User login
A doctor saves a drowning family in a dangerous river
Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.
She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.
My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.
I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”
I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.
What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.
But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.
When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.
So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.
The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.
When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.
All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.
I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.
Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.
The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.
I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.
I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”
Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.
I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.
Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.
I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.
I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.
I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.
Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.
She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.
My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.
I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”
I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.
What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.
But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.
When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.
So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.
The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.
When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.
All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.
I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.
Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.
The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.
I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.
I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”
Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.
I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.
Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.
I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.
I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.
I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.
Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.
She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.
My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.
I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”
I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.
What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.
But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.
When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.
So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.
The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.
When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.
All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.
I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.
Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.
The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.
I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.
I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”
Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.
I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.
Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.
I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.
I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.
I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.
All the National Health Service wants for Christmas is tea and biscuits
Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ
Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.
It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.
It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.
In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.
It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.
The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.
In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”
Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it
When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.
The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.
The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.
How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.
This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
New genes, or not new genes? That is the question
… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.
Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?
Prof. Darwin: Please, Carol, call me Chuck. As always, I’ve got my hands full with the whole evolution thing. The big news right now is a study published in Cell Reports that offers evidence of the continuing evolution of humans. Can I eat your brain now?
Carol: No, Chuck, you may not. So people are still evolving? It sure seems like we’ve reverted to survival of the dumbest.
Chuck Darwin: Good one, Carol, but evolution hasn’t stopped. The investigators used a previously published dataset of functionally relevant new genes to create an ancestral tree comparing humans with other vertebrate species. By tracking the genes across evolution, they found 155 from regions of unique DNA that arose from scratch and not from duplication events in the existing genome. That’s a big deal.
Carol: Anything made from scratch is always better. Everyone knows that. What else can you tell us, Chuck?
Chuck Darwin: So these 155 genes didn’t exist when humans separated from chimpanzees nearly 7 million years ago. Turns out that 44 of them are associated with growth defects in cell cultures and three “have disease-associated DNA markers that point to connections with ailments such as muscular dystrophy, retinitis pigmentosa, and Alazami syndrome.” At least that’s what the investigators said in a written statement. I must say, Carol, that your brain is looking particularly delicious tonight.
Carol: Ironic. For years I’ve been hoping a man would appreciate me for my brain, and now I get this. Back to you, Daryl.
Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ
Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.
It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.
It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.
In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.
It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.
The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.
In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”
Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it
When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.
The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.
The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.
How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.
This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
New genes, or not new genes? That is the question
… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.
Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?
Prof. Darwin: Please, Carol, call me Chuck. As always, I’ve got my hands full with the whole evolution thing. The big news right now is a study published in Cell Reports that offers evidence of the continuing evolution of humans. Can I eat your brain now?
Carol: No, Chuck, you may not. So people are still evolving? It sure seems like we’ve reverted to survival of the dumbest.
Chuck Darwin: Good one, Carol, but evolution hasn’t stopped. The investigators used a previously published dataset of functionally relevant new genes to create an ancestral tree comparing humans with other vertebrate species. By tracking the genes across evolution, they found 155 from regions of unique DNA that arose from scratch and not from duplication events in the existing genome. That’s a big deal.
Carol: Anything made from scratch is always better. Everyone knows that. What else can you tell us, Chuck?
Chuck Darwin: So these 155 genes didn’t exist when humans separated from chimpanzees nearly 7 million years ago. Turns out that 44 of them are associated with growth defects in cell cultures and three “have disease-associated DNA markers that point to connections with ailments such as muscular dystrophy, retinitis pigmentosa, and Alazami syndrome.” At least that’s what the investigators said in a written statement. I must say, Carol, that your brain is looking particularly delicious tonight.
Carol: Ironic. For years I’ve been hoping a man would appreciate me for my brain, and now I get this. Back to you, Daryl.
Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ
Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.
It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.
It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.
In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.
It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.
The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.
In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”
Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it
When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.
The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.
The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.
How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.
This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
New genes, or not new genes? That is the question
… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.
Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?
Prof. Darwin: Please, Carol, call me Chuck. As always, I’ve got my hands full with the whole evolution thing. The big news right now is a study published in Cell Reports that offers evidence of the continuing evolution of humans. Can I eat your brain now?
Carol: No, Chuck, you may not. So people are still evolving? It sure seems like we’ve reverted to survival of the dumbest.
Chuck Darwin: Good one, Carol, but evolution hasn’t stopped. The investigators used a previously published dataset of functionally relevant new genes to create an ancestral tree comparing humans with other vertebrate species. By tracking the genes across evolution, they found 155 from regions of unique DNA that arose from scratch and not from duplication events in the existing genome. That’s a big deal.
Carol: Anything made from scratch is always better. Everyone knows that. What else can you tell us, Chuck?
Chuck Darwin: So these 155 genes didn’t exist when humans separated from chimpanzees nearly 7 million years ago. Turns out that 44 of them are associated with growth defects in cell cultures and three “have disease-associated DNA markers that point to connections with ailments such as muscular dystrophy, retinitis pigmentosa, and Alazami syndrome.” At least that’s what the investigators said in a written statement. I must say, Carol, that your brain is looking particularly delicious tonight.
Carol: Ironic. For years I’ve been hoping a man would appreciate me for my brain, and now I get this. Back to you, Daryl.
Indiana cardiologist faces multiple malpractice complaints
alleging he performed unnecessary cardiac procedures that led to physical and emotional harm.
The medical records for one patient, 70-year-old John Pflum, of Noblesville, Ind., show that Edward Harlamert, MD, performed 44 heart catheterizations and inserted at least 41 stents between 2004 and 2013, according to an investigation by WTHR 13News in Indianapolis that was published Dec. 14.
The news outlet asked four cardiologists to review and comment on John Pflum’s medical records.
“There is not a single scenario I can think of where doing this level of stents and angiograms would be justified or make sense. I have never seen this happen in the course of my medical training or my medical career,” Payal Kohli, MD, cardiologist and medical director of Cherry Creek Heart in Denver, told 13News.
Sunil Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health and president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angioplasty and Interventions, who also reviewed Mr. Pflum’s medical records for 13News, said he’s “never seen a patient who has gotten this many procedures.”
Dr. Rao said that on the basis of what he saw in the records and in the images, there were several deviations from the standard of care.
Two other independent cardiologists who spoke with 13News voiced similar opinions.
Mr. Pflum was “getting cathed almost every month. That’s not how it’s done,” Morton Rinder, MD, an interventional cardiologist at St. Luke’s Hospital near St. Louis, told 13News.
Dr. Rinder has been hired as a medical consultant for the attorneys who filed Mr. Pflum’s malpractice complaint against Dr. Harlamert.
Cardiologists who reviewed the catheterization films for 13News said some of Mr. Pflum’s heart blockages met the 70% threshold to warrant consideration of a stent, while others clearly did not. In-stent restenosis occurred in several of the implanted stents, requiring a second open heart surgery.
In a statement, Dr. Harlamert’s attorneys told 13News that Dr. Harlamert has “always been committed to providing quality care to patients” and that he treated his cardiology patients “based on their unique circumstances, his expertise, and the tools available.
“Because of stringent privacy laws and pending litigation, a response to a local news story is not the proper forum to present a picture of any particular treatment decision, especially when that picture may be incomplete at this time,” the statement reads.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
alleging he performed unnecessary cardiac procedures that led to physical and emotional harm.
The medical records for one patient, 70-year-old John Pflum, of Noblesville, Ind., show that Edward Harlamert, MD, performed 44 heart catheterizations and inserted at least 41 stents between 2004 and 2013, according to an investigation by WTHR 13News in Indianapolis that was published Dec. 14.
The news outlet asked four cardiologists to review and comment on John Pflum’s medical records.
“There is not a single scenario I can think of where doing this level of stents and angiograms would be justified or make sense. I have never seen this happen in the course of my medical training or my medical career,” Payal Kohli, MD, cardiologist and medical director of Cherry Creek Heart in Denver, told 13News.
Sunil Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health and president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angioplasty and Interventions, who also reviewed Mr. Pflum’s medical records for 13News, said he’s “never seen a patient who has gotten this many procedures.”
Dr. Rao said that on the basis of what he saw in the records and in the images, there were several deviations from the standard of care.
Two other independent cardiologists who spoke with 13News voiced similar opinions.
Mr. Pflum was “getting cathed almost every month. That’s not how it’s done,” Morton Rinder, MD, an interventional cardiologist at St. Luke’s Hospital near St. Louis, told 13News.
Dr. Rinder has been hired as a medical consultant for the attorneys who filed Mr. Pflum’s malpractice complaint against Dr. Harlamert.
Cardiologists who reviewed the catheterization films for 13News said some of Mr. Pflum’s heart blockages met the 70% threshold to warrant consideration of a stent, while others clearly did not. In-stent restenosis occurred in several of the implanted stents, requiring a second open heart surgery.
In a statement, Dr. Harlamert’s attorneys told 13News that Dr. Harlamert has “always been committed to providing quality care to patients” and that he treated his cardiology patients “based on their unique circumstances, his expertise, and the tools available.
“Because of stringent privacy laws and pending litigation, a response to a local news story is not the proper forum to present a picture of any particular treatment decision, especially when that picture may be incomplete at this time,” the statement reads.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
alleging he performed unnecessary cardiac procedures that led to physical and emotional harm.
The medical records for one patient, 70-year-old John Pflum, of Noblesville, Ind., show that Edward Harlamert, MD, performed 44 heart catheterizations and inserted at least 41 stents between 2004 and 2013, according to an investigation by WTHR 13News in Indianapolis that was published Dec. 14.
The news outlet asked four cardiologists to review and comment on John Pflum’s medical records.
“There is not a single scenario I can think of where doing this level of stents and angiograms would be justified or make sense. I have never seen this happen in the course of my medical training or my medical career,” Payal Kohli, MD, cardiologist and medical director of Cherry Creek Heart in Denver, told 13News.
Sunil Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health and president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angioplasty and Interventions, who also reviewed Mr. Pflum’s medical records for 13News, said he’s “never seen a patient who has gotten this many procedures.”
Dr. Rao said that on the basis of what he saw in the records and in the images, there were several deviations from the standard of care.
Two other independent cardiologists who spoke with 13News voiced similar opinions.
Mr. Pflum was “getting cathed almost every month. That’s not how it’s done,” Morton Rinder, MD, an interventional cardiologist at St. Luke’s Hospital near St. Louis, told 13News.
Dr. Rinder has been hired as a medical consultant for the attorneys who filed Mr. Pflum’s malpractice complaint against Dr. Harlamert.
Cardiologists who reviewed the catheterization films for 13News said some of Mr. Pflum’s heart blockages met the 70% threshold to warrant consideration of a stent, while others clearly did not. In-stent restenosis occurred in several of the implanted stents, requiring a second open heart surgery.
In a statement, Dr. Harlamert’s attorneys told 13News that Dr. Harlamert has “always been committed to providing quality care to patients” and that he treated his cardiology patients “based on their unique circumstances, his expertise, and the tools available.
“Because of stringent privacy laws and pending litigation, a response to a local news story is not the proper forum to present a picture of any particular treatment decision, especially when that picture may be incomplete at this time,” the statement reads.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ten recommendations for building and growing a cosmetic dermatology practice
SAN DIEGO – When Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, opened his own cosmetic dermatology practice in Stamford, Conn., in 2012, he sensed that he had his work cut out for him.
“I was a fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon who wanted to do aesthetics,” Dr. Ibrahimi, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, recalled during the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “I was in a geographic area that was new to me. I didn’t know any referring doctors, but I started to network and tried to grow my practice.”
Someone once told him that the “three As” of being a medical specialist are “Available, Affable, and Ability,” so he applied that principle as he began to cultivate relationships with physicians in his geographic area. “I told my referring doctors, ‘If you’re kind enough to send me Mohs cases, I’ll help you out if there’s something you don’t like doing, whether it’s a nail biopsy or treating male genital warts,’” he said. “You want to make it easy for doctors to refer to you, but you also want to make their lives easier.”
Dr. Ibrahimi, who is also on the board of directors for the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, offered . They include:
Know yourself. Do what you love to do, not what you feel like you should do. “Whatever you’re doing in your practice, it should be something that you’re passionate about and excited about,” he said. “I do a mix of Mohs surgery and procedural aesthetic dermatology. Most of my practice is shaped toward energy-based devices and laser procedures. Pick the things that you enjoy doing and try to deliver good results.”
Know your patients. When dermatologists who plan to open their own practice ask Dr. Ibrahimi what kind of laser they should buy, he typically responds by asking them to consider what procedures their patients are asking for. “Depending on where you are geographically and the economic profile of the community in which you practice, it can be a different answer,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “If you practice in the Northeast and do a lot of medical dermatology, it might mean getting a vascular laser to treat rosacea. If you’re in Southern California, treating pigment might be a bigger concern than treating rosacea.” The annual ASDS Survey on Dermatologic Procedures provides a snapshot of trends and can be useful for decision-making, he said.
Know your practice. “Make sure you are capable of entering the aesthetics field,” he advised. “You cannot have a practice that runs like the DMV, with people waiting 30 to 40 minutes to be seen.” Proper training of staff is also key and representatives from device and injectable companies can provide advice and support. As for marketing, some dermatologists hire a public relations agency, but Dr. Ibrahimi finds that the best source of his referrals is word of mouth. “If I do a good job taking care of patients, they will send their friends and family over to me, but social media is also important,” he said. Taking quality before-and-after photos, and obtaining consent from patients to use them online in educational posts is a good approach, he noted.
Know your market. When Dr. Ibrahimi first opened his practice, offering laser hair removal was not a priority because so many other dermatologists and medical spas in his area were already providing it. With time, though, he added laser hair removal to his menu of treatment offerings because “I knew that if my patients weren’t getting that service from me, they would be getting it from somewhere else,” he said. “Initially it wasn’t important for me, but as my practice matured, I wanted to make sure that I was comprehensive.”
Start cautiously. Think safety first. “I tell people that starting a cosmetic practice is like baseball: don’t try to hit home runs,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “Just aim for base hits and keep your patients happy. Make sure you deliver safe, good results.” This means knowing everything possible about the devices used in the office, because if the use of a laser is delegated to a staff member and a problem arises, “you have to know everything about how that device works so that you can troubleshoot,” he said. “A lot of problems that arise are from lack of intimacy with your device.”
Seek knowledge. Attend courses in cosmetic dermatology and read literature from journals like Dermatologic Surgery and Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, he advised. “People will see the success, but they won’t know how much hard work it takes to get there,” he said. “You have to develop your reputation to develop the kind of practice that you want.”
Understand the business of aesthetics. Most energy devices carry a steep price tag, and leasing or financing devices come with a monthly payment, he said. “Make sure that what you’re bringing in on that device is going to be sufficient to cover the monthly payment. With something like tissue microcoring, you don’t have to use that five times a day to cover that lease payment. But if you have a vascular laser, you probably need to be treating more than a couple patients per day to make that lease payment. If you can recover the amount the device costs in about a year, that’s going to be a good investment. Many devices come with consumables, so you have to remember that.”
Don’t be afraid to be unique/change directions. Becoming an early adopter of new technologies and procedures can make someone stand out. “Other providers feel more comfortable waiting to allow more data to come out about a new technology before they make a purchase,” he said. “But if you’re established and have a busy practice, that’s an opportunity that can draw people in.”
Have patience and realistic expectations. It’s smart to offer a variety of services, he said, such as medical or surgical dermatology in addition to cosmetic dermatology. “That’s going to help you through any kind of economic downturn,” he said. “Success depends on a lot of factors going right. Make sure you set short- and long-term goals.”
Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the Advisory Board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.
SAN DIEGO – When Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, opened his own cosmetic dermatology practice in Stamford, Conn., in 2012, he sensed that he had his work cut out for him.
“I was a fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon who wanted to do aesthetics,” Dr. Ibrahimi, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, recalled during the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “I was in a geographic area that was new to me. I didn’t know any referring doctors, but I started to network and tried to grow my practice.”
Someone once told him that the “three As” of being a medical specialist are “Available, Affable, and Ability,” so he applied that principle as he began to cultivate relationships with physicians in his geographic area. “I told my referring doctors, ‘If you’re kind enough to send me Mohs cases, I’ll help you out if there’s something you don’t like doing, whether it’s a nail biopsy or treating male genital warts,’” he said. “You want to make it easy for doctors to refer to you, but you also want to make their lives easier.”
Dr. Ibrahimi, who is also on the board of directors for the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, offered . They include:
Know yourself. Do what you love to do, not what you feel like you should do. “Whatever you’re doing in your practice, it should be something that you’re passionate about and excited about,” he said. “I do a mix of Mohs surgery and procedural aesthetic dermatology. Most of my practice is shaped toward energy-based devices and laser procedures. Pick the things that you enjoy doing and try to deliver good results.”
Know your patients. When dermatologists who plan to open their own practice ask Dr. Ibrahimi what kind of laser they should buy, he typically responds by asking them to consider what procedures their patients are asking for. “Depending on where you are geographically and the economic profile of the community in which you practice, it can be a different answer,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “If you practice in the Northeast and do a lot of medical dermatology, it might mean getting a vascular laser to treat rosacea. If you’re in Southern California, treating pigment might be a bigger concern than treating rosacea.” The annual ASDS Survey on Dermatologic Procedures provides a snapshot of trends and can be useful for decision-making, he said.
Know your practice. “Make sure you are capable of entering the aesthetics field,” he advised. “You cannot have a practice that runs like the DMV, with people waiting 30 to 40 minutes to be seen.” Proper training of staff is also key and representatives from device and injectable companies can provide advice and support. As for marketing, some dermatologists hire a public relations agency, but Dr. Ibrahimi finds that the best source of his referrals is word of mouth. “If I do a good job taking care of patients, they will send their friends and family over to me, but social media is also important,” he said. Taking quality before-and-after photos, and obtaining consent from patients to use them online in educational posts is a good approach, he noted.
Know your market. When Dr. Ibrahimi first opened his practice, offering laser hair removal was not a priority because so many other dermatologists and medical spas in his area were already providing it. With time, though, he added laser hair removal to his menu of treatment offerings because “I knew that if my patients weren’t getting that service from me, they would be getting it from somewhere else,” he said. “Initially it wasn’t important for me, but as my practice matured, I wanted to make sure that I was comprehensive.”
Start cautiously. Think safety first. “I tell people that starting a cosmetic practice is like baseball: don’t try to hit home runs,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “Just aim for base hits and keep your patients happy. Make sure you deliver safe, good results.” This means knowing everything possible about the devices used in the office, because if the use of a laser is delegated to a staff member and a problem arises, “you have to know everything about how that device works so that you can troubleshoot,” he said. “A lot of problems that arise are from lack of intimacy with your device.”
Seek knowledge. Attend courses in cosmetic dermatology and read literature from journals like Dermatologic Surgery and Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, he advised. “People will see the success, but they won’t know how much hard work it takes to get there,” he said. “You have to develop your reputation to develop the kind of practice that you want.”
Understand the business of aesthetics. Most energy devices carry a steep price tag, and leasing or financing devices come with a monthly payment, he said. “Make sure that what you’re bringing in on that device is going to be sufficient to cover the monthly payment. With something like tissue microcoring, you don’t have to use that five times a day to cover that lease payment. But if you have a vascular laser, you probably need to be treating more than a couple patients per day to make that lease payment. If you can recover the amount the device costs in about a year, that’s going to be a good investment. Many devices come with consumables, so you have to remember that.”
Don’t be afraid to be unique/change directions. Becoming an early adopter of new technologies and procedures can make someone stand out. “Other providers feel more comfortable waiting to allow more data to come out about a new technology before they make a purchase,” he said. “But if you’re established and have a busy practice, that’s an opportunity that can draw people in.”
Have patience and realistic expectations. It’s smart to offer a variety of services, he said, such as medical or surgical dermatology in addition to cosmetic dermatology. “That’s going to help you through any kind of economic downturn,” he said. “Success depends on a lot of factors going right. Make sure you set short- and long-term goals.”
Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the Advisory Board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.
SAN DIEGO – When Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, opened his own cosmetic dermatology practice in Stamford, Conn., in 2012, he sensed that he had his work cut out for him.
“I was a fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon who wanted to do aesthetics,” Dr. Ibrahimi, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, recalled during the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “I was in a geographic area that was new to me. I didn’t know any referring doctors, but I started to network and tried to grow my practice.”
Someone once told him that the “three As” of being a medical specialist are “Available, Affable, and Ability,” so he applied that principle as he began to cultivate relationships with physicians in his geographic area. “I told my referring doctors, ‘If you’re kind enough to send me Mohs cases, I’ll help you out if there’s something you don’t like doing, whether it’s a nail biopsy or treating male genital warts,’” he said. “You want to make it easy for doctors to refer to you, but you also want to make their lives easier.”
Dr. Ibrahimi, who is also on the board of directors for the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, offered . They include:
Know yourself. Do what you love to do, not what you feel like you should do. “Whatever you’re doing in your practice, it should be something that you’re passionate about and excited about,” he said. “I do a mix of Mohs surgery and procedural aesthetic dermatology. Most of my practice is shaped toward energy-based devices and laser procedures. Pick the things that you enjoy doing and try to deliver good results.”
Know your patients. When dermatologists who plan to open their own practice ask Dr. Ibrahimi what kind of laser they should buy, he typically responds by asking them to consider what procedures their patients are asking for. “Depending on where you are geographically and the economic profile of the community in which you practice, it can be a different answer,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “If you practice in the Northeast and do a lot of medical dermatology, it might mean getting a vascular laser to treat rosacea. If you’re in Southern California, treating pigment might be a bigger concern than treating rosacea.” The annual ASDS Survey on Dermatologic Procedures provides a snapshot of trends and can be useful for decision-making, he said.
Know your practice. “Make sure you are capable of entering the aesthetics field,” he advised. “You cannot have a practice that runs like the DMV, with people waiting 30 to 40 minutes to be seen.” Proper training of staff is also key and representatives from device and injectable companies can provide advice and support. As for marketing, some dermatologists hire a public relations agency, but Dr. Ibrahimi finds that the best source of his referrals is word of mouth. “If I do a good job taking care of patients, they will send their friends and family over to me, but social media is also important,” he said. Taking quality before-and-after photos, and obtaining consent from patients to use them online in educational posts is a good approach, he noted.
Know your market. When Dr. Ibrahimi first opened his practice, offering laser hair removal was not a priority because so many other dermatologists and medical spas in his area were already providing it. With time, though, he added laser hair removal to his menu of treatment offerings because “I knew that if my patients weren’t getting that service from me, they would be getting it from somewhere else,” he said. “Initially it wasn’t important for me, but as my practice matured, I wanted to make sure that I was comprehensive.”
Start cautiously. Think safety first. “I tell people that starting a cosmetic practice is like baseball: don’t try to hit home runs,” Dr. Ibrahimi said. “Just aim for base hits and keep your patients happy. Make sure you deliver safe, good results.” This means knowing everything possible about the devices used in the office, because if the use of a laser is delegated to a staff member and a problem arises, “you have to know everything about how that device works so that you can troubleshoot,” he said. “A lot of problems that arise are from lack of intimacy with your device.”
Seek knowledge. Attend courses in cosmetic dermatology and read literature from journals like Dermatologic Surgery and Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, he advised. “People will see the success, but they won’t know how much hard work it takes to get there,” he said. “You have to develop your reputation to develop the kind of practice that you want.”
Understand the business of aesthetics. Most energy devices carry a steep price tag, and leasing or financing devices come with a monthly payment, he said. “Make sure that what you’re bringing in on that device is going to be sufficient to cover the monthly payment. With something like tissue microcoring, you don’t have to use that five times a day to cover that lease payment. But if you have a vascular laser, you probably need to be treating more than a couple patients per day to make that lease payment. If you can recover the amount the device costs in about a year, that’s going to be a good investment. Many devices come with consumables, so you have to remember that.”
Don’t be afraid to be unique/change directions. Becoming an early adopter of new technologies and procedures can make someone stand out. “Other providers feel more comfortable waiting to allow more data to come out about a new technology before they make a purchase,” he said. “But if you’re established and have a busy practice, that’s an opportunity that can draw people in.”
Have patience and realistic expectations. It’s smart to offer a variety of services, he said, such as medical or surgical dermatology in addition to cosmetic dermatology. “That’s going to help you through any kind of economic downturn,” he said. “Success depends on a lot of factors going right. Make sure you set short- and long-term goals.”
Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the Advisory Board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.
AT MOAS 2022
Grateful and hopeful
My year is now over. My staff and I started the habit of closing down mid-December in 2013, when we realized that patients generally didn’t want to come in then, either.
To me a year really ends the day we close up for the holidays. I put away the season’s decorations, send the final batch to my billing company, and lock the door. Not much of a New Year’s, but at my age it’s not a holiday I mark, anyway. It’s more a relief that my office year, at least, is done.
So it’s always a time for reflection, between the more mundane work of returning calls, reviewing the tests that come in, and getting taxes ready. I try to relax as much as I can (given the weird state of our times, I haven’t left town since November 2019, so this is my vacation for now).
Plus, my kids all come home. I have no idea how much longer that’s going to happen, so I’ll enjoy it while I can.
It’s now almost 3 years since I last rounded at a hospital, and I can’t say I miss it. While I usually have plenty to do on my breaks and weekends, and the occasional patient call to return, it’s nice to know that I can stay in my robe, PJs, and slippers through it all.
2022 certainly wasn’t bad for my family and me, though not as good as any of us hoped. The world, already battered by the pandemic, was thrown into greater uncertainty by the war in Europe and its ramifications across the globe. In comparison, I’m very grateful that higher prices are the extent of my suffering as compared with what the people of Ukraine are going through.
But, at the end of it all, my little practice and two wonderful staff are still here, just as we’ve been since 2000. My kids will (hopefully) all be through college by the end of 2023 and moving on with their lives. I love them, and will miss them if they move away, but part of being a parent is accepting that your kids are only visitors and have their own paths to follow.
For my staff I’m glad they’ve stuck with me through good and bad times, and that we still have fun together – even when we haven’t worked under the same roof in a while.
For my patients and their families we’ve seen a few glimmers of optimism in treatments and hopefully they’ll continue to grow and be built upon. Heaven knows my field – and many others – can use them.
And so,
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
My year is now over. My staff and I started the habit of closing down mid-December in 2013, when we realized that patients generally didn’t want to come in then, either.
To me a year really ends the day we close up for the holidays. I put away the season’s decorations, send the final batch to my billing company, and lock the door. Not much of a New Year’s, but at my age it’s not a holiday I mark, anyway. It’s more a relief that my office year, at least, is done.
So it’s always a time for reflection, between the more mundane work of returning calls, reviewing the tests that come in, and getting taxes ready. I try to relax as much as I can (given the weird state of our times, I haven’t left town since November 2019, so this is my vacation for now).
Plus, my kids all come home. I have no idea how much longer that’s going to happen, so I’ll enjoy it while I can.
It’s now almost 3 years since I last rounded at a hospital, and I can’t say I miss it. While I usually have plenty to do on my breaks and weekends, and the occasional patient call to return, it’s nice to know that I can stay in my robe, PJs, and slippers through it all.
2022 certainly wasn’t bad for my family and me, though not as good as any of us hoped. The world, already battered by the pandemic, was thrown into greater uncertainty by the war in Europe and its ramifications across the globe. In comparison, I’m very grateful that higher prices are the extent of my suffering as compared with what the people of Ukraine are going through.
But, at the end of it all, my little practice and two wonderful staff are still here, just as we’ve been since 2000. My kids will (hopefully) all be through college by the end of 2023 and moving on with their lives. I love them, and will miss them if they move away, but part of being a parent is accepting that your kids are only visitors and have their own paths to follow.
For my staff I’m glad they’ve stuck with me through good and bad times, and that we still have fun together – even when we haven’t worked under the same roof in a while.
For my patients and their families we’ve seen a few glimmers of optimism in treatments and hopefully they’ll continue to grow and be built upon. Heaven knows my field – and many others – can use them.
And so,
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
My year is now over. My staff and I started the habit of closing down mid-December in 2013, when we realized that patients generally didn’t want to come in then, either.
To me a year really ends the day we close up for the holidays. I put away the season’s decorations, send the final batch to my billing company, and lock the door. Not much of a New Year’s, but at my age it’s not a holiday I mark, anyway. It’s more a relief that my office year, at least, is done.
So it’s always a time for reflection, between the more mundane work of returning calls, reviewing the tests that come in, and getting taxes ready. I try to relax as much as I can (given the weird state of our times, I haven’t left town since November 2019, so this is my vacation for now).
Plus, my kids all come home. I have no idea how much longer that’s going to happen, so I’ll enjoy it while I can.
It’s now almost 3 years since I last rounded at a hospital, and I can’t say I miss it. While I usually have plenty to do on my breaks and weekends, and the occasional patient call to return, it’s nice to know that I can stay in my robe, PJs, and slippers through it all.
2022 certainly wasn’t bad for my family and me, though not as good as any of us hoped. The world, already battered by the pandemic, was thrown into greater uncertainty by the war in Europe and its ramifications across the globe. In comparison, I’m very grateful that higher prices are the extent of my suffering as compared with what the people of Ukraine are going through.
But, at the end of it all, my little practice and two wonderful staff are still here, just as we’ve been since 2000. My kids will (hopefully) all be through college by the end of 2023 and moving on with their lives. I love them, and will miss them if they move away, but part of being a parent is accepting that your kids are only visitors and have their own paths to follow.
For my staff I’m glad they’ve stuck with me through good and bad times, and that we still have fun together – even when we haven’t worked under the same roof in a while.
For my patients and their families we’ve seen a few glimmers of optimism in treatments and hopefully they’ll continue to grow and be built upon. Heaven knows my field – and many others – can use them.
And so,
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Researchers probe ‘systematic error’ in gun injury data
These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.
“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”
In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.
For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.
Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.
Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.
ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.
The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.
Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.
Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.
Trends and interventions
Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.
Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.
They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.
Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.
To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.
They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.
“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.
The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.
Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.
“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”
In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.
For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.
Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.
Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.
ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.
The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.
Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.
Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.
Trends and interventions
Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.
Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.
They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.
Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.
To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.
They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.
“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.
The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.
Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.
“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”
In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.
For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.
Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.
Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.
ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.
The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.
Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.
Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.
Trends and interventions
Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.
Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.
They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.
Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.
To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.
They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.
“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.
The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.
Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
COVID booster shot poll: People ‘don’t think they need one’
Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.
The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.
Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling.
So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.
Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.
Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.
“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.
Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.
Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.
“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.
The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.
Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling.
So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.
Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.
Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.
“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.
Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.
Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.
“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.
The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.
Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling.
So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.
Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.
Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.
“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.
Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.
Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.
“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Hospitals with more diverse and uninsured patients more likely to provide delayed fracture care
Regardless of individual patient-level characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or insurance status, these patients were more likely to miss the recommended 24-hour benchmark for surgery.
“Institutions that treat a less diverse patient population appeared to be more resilient to the mix of insurance status in their patient population and were more likely to meet time-to-surgery benchmarks, regardless of patient insurance status or population-based insurance mix,” write study author Ida Leah Gitajn, MD, an orthopedic trauma surgeon at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.
“While it is unsurprising that increased delays were associated with underfunded institutions, the association between institutional-level racial disparity and surgical delays implies structural health systems bias,” the authors wrote.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Site performance varied
Racial inequalities in health care utilization and outcomes have been documented in many medical specialties, including orthopedic trauma, the study authors write. However, previous studies evaluating racial disparities in fracture care have been limited to patient-level associations rather than hospital-level factors.
The investigators conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected multicenter data for 2,565 patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in two randomized trials at 23 sites in the United States and Canada. The researchers assessed whether disparities in meeting 24-hour time-to-surgery benchmarks exist at the patient level or at the institutional level, evaluating the association of race, ethnicity, and insurance status.
The cohort study used data from the Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Preoperative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREP-IT), which enrolled patients from 2018-2021 and followed them for 1 year. All patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in the PREP-IT program were included in the analysis, which was conducted from April to September of this year.
The cohort included 2,565 patients with an average age of about 65 years. About 82% of patients were White, 13.4% were Black, 3.2% were Asian, and 1.1% were classified as another race or ethnicity. Among the study population, 32.5% of participants were employed, and 92.2% had health insurance. Nearly 40% had a femur fracture with an average injury severity score of 10.4.
Overall, 596 patients (23.2%) didn’t meet the 24-hour time-to-operating-room benchmark. Patients who didn’t meet the 24-hour surgical window were more likely to be older, women, and have a femur fracture. They were less likely to be employed.
The 23 sites had variability in meeting the 24-hour benchmark, race and ethnicity distribution, and population-based health insurance. Institutions met benchmarks at frequencies ranging from 45.2% (for 196 of 433 procedures) to 97.4% (37 of 38 procedures). Minority race and ethnicity distribution ranged from 0% (in 99 procedures) to 58.2% (in 53 of 91 procedures). The proportion of uninsured patients ranged from 0% (in 64 procedures) to 34.2% (in 13 of 38 procedures).
At the patient level, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and race or ethnicity, and there was no independent association between hospital population racial composition and surgical delay. In an analysis that controlled for patient-level characteristics, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and patient-level insurance status.
There was an independent association, however, between the hospital population insurance coverage and hospital population racial composition as an interaction term, suggesting a moderating effect (P = .03), the study authors write.
At low rates of uninsured patients, the probability of missing the 24-hour benchmark was 12.5%-14.6% when racial composition varied from 0%-50% minority patients. In contrast, at higher rates of uninsured patients, the risk of missing the 24-hour window was higher among more diverse populations. For instance, at 30% uninsured, the risk of missing the benchmark was 0.5% when the racial composition was low and 17.6% at 50% minority patients.
Additional studies are needed to understand the findings and how health system programs or structures play a role, the authors write. For instance, well-funded health systems that care for a higher proportion of insured patients likely have quality improvement programs and other support structures, such as operating room access, that ensure appropriate time-to-surgery benchmarks for time-sensitive fractures, they say.
Addressing inequalities
Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said, “Despite these disparities being reported and well documented in recent years, unfortunately, not enough has been done to address them or understand their fundamental root causes.”
Dr. Amen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched racial and ethnic disparities in hip fracture surgery care across the United States. He and his colleagues found disparities in delayed time-to-surgery, particularly for Black patients.
“We live in a country and society where we want and strive for equality of care for patients regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or background,” he said. “We have a moral imperative to address these disparities as health care providers, not only among ourselves, but also in conjunction with lawmakers, hospital administrators, and health policy specialists.”
Uma Srikumaran, MD, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wasn’t involved with this study but has researched racial disparities in the timing of radiographic assessment and surgical treatment of hip fractures.
“Though we understand that racial disparities are pervasive in health care, we have a great deal left to understand about the extent of those disparities and all the various factors that contribute to them,” Dr. Srikumaran told this news organization.
Dr. Srikumaran and colleagues have found that Black patients had longer wait times for evaluation and surgery than White patients.
“We all want to get to the solutions, but those can be difficult to execute without an intricate understanding of the problem,” he said. “We should encourage this type of research all throughout health care in general but also very locally, as solutions are not likely to be one-size-fits-all.”
Dr. Srikumaran pointed to the need to measure the problem in specific pathologies, populations, geographies, hospital types, and other factors.
“Studying the trends of this issue will help us determine whether our national or local initiatives are making a difference and which interventions are most effective for a particular hospital, geographic location, or particular pathology,” he said. “Accordingly, if a particular hospital or health system isn’t looking at differences in the delivery of care by race, they are missing an opportunity to ensure equity and raise overall quality.”
The study was supported by funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Gitajn reported receiving personal fees for consulting and teaching work from Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr. Amen and Dr. Srikumaran reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Regardless of individual patient-level characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or insurance status, these patients were more likely to miss the recommended 24-hour benchmark for surgery.
“Institutions that treat a less diverse patient population appeared to be more resilient to the mix of insurance status in their patient population and were more likely to meet time-to-surgery benchmarks, regardless of patient insurance status or population-based insurance mix,” write study author Ida Leah Gitajn, MD, an orthopedic trauma surgeon at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.
“While it is unsurprising that increased delays were associated with underfunded institutions, the association between institutional-level racial disparity and surgical delays implies structural health systems bias,” the authors wrote.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Site performance varied
Racial inequalities in health care utilization and outcomes have been documented in many medical specialties, including orthopedic trauma, the study authors write. However, previous studies evaluating racial disparities in fracture care have been limited to patient-level associations rather than hospital-level factors.
The investigators conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected multicenter data for 2,565 patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in two randomized trials at 23 sites in the United States and Canada. The researchers assessed whether disparities in meeting 24-hour time-to-surgery benchmarks exist at the patient level or at the institutional level, evaluating the association of race, ethnicity, and insurance status.
The cohort study used data from the Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Preoperative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREP-IT), which enrolled patients from 2018-2021 and followed them for 1 year. All patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in the PREP-IT program were included in the analysis, which was conducted from April to September of this year.
The cohort included 2,565 patients with an average age of about 65 years. About 82% of patients were White, 13.4% were Black, 3.2% were Asian, and 1.1% were classified as another race or ethnicity. Among the study population, 32.5% of participants were employed, and 92.2% had health insurance. Nearly 40% had a femur fracture with an average injury severity score of 10.4.
Overall, 596 patients (23.2%) didn’t meet the 24-hour time-to-operating-room benchmark. Patients who didn’t meet the 24-hour surgical window were more likely to be older, women, and have a femur fracture. They were less likely to be employed.
The 23 sites had variability in meeting the 24-hour benchmark, race and ethnicity distribution, and population-based health insurance. Institutions met benchmarks at frequencies ranging from 45.2% (for 196 of 433 procedures) to 97.4% (37 of 38 procedures). Minority race and ethnicity distribution ranged from 0% (in 99 procedures) to 58.2% (in 53 of 91 procedures). The proportion of uninsured patients ranged from 0% (in 64 procedures) to 34.2% (in 13 of 38 procedures).
At the patient level, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and race or ethnicity, and there was no independent association between hospital population racial composition and surgical delay. In an analysis that controlled for patient-level characteristics, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and patient-level insurance status.
There was an independent association, however, between the hospital population insurance coverage and hospital population racial composition as an interaction term, suggesting a moderating effect (P = .03), the study authors write.
At low rates of uninsured patients, the probability of missing the 24-hour benchmark was 12.5%-14.6% when racial composition varied from 0%-50% minority patients. In contrast, at higher rates of uninsured patients, the risk of missing the 24-hour window was higher among more diverse populations. For instance, at 30% uninsured, the risk of missing the benchmark was 0.5% when the racial composition was low and 17.6% at 50% minority patients.
Additional studies are needed to understand the findings and how health system programs or structures play a role, the authors write. For instance, well-funded health systems that care for a higher proportion of insured patients likely have quality improvement programs and other support structures, such as operating room access, that ensure appropriate time-to-surgery benchmarks for time-sensitive fractures, they say.
Addressing inequalities
Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said, “Despite these disparities being reported and well documented in recent years, unfortunately, not enough has been done to address them or understand their fundamental root causes.”
Dr. Amen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched racial and ethnic disparities in hip fracture surgery care across the United States. He and his colleagues found disparities in delayed time-to-surgery, particularly for Black patients.
“We live in a country and society where we want and strive for equality of care for patients regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or background,” he said. “We have a moral imperative to address these disparities as health care providers, not only among ourselves, but also in conjunction with lawmakers, hospital administrators, and health policy specialists.”
Uma Srikumaran, MD, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wasn’t involved with this study but has researched racial disparities in the timing of radiographic assessment and surgical treatment of hip fractures.
“Though we understand that racial disparities are pervasive in health care, we have a great deal left to understand about the extent of those disparities and all the various factors that contribute to them,” Dr. Srikumaran told this news organization.
Dr. Srikumaran and colleagues have found that Black patients had longer wait times for evaluation and surgery than White patients.
“We all want to get to the solutions, but those can be difficult to execute without an intricate understanding of the problem,” he said. “We should encourage this type of research all throughout health care in general but also very locally, as solutions are not likely to be one-size-fits-all.”
Dr. Srikumaran pointed to the need to measure the problem in specific pathologies, populations, geographies, hospital types, and other factors.
“Studying the trends of this issue will help us determine whether our national or local initiatives are making a difference and which interventions are most effective for a particular hospital, geographic location, or particular pathology,” he said. “Accordingly, if a particular hospital or health system isn’t looking at differences in the delivery of care by race, they are missing an opportunity to ensure equity and raise overall quality.”
The study was supported by funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Gitajn reported receiving personal fees for consulting and teaching work from Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr. Amen and Dr. Srikumaran reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Regardless of individual patient-level characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or insurance status, these patients were more likely to miss the recommended 24-hour benchmark for surgery.
“Institutions that treat a less diverse patient population appeared to be more resilient to the mix of insurance status in their patient population and were more likely to meet time-to-surgery benchmarks, regardless of patient insurance status or population-based insurance mix,” write study author Ida Leah Gitajn, MD, an orthopedic trauma surgeon at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.
“While it is unsurprising that increased delays were associated with underfunded institutions, the association between institutional-level racial disparity and surgical delays implies structural health systems bias,” the authors wrote.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Site performance varied
Racial inequalities in health care utilization and outcomes have been documented in many medical specialties, including orthopedic trauma, the study authors write. However, previous studies evaluating racial disparities in fracture care have been limited to patient-level associations rather than hospital-level factors.
The investigators conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected multicenter data for 2,565 patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in two randomized trials at 23 sites in the United States and Canada. The researchers assessed whether disparities in meeting 24-hour time-to-surgery benchmarks exist at the patient level or at the institutional level, evaluating the association of race, ethnicity, and insurance status.
The cohort study used data from the Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Preoperative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREP-IT), which enrolled patients from 2018-2021 and followed them for 1 year. All patients with hip and femur fractures enrolled in the PREP-IT program were included in the analysis, which was conducted from April to September of this year.
The cohort included 2,565 patients with an average age of about 65 years. About 82% of patients were White, 13.4% were Black, 3.2% were Asian, and 1.1% were classified as another race or ethnicity. Among the study population, 32.5% of participants were employed, and 92.2% had health insurance. Nearly 40% had a femur fracture with an average injury severity score of 10.4.
Overall, 596 patients (23.2%) didn’t meet the 24-hour time-to-operating-room benchmark. Patients who didn’t meet the 24-hour surgical window were more likely to be older, women, and have a femur fracture. They were less likely to be employed.
The 23 sites had variability in meeting the 24-hour benchmark, race and ethnicity distribution, and population-based health insurance. Institutions met benchmarks at frequencies ranging from 45.2% (for 196 of 433 procedures) to 97.4% (37 of 38 procedures). Minority race and ethnicity distribution ranged from 0% (in 99 procedures) to 58.2% (in 53 of 91 procedures). The proportion of uninsured patients ranged from 0% (in 64 procedures) to 34.2% (in 13 of 38 procedures).
At the patient level, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and race or ethnicity, and there was no independent association between hospital population racial composition and surgical delay. In an analysis that controlled for patient-level characteristics, there was no association between missing the 24-hour benchmark and patient-level insurance status.
There was an independent association, however, between the hospital population insurance coverage and hospital population racial composition as an interaction term, suggesting a moderating effect (P = .03), the study authors write.
At low rates of uninsured patients, the probability of missing the 24-hour benchmark was 12.5%-14.6% when racial composition varied from 0%-50% minority patients. In contrast, at higher rates of uninsured patients, the risk of missing the 24-hour window was higher among more diverse populations. For instance, at 30% uninsured, the risk of missing the benchmark was 0.5% when the racial composition was low and 17.6% at 50% minority patients.
Additional studies are needed to understand the findings and how health system programs or structures play a role, the authors write. For instance, well-funded health systems that care for a higher proportion of insured patients likely have quality improvement programs and other support structures, such as operating room access, that ensure appropriate time-to-surgery benchmarks for time-sensitive fractures, they say.
Addressing inequalities
Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said, “Despite these disparities being reported and well documented in recent years, unfortunately, not enough has been done to address them or understand their fundamental root causes.”
Dr. Amen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched racial and ethnic disparities in hip fracture surgery care across the United States. He and his colleagues found disparities in delayed time-to-surgery, particularly for Black patients.
“We live in a country and society where we want and strive for equality of care for patients regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or background,” he said. “We have a moral imperative to address these disparities as health care providers, not only among ourselves, but also in conjunction with lawmakers, hospital administrators, and health policy specialists.”
Uma Srikumaran, MD, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wasn’t involved with this study but has researched racial disparities in the timing of radiographic assessment and surgical treatment of hip fractures.
“Though we understand that racial disparities are pervasive in health care, we have a great deal left to understand about the extent of those disparities and all the various factors that contribute to them,” Dr. Srikumaran told this news organization.
Dr. Srikumaran and colleagues have found that Black patients had longer wait times for evaluation and surgery than White patients.
“We all want to get to the solutions, but those can be difficult to execute without an intricate understanding of the problem,” he said. “We should encourage this type of research all throughout health care in general but also very locally, as solutions are not likely to be one-size-fits-all.”
Dr. Srikumaran pointed to the need to measure the problem in specific pathologies, populations, geographies, hospital types, and other factors.
“Studying the trends of this issue will help us determine whether our national or local initiatives are making a difference and which interventions are most effective for a particular hospital, geographic location, or particular pathology,” he said. “Accordingly, if a particular hospital or health system isn’t looking at differences in the delivery of care by race, they are missing an opportunity to ensure equity and raise overall quality.”
The study was supported by funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Gitajn reported receiving personal fees for consulting and teaching work from Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr. Amen and Dr. Srikumaran reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Behavioral treatment tied to lower medical, pharmacy costs
Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.
“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Common, undertreated
Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.
In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.
About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.
About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.
The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.
Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Dose-response effect
In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.
“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.
“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.
Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.
However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.
“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.
“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.
The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.
“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Common, undertreated
Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.
In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.
About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.
About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.
The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.
Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Dose-response effect
In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.
“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.
“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.
Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.
However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.
“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.
“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.
The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.
“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Common, undertreated
Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.
In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.
About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.
About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.
The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.
Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Dose-response effect
In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.
“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.
“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.
Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.
However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.
“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.
“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.
The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
‘Dr. Pimple Popper’ offers tips for building a social media presence
SAN DIEGO – In the fall of 2014, Sandra Lee, MD, posted a blackhead extraction video on her Instagram account, a decision that changed her professional life forever.
“I got these crazy comments,” Dr. Lee, a dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif., recalled at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “Either people loved it – they were obsessed – or they thought it was the most disgusting thing they’d ever seen. It created a strong reaction. Either way, they shared it with their friends.”
Soon after she started posting videos, she discovered Reddit, which has a subreddit for “popping addicts” and the “pop-curious.” “I thought, ‘These videos are so amateur. They’re culling them from the Internet. Or, they’re pinning down their son at the beach and trying to squeeze out a blackhead,’ ” Dr. Lee said. “I thought, ‘I could give them pristine videos,’ ” and that is exactly what she did.
Turning to YouTube as a platform, she began to post videos showing everything from Mohs surgery and Botox injections to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. With this, . She also grew 16.2 million subscribers on TikTok, 4.5 million followers on Instagram, 2.9 million on Facebook, and 136,700 on Twitter.
About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age. “I have over 5 billion views on YouTube, which is mind-blowing,” she said. “That tells you something about the content. It’s not something people watch once. They watch it over and over again.” These include videos compiled as a “bedtime story.”
Dr. Lee offered the following pearls of advice for dermatologists looking to build and maintain a presence on social media:
Use it to showcase what makes you unique. Post what you do on social media, and people will find you. “It’s an opportunity to freely advertise,” Dr. Lee said. “I’m super nitpicky about posting good before-and-after photos. You can also show off how nice and warm and inviting your office is. People come to see me because they know my voice. They know how I interact with patients. That is reason for them enough to travel from far away to see me. It doesn’t mean that I’m the person who is best at treating whatever condition they have.”
Make it interesting. “I say that the special sauce is entertainment and education,” said Dr. Lee, who is in the fifth season of “Dr. Pimple Popper,” her TV show that airs internationally. “The only way you can draw people in is by entertaining them, catching their interest. But I try to trick them into educating them. Five-year-old kids come up to me now and know what a lipoma is. I’m proud of that.”
Be authentic. You may be using social media to promote your dermatology practice, but it’s important for followers to get a glimpse of your nonwork personality as well. Maybe that means posting a photo of yourself at a concert, baseball game, or dinner with family and friends. “Show that you have a sense of humor, because you want them to like you,” Dr. Lee added. “That’s why someone follows you, because they want to be your friend. They enjoy spending time with you on the Internet. It’s like gambling. In order to win, you have to play. So, you have to post.”
Avoid hot-button topics. “I don’t post about my kids, and I try to choose sponsorships wisely,” she said. “I do very few branding deals. Be careful about your brand and how you present yourself. Present yourself in an authentic way, but not in a way that hurts yourself or the dermatology profession.”
Be mindful of the time investment. “It’s like running a whole other business,” Dr. Lee said. “There are also trolls out there, so you have to have thick skin.”
Don’t sweat it if you don’t want to engage. “Not everybody wants to do it, and not everybody will be good at it, but that’s okay,” she said.
Dr. Lee reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – In the fall of 2014, Sandra Lee, MD, posted a blackhead extraction video on her Instagram account, a decision that changed her professional life forever.
“I got these crazy comments,” Dr. Lee, a dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif., recalled at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “Either people loved it – they were obsessed – or they thought it was the most disgusting thing they’d ever seen. It created a strong reaction. Either way, they shared it with their friends.”
Soon after she started posting videos, she discovered Reddit, which has a subreddit for “popping addicts” and the “pop-curious.” “I thought, ‘These videos are so amateur. They’re culling them from the Internet. Or, they’re pinning down their son at the beach and trying to squeeze out a blackhead,’ ” Dr. Lee said. “I thought, ‘I could give them pristine videos,’ ” and that is exactly what she did.
Turning to YouTube as a platform, she began to post videos showing everything from Mohs surgery and Botox injections to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. With this, . She also grew 16.2 million subscribers on TikTok, 4.5 million followers on Instagram, 2.9 million on Facebook, and 136,700 on Twitter.
About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age. “I have over 5 billion views on YouTube, which is mind-blowing,” she said. “That tells you something about the content. It’s not something people watch once. They watch it over and over again.” These include videos compiled as a “bedtime story.”
Dr. Lee offered the following pearls of advice for dermatologists looking to build and maintain a presence on social media:
Use it to showcase what makes you unique. Post what you do on social media, and people will find you. “It’s an opportunity to freely advertise,” Dr. Lee said. “I’m super nitpicky about posting good before-and-after photos. You can also show off how nice and warm and inviting your office is. People come to see me because they know my voice. They know how I interact with patients. That is reason for them enough to travel from far away to see me. It doesn’t mean that I’m the person who is best at treating whatever condition they have.”
Make it interesting. “I say that the special sauce is entertainment and education,” said Dr. Lee, who is in the fifth season of “Dr. Pimple Popper,” her TV show that airs internationally. “The only way you can draw people in is by entertaining them, catching their interest. But I try to trick them into educating them. Five-year-old kids come up to me now and know what a lipoma is. I’m proud of that.”
Be authentic. You may be using social media to promote your dermatology practice, but it’s important for followers to get a glimpse of your nonwork personality as well. Maybe that means posting a photo of yourself at a concert, baseball game, or dinner with family and friends. “Show that you have a sense of humor, because you want them to like you,” Dr. Lee added. “That’s why someone follows you, because they want to be your friend. They enjoy spending time with you on the Internet. It’s like gambling. In order to win, you have to play. So, you have to post.”
Avoid hot-button topics. “I don’t post about my kids, and I try to choose sponsorships wisely,” she said. “I do very few branding deals. Be careful about your brand and how you present yourself. Present yourself in an authentic way, but not in a way that hurts yourself or the dermatology profession.”
Be mindful of the time investment. “It’s like running a whole other business,” Dr. Lee said. “There are also trolls out there, so you have to have thick skin.”
Don’t sweat it if you don’t want to engage. “Not everybody wants to do it, and not everybody will be good at it, but that’s okay,” she said.
Dr. Lee reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – In the fall of 2014, Sandra Lee, MD, posted a blackhead extraction video on her Instagram account, a decision that changed her professional life forever.
“I got these crazy comments,” Dr. Lee, a dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif., recalled at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “Either people loved it – they were obsessed – or they thought it was the most disgusting thing they’d ever seen. It created a strong reaction. Either way, they shared it with their friends.”
Soon after she started posting videos, she discovered Reddit, which has a subreddit for “popping addicts” and the “pop-curious.” “I thought, ‘These videos are so amateur. They’re culling them from the Internet. Or, they’re pinning down their son at the beach and trying to squeeze out a blackhead,’ ” Dr. Lee said. “I thought, ‘I could give them pristine videos,’ ” and that is exactly what she did.
Turning to YouTube as a platform, she began to post videos showing everything from Mohs surgery and Botox injections to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. With this, . She also grew 16.2 million subscribers on TikTok, 4.5 million followers on Instagram, 2.9 million on Facebook, and 136,700 on Twitter.
About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age. “I have over 5 billion views on YouTube, which is mind-blowing,” she said. “That tells you something about the content. It’s not something people watch once. They watch it over and over again.” These include videos compiled as a “bedtime story.”
Dr. Lee offered the following pearls of advice for dermatologists looking to build and maintain a presence on social media:
Use it to showcase what makes you unique. Post what you do on social media, and people will find you. “It’s an opportunity to freely advertise,” Dr. Lee said. “I’m super nitpicky about posting good before-and-after photos. You can also show off how nice and warm and inviting your office is. People come to see me because they know my voice. They know how I interact with patients. That is reason for them enough to travel from far away to see me. It doesn’t mean that I’m the person who is best at treating whatever condition they have.”
Make it interesting. “I say that the special sauce is entertainment and education,” said Dr. Lee, who is in the fifth season of “Dr. Pimple Popper,” her TV show that airs internationally. “The only way you can draw people in is by entertaining them, catching their interest. But I try to trick them into educating them. Five-year-old kids come up to me now and know what a lipoma is. I’m proud of that.”
Be authentic. You may be using social media to promote your dermatology practice, but it’s important for followers to get a glimpse of your nonwork personality as well. Maybe that means posting a photo of yourself at a concert, baseball game, or dinner with family and friends. “Show that you have a sense of humor, because you want them to like you,” Dr. Lee added. “That’s why someone follows you, because they want to be your friend. They enjoy spending time with you on the Internet. It’s like gambling. In order to win, you have to play. So, you have to post.”
Avoid hot-button topics. “I don’t post about my kids, and I try to choose sponsorships wisely,” she said. “I do very few branding deals. Be careful about your brand and how you present yourself. Present yourself in an authentic way, but not in a way that hurts yourself or the dermatology profession.”
Be mindful of the time investment. “It’s like running a whole other business,” Dr. Lee said. “There are also trolls out there, so you have to have thick skin.”
Don’t sweat it if you don’t want to engage. “Not everybody wants to do it, and not everybody will be good at it, but that’s okay,” she said.
Dr. Lee reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT MOAS 2022