from enforcing the clause.
 

Impact on patients

The new Indiana law also bans noncompete clauses for primary care physicians. Kathleen A. DeLaney, JD, one of Dr. Lankford’s attorneys, said in an interview that this provision came about because rural legislators didn’t want to add to the challenges of attracting primary care doctors to move to their communities.  

State legislators have become less friendly to noncompete clauses in medicine because they’re wary of the negative effects on patients, Evan Starr, PhD, said in an interview. The clauses prevent doctors from taking new jobs where they could continue to treat their previous patients, said Dr. Starr, associate professor in the department of management and organization at the University of Maryland.

However, he said, hospitals are fighting to preserve the clauses, arguing that they provide a base of patients to physicians in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.

The legal landscape may change even more. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning the clauses nationally, and a decision is expected in 2024. However, it’s an election year, which may delay a decision, attorney Ms. Murthy said, “and there is also language in the proposed rule that could exempt nonprofit hospitals, which further complicates the issues.”

For now, Ms. Murthy said, “we are still seeing noncompetes and other restrictive covenants in almost every contract we review in all 50 states and across all specialties. We explicitly explain to every client that they should only sign the agreement with the expectation that their specific noncompete will be enforced as written. Large employer groups, including hospital systems, will likely fight any kind of restriction or dilution of noncompetes, and these types of legal challenges could be tied up in court for many years.”
 

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

In a test of one of the nation’s most restrictive laws limiting noncompete clauses in medicine, an Indiana pediatric critical-care physician is suing to stop his former hospital employer from controlling his future employment prospects.

David Lankford, DO, acknowledges that he signed a contract with the Lutheran Health Network that included a noncompete clause. However, he claims in a lawsuit filed July 5 in Allen County Superior Court that an Indiana law that took effect 4 days earlier nullifies the clause because he quit his job with cause. 

Indiana’s law is notable among states because if a physician terminates his/her job for cause, the noncompete may be considered unenforceable.

“When you have physicians who are unable to work in their community, it creates a barrier for access to care for patients,” Dr. Lankford said in an interview. “I’m fighting to decrease barriers and continue to have patients be able to see their doctors in their own hometown or their own county.”

Lutheran Health’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.
 

Noncompete clauses ‘extremely common’

Non-compete clauses – which typically restrict when and where employees can take future jobs – are common in physician contracts, Anu Murthy, JD, who reviews employee contracts for a firm called Contract Diagnostics, said in an interview.

However, the tide has been turning against them.

About a dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to limit the use of noncompetes in employment contracts, and about half of states have pending legislation that could dilute noncompete clauses, Ms. Murthy said. In June, the state of New York sent a noncompete ban bill to the governor’s desk.

For more about state-by-state restrictions on noncompete clauses, check this chart.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Lankford said he was hired in 2017 to work at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne.

Dr. Lankford signed an employee renewal contract in 2020 that included a noncompete clause; his attorneys declined to provide details about the clause because of confidentiality restrictions. 

In 2022, the lawsuit says, Lutheran Hospital told Dr. Lankford that he’d need to take on more work due to layoffs of pediatric hospitalists. His patient load subsequently grew by 4-5 times, and he quit as of Jan. 7, 2023. 

Dr. Lankford wrote that he found a new job at Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, but his former employer threatened to take action under the noncompete clause, and Parkview withdrew its offer.

Among other things, the new Indiana law says that the clauses are not enforceable “if physician terminates the physician’s employment for cause.”

The lawsuit asks for a judge to prevent Lutheran Health Network from enforcing the clause.
 

Impact on patients

The new Indiana law also bans noncompete clauses for primary care physicians. Kathleen A. DeLaney, JD, one of Dr. Lankford’s attorneys, said in an interview that this provision came about because rural legislators didn’t want to add to the challenges of attracting primary care doctors to move to their communities.  

State legislators have become less friendly to noncompete clauses in medicine because they’re wary of the negative effects on patients, Evan Starr, PhD, said in an interview. The clauses prevent doctors from taking new jobs where they could continue to treat their previous patients, said Dr. Starr, associate professor in the department of management and organization at the University of Maryland.

However, he said, hospitals are fighting to preserve the clauses, arguing that they provide a base of patients to physicians in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.

The legal landscape may change even more. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning the clauses nationally, and a decision is expected in 2024. However, it’s an election year, which may delay a decision, attorney Ms. Murthy said, “and there is also language in the proposed rule that could exempt nonprofit hospitals, which further complicates the issues.”

For now, Ms. Murthy said, “we are still seeing noncompetes and other restrictive covenants in almost every contract we review in all 50 states and across all specialties. We explicitly explain to every client that they should only sign the agreement with the expectation that their specific noncompete will be enforced as written. Large employer groups, including hospital systems, will likely fight any kind of restriction or dilution of noncompetes, and these types of legal challenges could be tied up in court for many years.”
 

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

In a test of one of the nation’s most restrictive laws limiting noncompete clauses in medicine, an Indiana pediatric critical-care physician is suing to stop his former hospital employer from controlling his future employment prospects.

David Lankford, DO, acknowledges that he signed a contract with the Lutheran Health Network that included a noncompete clause. However, he claims in a lawsuit filed July 5 in Allen County Superior Court that an Indiana law that took effect 4 days earlier nullifies the clause because he quit his job with cause. 

Indiana’s law is notable among states because if a physician terminates his/her job for cause, the noncompete may be considered unenforceable.

“When you have physicians who are unable to work in their community, it creates a barrier for access to care for patients,” Dr. Lankford said in an interview. “I’m fighting to decrease barriers and continue to have patients be able to see their doctors in their own hometown or their own county.”

Lutheran Health’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.
 

Noncompete clauses ‘extremely common’

Non-compete clauses – which typically restrict when and where employees can take future jobs – are common in physician contracts, Anu Murthy, JD, who reviews employee contracts for a firm called Contract Diagnostics, said in an interview.

However, the tide has been turning against them.

About a dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to limit the use of noncompetes in employment contracts, and about half of states have pending legislation that could dilute noncompete clauses, Ms. Murthy said. In June, the state of New York sent a noncompete ban bill to the governor’s desk.

For more about state-by-state restrictions on noncompete clauses, check this chart.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Lankford said he was hired in 2017 to work at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne.

Dr. Lankford signed an employee renewal contract in 2020 that included a noncompete clause; his attorneys declined to provide details about the clause because of confidentiality restrictions. 

In 2022, the lawsuit says, Lutheran Hospital told Dr. Lankford that he’d need to take on more work due to layoffs of pediatric hospitalists. His patient load subsequently grew by 4-5 times, and he quit as of Jan. 7, 2023. 

Dr. Lankford wrote that he found a new job at Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, but his former employer threatened to take action under the noncompete clause, and Parkview withdrew its offer.

Among other things, the new Indiana law says that the clauses are not enforceable “if physician terminates the physician’s employment for cause.”

The lawsuit asks for a judge to prevent Lutheran Health Network from enforcing the clause.
 

Impact on patients

The new Indiana law also bans noncompete clauses for primary care physicians. Kathleen A. DeLaney, JD, one of Dr. Lankford’s attorneys, said in an interview that this provision came about because rural legislators didn’t want to add to the challenges of attracting primary care doctors to move to their communities.  

State legislators have become less friendly to noncompete clauses in medicine because they’re wary of the negative effects on patients, Evan Starr, PhD, said in an interview. The clauses prevent doctors from taking new jobs where they could continue to treat their previous patients, said Dr. Starr, associate professor in the department of management and organization at the University of Maryland.

However, he said, hospitals are fighting to preserve the clauses, arguing that they provide a base of patients to physicians in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.

The legal landscape may change even more. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning the clauses nationally, and a decision is expected in 2024. However, it’s an election year, which may delay a decision, attorney Ms. Murthy said, “and there is also language in the proposed rule that could exempt nonprofit hospitals, which further complicates the issues.”

For now, Ms. Murthy said, “we are still seeing noncompetes and other restrictive covenants in almost every contract we review in all 50 states and across all specialties. We explicitly explain to every client that they should only sign the agreement with the expectation that their specific noncompete will be enforced as written. Large employer groups, including hospital systems, will likely fight any kind of restriction or dilution of noncompetes, and these types of legal challenges could be tied up in court for many years.”
 

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

About one-third of older patients in a cohort study who were considered frail and then required resuscitation from cardiac arrest during noncardiac surgery survived to at least a month after hospital discharge.

And the frailer that patients were going into surgery, according to their scores on an established frailty index, the greater their adjusted mortality risk at 30 days and the likelier they were to be discharged to a location other than their home.

The findings are based on more than 3,000 patients in an American College of Surgeons (ACS) quality improvement registry who underwent CPR at noncardiac surgery, about one-fourth of whom scored a least 40 on the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI). The frailty index accounts for the patient’s comorbidities, cognition, functional and nutritional status, and other factors as predictors of postoperative mortality risk.

Such CPR for perioperative cardiac arrest “should not be considered futile just because a patient is frail, but neither should cardiac arrest be considered as ‘reversible’ in this population, as previously thought,” lead author Matthew B. Allen, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“We know that patients who are frail have higher risk of complications and mortality after surgery, and recent studies have demonstrated that frailty is associated with very poor outcomes following CPR in nonsurgical settings,” said Dr. Allen, an attending physician in the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at his center.

Although cardiac arrest is typically regarded as being “more reversible” in the setting of surgery and anesthesia than elsewhere in the hospital, he observed, there’s very little data on whether that is indeed the case for frail patients.

The current analysis provides “a heretofore absent base of evidence to guide decision-making regarding CPR in patients with frailty who undergo surgery,” states the report, published in JAMA Network Open.

The 3,058 patients in the analysis, from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement database, received CPR for cardiac arrest during or soon after noncardiac surgery. Their mean age was 71 and 44% were women.

Their RAI scores ranged from 14 to 71 and averaged 37.7; one-fourth of the patients had scores of 40 or higher, the study’s threshold for identifying patients as “frail.”

Overall in the cohort, more cardiac arrests occurred during surgeries that entailed  low-to-moderate physiologic stress (an Operative Stress Score of 1 to 3) than in the setting of emergency surgery: 67.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively.

During emergency surgeries, a greater proportion of frail than nonfrail patients experienced cardiac arrest, 42% and 38%, respectively. The same relationship was observed during low-to-moderate stress surgeries: 76.6% of frail patients and 64.8% of nonfrail patients. General anesthesia was used in about 93% of procedures for both frail and nonfrail patients, the report states.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, was 58.6% overall, 67.4% in frail patients, and 55.6% for nonfrail patients. Frailty and mortality were positively associated, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65, P = .003) in multivariate analysis.

Of the cohort’s 1,164 patients who had been admitted from home and survived to discharge, 38.6% were discharged to a destination other than home; the corresponding rates for frail and nonfrail patients were 59.3% and 33.9%, respectively. Frailty and nonhome discharge were positively correlated with an AOR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62, P  < .001).

“There is no such thing as a low-risk procedure in patients who are frail,” Dr. Allen said in an interview. “Frail patients should be medically optimized prior to undergoing surgery and anesthesia, and plans should be tailored to patients’ vulnerabilities to reduce the risk of complications and facilitate rapid recognition and treatment when they occur.”

Moreover, he said, management of clinical decompensation in the perioperative period should be a part of the shared decision-making process “to establish a plan aligned with the patients’ priorities whenever possible.”

The current study quantifies risk associated with frailty in the surgical setting, and “this quantification can help providers, patients, and insurers better grasp the growing frailty problem,” Balachundhar Subramaniam, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Universal screening for frailty is “a must in all surgical patients” to help identify those who are high-risk and reduce their chances for perioperative adverse events, said Dr. Subramaniam, who was not involved in the study.

“Prehabilitation with education, nutrition, physical fitness, and psychological support offer the best chance of significantly reducing poor outcomes” in frail patients, he said, along with “continuous education” in the care of frail patients.

University of Colorado surgeon Joseph Cleveland, MD, not part of the current study, said that it “provides a framework for counseling patients” regarding their do-not-resuscitate status.

“We can counsel patients with frailty with this information,” he said, “that if their heart should stop or go into in irregular rhythm, their chances of surviving are not greater than 50% and they have a more than 50% chance of not being discharged home.”

Dr. Allen reported receiving a clinical translational starter grant from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Anesthesiology; disclosures for the other authors are in the original article. Dr. Subramaniam disclosed research funding from Masimo and Merck and serving as an education consultant for Masimo. Dr. Cleveland reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-third of older patients in a cohort study who were considered frail and then required resuscitation from cardiac arrest during noncardiac surgery survived to at least a month after hospital discharge.

And the frailer that patients were going into surgery, according to their scores on an established frailty index, the greater their adjusted mortality risk at 30 days and the likelier they were to be discharged to a location other than their home.

The findings are based on more than 3,000 patients in an American College of Surgeons (ACS) quality improvement registry who underwent CPR at noncardiac surgery, about one-fourth of whom scored a least 40 on the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI). The frailty index accounts for the patient’s comorbidities, cognition, functional and nutritional status, and other factors as predictors of postoperative mortality risk.

Such CPR for perioperative cardiac arrest “should not be considered futile just because a patient is frail, but neither should cardiac arrest be considered as ‘reversible’ in this population, as previously thought,” lead author Matthew B. Allen, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“We know that patients who are frail have higher risk of complications and mortality after surgery, and recent studies have demonstrated that frailty is associated with very poor outcomes following CPR in nonsurgical settings,” said Dr. Allen, an attending physician in the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at his center.

Although cardiac arrest is typically regarded as being “more reversible” in the setting of surgery and anesthesia than elsewhere in the hospital, he observed, there’s very little data on whether that is indeed the case for frail patients.

The current analysis provides “a heretofore absent base of evidence to guide decision-making regarding CPR in patients with frailty who undergo surgery,” states the report, published in JAMA Network Open.

The 3,058 patients in the analysis, from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement database, received CPR for cardiac arrest during or soon after noncardiac surgery. Their mean age was 71 and 44% were women.

Their RAI scores ranged from 14 to 71 and averaged 37.7; one-fourth of the patients had scores of 40 or higher, the study’s threshold for identifying patients as “frail.”

Overall in the cohort, more cardiac arrests occurred during surgeries that entailed  low-to-moderate physiologic stress (an Operative Stress Score of 1 to 3) than in the setting of emergency surgery: 67.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively.

During emergency surgeries, a greater proportion of frail than nonfrail patients experienced cardiac arrest, 42% and 38%, respectively. The same relationship was observed during low-to-moderate stress surgeries: 76.6% of frail patients and 64.8% of nonfrail patients. General anesthesia was used in about 93% of procedures for both frail and nonfrail patients, the report states.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, was 58.6% overall, 67.4% in frail patients, and 55.6% for nonfrail patients. Frailty and mortality were positively associated, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65, P = .003) in multivariate analysis.

Of the cohort’s 1,164 patients who had been admitted from home and survived to discharge, 38.6% were discharged to a destination other than home; the corresponding rates for frail and nonfrail patients were 59.3% and 33.9%, respectively. Frailty and nonhome discharge were positively correlated with an AOR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62, P  < .001).

“There is no such thing as a low-risk procedure in patients who are frail,” Dr. Allen said in an interview. “Frail patients should be medically optimized prior to undergoing surgery and anesthesia, and plans should be tailored to patients’ vulnerabilities to reduce the risk of complications and facilitate rapid recognition and treatment when they occur.”

Moreover, he said, management of clinical decompensation in the perioperative period should be a part of the shared decision-making process “to establish a plan aligned with the patients’ priorities whenever possible.”

The current study quantifies risk associated with frailty in the surgical setting, and “this quantification can help providers, patients, and insurers better grasp the growing frailty problem,” Balachundhar Subramaniam, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Universal screening for frailty is “a must in all surgical patients” to help identify those who are high-risk and reduce their chances for perioperative adverse events, said Dr. Subramaniam, who was not involved in the study.

“Prehabilitation with education, nutrition, physical fitness, and psychological support offer the best chance of significantly reducing poor outcomes” in frail patients, he said, along with “continuous education” in the care of frail patients.

University of Colorado surgeon Joseph Cleveland, MD, not part of the current study, said that it “provides a framework for counseling patients” regarding their do-not-resuscitate status.

“We can counsel patients with frailty with this information,” he said, “that if their heart should stop or go into in irregular rhythm, their chances of surviving are not greater than 50% and they have a more than 50% chance of not being discharged home.”

Dr. Allen reported receiving a clinical translational starter grant from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Anesthesiology; disclosures for the other authors are in the original article. Dr. Subramaniam disclosed research funding from Masimo and Merck and serving as an education consultant for Masimo. Dr. Cleveland reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-third of older patients in a cohort study who were considered frail and then required resuscitation from cardiac arrest during noncardiac surgery survived to at least a month after hospital discharge.

And the frailer that patients were going into surgery, according to their scores on an established frailty index, the greater their adjusted mortality risk at 30 days and the likelier they were to be discharged to a location other than their home.

The findings are based on more than 3,000 patients in an American College of Surgeons (ACS) quality improvement registry who underwent CPR at noncardiac surgery, about one-fourth of whom scored a least 40 on the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI). The frailty index accounts for the patient’s comorbidities, cognition, functional and nutritional status, and other factors as predictors of postoperative mortality risk.

Such CPR for perioperative cardiac arrest “should not be considered futile just because a patient is frail, but neither should cardiac arrest be considered as ‘reversible’ in this population, as previously thought,” lead author Matthew B. Allen, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“We know that patients who are frail have higher risk of complications and mortality after surgery, and recent studies have demonstrated that frailty is associated with very poor outcomes following CPR in nonsurgical settings,” said Dr. Allen, an attending physician in the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at his center.

Although cardiac arrest is typically regarded as being “more reversible” in the setting of surgery and anesthesia than elsewhere in the hospital, he observed, there’s very little data on whether that is indeed the case for frail patients.

The current analysis provides “a heretofore absent base of evidence to guide decision-making regarding CPR in patients with frailty who undergo surgery,” states the report, published in JAMA Network Open.

The 3,058 patients in the analysis, from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement database, received CPR for cardiac arrest during or soon after noncardiac surgery. Their mean age was 71 and 44% were women.

Their RAI scores ranged from 14 to 71 and averaged 37.7; one-fourth of the patients had scores of 40 or higher, the study’s threshold for identifying patients as “frail.”

Overall in the cohort, more cardiac arrests occurred during surgeries that entailed  low-to-moderate physiologic stress (an Operative Stress Score of 1 to 3) than in the setting of emergency surgery: 67.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively.

During emergency surgeries, a greater proportion of frail than nonfrail patients experienced cardiac arrest, 42% and 38%, respectively. The same relationship was observed during low-to-moderate stress surgeries: 76.6% of frail patients and 64.8% of nonfrail patients. General anesthesia was used in about 93% of procedures for both frail and nonfrail patients, the report states.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, was 58.6% overall, 67.4% in frail patients, and 55.6% for nonfrail patients. Frailty and mortality were positively associated, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65, P = .003) in multivariate analysis.

Of the cohort’s 1,164 patients who had been admitted from home and survived to discharge, 38.6% were discharged to a destination other than home; the corresponding rates for frail and nonfrail patients were 59.3% and 33.9%, respectively. Frailty and nonhome discharge were positively correlated with an AOR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62, P  < .001).

“There is no such thing as a low-risk procedure in patients who are frail,” Dr. Allen said in an interview. “Frail patients should be medically optimized prior to undergoing surgery and anesthesia, and plans should be tailored to patients’ vulnerabilities to reduce the risk of complications and facilitate rapid recognition and treatment when they occur.”

Moreover, he said, management of clinical decompensation in the perioperative period should be a part of the shared decision-making process “to establish a plan aligned with the patients’ priorities whenever possible.”

The current study quantifies risk associated with frailty in the surgical setting, and “this quantification can help providers, patients, and insurers better grasp the growing frailty problem,” Balachundhar Subramaniam, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Universal screening for frailty is “a must in all surgical patients” to help identify those who are high-risk and reduce their chances for perioperative adverse events, said Dr. Subramaniam, who was not involved in the study.

“Prehabilitation with education, nutrition, physical fitness, and psychological support offer the best chance of significantly reducing poor outcomes” in frail patients, he said, along with “continuous education” in the care of frail patients.

University of Colorado surgeon Joseph Cleveland, MD, not part of the current study, said that it “provides a framework for counseling patients” regarding their do-not-resuscitate status.

“We can counsel patients with frailty with this information,” he said, “that if their heart should stop or go into in irregular rhythm, their chances of surviving are not greater than 50% and they have a more than 50% chance of not being discharged home.”

Dr. Allen reported receiving a clinical translational starter grant from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Anesthesiology; disclosures for the other authors are in the original article. Dr. Subramaniam disclosed research funding from Masimo and Merck and serving as an education consultant for Masimo. Dr. Cleveland reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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