Business of Medicine

It’s not unusual for physicians to see other doctors as patients – often they’re colleagues or even friends. That relationship can influence their behavior and how they treat the physician-patient, which may have unintended consequences for both of them.

“When doctors don’t get the proper care, that’s when things go south. Any time physicians lower their standard of care, there is a risk of missing something that could affect their differential diagnosis, ultimate working diagnosis, and treatment plan,” said Michael Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, who saw only medical students, physicians, and their family members in his private practice for over 3 decades.

Of the more than 200 physicians who responded to a recent Medscape poll, more than half said they treated physician-patients differently from other patients.

They granted their peers special privileges: They spent more time with them than other patients, gave out their personal contact information, and granted them professional courtesy by waiving or discounting their fees.

Published studies have reported that special treatment of physician-patients, such as giving personal contact information or avoiding uncomfortable testing, can create challenges for the treating physicians who may feel pressure to deviate from the standard of care.

The American Medical Association has recognized the challenges that physicians have when they treat other physicians they know personally or professionally, including a potential loss of objectivity, privacy, or confidentiality.

The AMA recommends that physicians treat physician-patients the same way they would other patients. The guidance states that the treating physician should exercise objective professional judgment and make unbiased treatment recommendations; be sensitive to the potential psychological discomfort of the physician-patient, and respect the physical and informational privacy of physician-patients.

Dr. Myers recalled that one doctor-patient said his primary care physician was his business partner in the practice. They ordered tests for each other and occasionally examined each other, but the patient never felt comfortable asking his partner for a full physical, said Dr. Myers, the author of “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I recommended that he choose a primary care doctor whom he didn’t know so that he could truly be a patient and the doctor could truly be a treating doctor,” said Dr. Myers.

Physician-patients may also be concerned about running into their physicians and being judged, or that they will break confidentiality and tell their spouse or another colleague, said Dr. Myers.

“When your doctor is a complete and total stranger, and especially if you live in a sizable community and your paths never cross, you don’t have that added worry,” he said.
 

Do docs expect special treatment as patients?

Some doctors expect special treatment from other doctors when they’re patients – 14% of physician poll respondents said that was their experience.

Dr. Myers recommends setting boundaries with doctor-patients early on in the relationship. “Some doctors expected me to go over my regular appointment time and when they realized that I started and stopped on time, they got upset. Once, one doctor insisted to my answering service that he had to talk to me although I was at home. When he started talking, I interrupted him and asked if the matter was urgent. He said no, so I offered to fit him in before his next appointment if he felt it couldn’t wait,” said Dr. Myers.

Some doctors also give physician-patients “professional courtesy” when it comes to payment. One in four poll respondents said they waived or discounted their professional fees for a doctor-patient. As most doctors have health insurance, doctors may waive copayments or other out-of-pocket fees, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, waiving or discounting health insurance fees, especially for government funded insurance, may be illegal under federal anti-fraud and abuse laws and payer contracts as well as state laws, the AAP says. It’s best to check with an attorney.
 

Treating other physicians can be rewarding

“Physicians can be the most rewarding patients because they are allies and partners in the effort to overcome whatever is ailing them,” said one doctor who responded to the Medscape poll.

Over two-thirds of respondents said that doctor-patients participated much more in their care than did other patients – typically, they discussed their care in more depth than did other patients.

Most doctors also felt that it was easier to communicate with their physician-patients than other patients because they understood medicine and were knowledgeable about their conditions.
 

Being judged by your peers can be stressful

How physicians feel about treating physician-patients is complicated. Nearly half of respondents said that it was more stressful than treating other patients.

One respondent said, “If we are honest, treating other physicians as patients is more stressful because we know that our skills are being assessed by someone who is at our level. There is no training for treating physicians, as there is for the Pope’s confessor. And we can be challenging in more ways than one!”

About one-third of poll respondents said they were afraid of disappointing their physician-patients.

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Myers, when told of that poll response. “This is why some doctors are reluctant to treat other physicians; they may wonder whether they’re up to speed. I have always thrived on having a high bar set for me – it spurs me on to really stay current with the literature and be humble,” he said.

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

It’s not unusual for physicians to see other doctors as patients – often they’re colleagues or even friends. That relationship can influence their behavior and how they treat the physician-patient, which may have unintended consequences for both of them.

“When doctors don’t get the proper care, that’s when things go south. Any time physicians lower their standard of care, there is a risk of missing something that could affect their differential diagnosis, ultimate working diagnosis, and treatment plan,” said Michael Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, who saw only medical students, physicians, and their family members in his private practice for over 3 decades.

Of the more than 200 physicians who responded to a recent Medscape poll, more than half said they treated physician-patients differently from other patients.

They granted their peers special privileges: They spent more time with them than other patients, gave out their personal contact information, and granted them professional courtesy by waiving or discounting their fees.

Published studies have reported that special treatment of physician-patients, such as giving personal contact information or avoiding uncomfortable testing, can create challenges for the treating physicians who may feel pressure to deviate from the standard of care.

The American Medical Association has recognized the challenges that physicians have when they treat other physicians they know personally or professionally, including a potential loss of objectivity, privacy, or confidentiality.

The AMA recommends that physicians treat physician-patients the same way they would other patients. The guidance states that the treating physician should exercise objective professional judgment and make unbiased treatment recommendations; be sensitive to the potential psychological discomfort of the physician-patient, and respect the physical and informational privacy of physician-patients.

Dr. Myers recalled that one doctor-patient said his primary care physician was his business partner in the practice. They ordered tests for each other and occasionally examined each other, but the patient never felt comfortable asking his partner for a full physical, said Dr. Myers, the author of “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I recommended that he choose a primary care doctor whom he didn’t know so that he could truly be a patient and the doctor could truly be a treating doctor,” said Dr. Myers.

Physician-patients may also be concerned about running into their physicians and being judged, or that they will break confidentiality and tell their spouse or another colleague, said Dr. Myers.

“When your doctor is a complete and total stranger, and especially if you live in a sizable community and your paths never cross, you don’t have that added worry,” he said.
 

Do docs expect special treatment as patients?

Some doctors expect special treatment from other doctors when they’re patients – 14% of physician poll respondents said that was their experience.

Dr. Myers recommends setting boundaries with doctor-patients early on in the relationship. “Some doctors expected me to go over my regular appointment time and when they realized that I started and stopped on time, they got upset. Once, one doctor insisted to my answering service that he had to talk to me although I was at home. When he started talking, I interrupted him and asked if the matter was urgent. He said no, so I offered to fit him in before his next appointment if he felt it couldn’t wait,” said Dr. Myers.

Some doctors also give physician-patients “professional courtesy” when it comes to payment. One in four poll respondents said they waived or discounted their professional fees for a doctor-patient. As most doctors have health insurance, doctors may waive copayments or other out-of-pocket fees, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, waiving or discounting health insurance fees, especially for government funded insurance, may be illegal under federal anti-fraud and abuse laws and payer contracts as well as state laws, the AAP says. It’s best to check with an attorney.
 

Treating other physicians can be rewarding

“Physicians can be the most rewarding patients because they are allies and partners in the effort to overcome whatever is ailing them,” said one doctor who responded to the Medscape poll.

Over two-thirds of respondents said that doctor-patients participated much more in their care than did other patients – typically, they discussed their care in more depth than did other patients.

Most doctors also felt that it was easier to communicate with their physician-patients than other patients because they understood medicine and were knowledgeable about their conditions.
 

Being judged by your peers can be stressful

How physicians feel about treating physician-patients is complicated. Nearly half of respondents said that it was more stressful than treating other patients.

One respondent said, “If we are honest, treating other physicians as patients is more stressful because we know that our skills are being assessed by someone who is at our level. There is no training for treating physicians, as there is for the Pope’s confessor. And we can be challenging in more ways than one!”

About one-third of poll respondents said they were afraid of disappointing their physician-patients.

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Myers, when told of that poll response. “This is why some doctors are reluctant to treat other physicians; they may wonder whether they’re up to speed. I have always thrived on having a high bar set for me – it spurs me on to really stay current with the literature and be humble,” he said.

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

It’s not unusual for physicians to see other doctors as patients – often they’re colleagues or even friends. That relationship can influence their behavior and how they treat the physician-patient, which may have unintended consequences for both of them.

“When doctors don’t get the proper care, that’s when things go south. Any time physicians lower their standard of care, there is a risk of missing something that could affect their differential diagnosis, ultimate working diagnosis, and treatment plan,” said Michael Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, who saw only medical students, physicians, and their family members in his private practice for over 3 decades.

Of the more than 200 physicians who responded to a recent Medscape poll, more than half said they treated physician-patients differently from other patients.

They granted their peers special privileges: They spent more time with them than other patients, gave out their personal contact information, and granted them professional courtesy by waiving or discounting their fees.

Published studies have reported that special treatment of physician-patients, such as giving personal contact information or avoiding uncomfortable testing, can create challenges for the treating physicians who may feel pressure to deviate from the standard of care.

The American Medical Association has recognized the challenges that physicians have when they treat other physicians they know personally or professionally, including a potential loss of objectivity, privacy, or confidentiality.

The AMA recommends that physicians treat physician-patients the same way they would other patients. The guidance states that the treating physician should exercise objective professional judgment and make unbiased treatment recommendations; be sensitive to the potential psychological discomfort of the physician-patient, and respect the physical and informational privacy of physician-patients.

Dr. Myers recalled that one doctor-patient said his primary care physician was his business partner in the practice. They ordered tests for each other and occasionally examined each other, but the patient never felt comfortable asking his partner for a full physical, said Dr. Myers, the author of “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I recommended that he choose a primary care doctor whom he didn’t know so that he could truly be a patient and the doctor could truly be a treating doctor,” said Dr. Myers.

Physician-patients may also be concerned about running into their physicians and being judged, or that they will break confidentiality and tell their spouse or another colleague, said Dr. Myers.

“When your doctor is a complete and total stranger, and especially if you live in a sizable community and your paths never cross, you don’t have that added worry,” he said.
 

Do docs expect special treatment as patients?

Some doctors expect special treatment from other doctors when they’re patients – 14% of physician poll respondents said that was their experience.

Dr. Myers recommends setting boundaries with doctor-patients early on in the relationship. “Some doctors expected me to go over my regular appointment time and when they realized that I started and stopped on time, they got upset. Once, one doctor insisted to my answering service that he had to talk to me although I was at home. When he started talking, I interrupted him and asked if the matter was urgent. He said no, so I offered to fit him in before his next appointment if he felt it couldn’t wait,” said Dr. Myers.

Some doctors also give physician-patients “professional courtesy” when it comes to payment. One in four poll respondents said they waived or discounted their professional fees for a doctor-patient. As most doctors have health insurance, doctors may waive copayments or other out-of-pocket fees, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, waiving or discounting health insurance fees, especially for government funded insurance, may be illegal under federal anti-fraud and abuse laws and payer contracts as well as state laws, the AAP says. It’s best to check with an attorney.
 

Treating other physicians can be rewarding

“Physicians can be the most rewarding patients because they are allies and partners in the effort to overcome whatever is ailing them,” said one doctor who responded to the Medscape poll.

Over two-thirds of respondents said that doctor-patients participated much more in their care than did other patients – typically, they discussed their care in more depth than did other patients.

Most doctors also felt that it was easier to communicate with their physician-patients than other patients because they understood medicine and were knowledgeable about their conditions.
 

Being judged by your peers can be stressful

How physicians feel about treating physician-patients is complicated. Nearly half of respondents said that it was more stressful than treating other patients.

One respondent said, “If we are honest, treating other physicians as patients is more stressful because we know that our skills are being assessed by someone who is at our level. There is no training for treating physicians, as there is for the Pope’s confessor. And we can be challenging in more ways than one!”

About one-third of poll respondents said they were afraid of disappointing their physician-patients.

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Myers, when told of that poll response. “This is why some doctors are reluctant to treat other physicians; they may wonder whether they’re up to speed. I have always thrived on having a high bar set for me – it spurs me on to really stay current with the literature and be humble,” he said.

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

Meharry Medical College, one of the oldest and largest historically Black academic health institutions in the United States, disclosed recently that its MD program had been placed on probationary status after a national accrediting agency’s onsite survey uncovered “infrastructure” problems earlier this year. Those include faculty shortages and inadequate student access to financial aid as well as to career and wellness counseling.

The inspection was conducted by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), an accrediting body sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

While participation is voluntary, institutions must comply with 12 standards to maintain their standing. These include hiring qualified faculty and providing students with financial aid and debt management counseling.

Jeannette South-Paul, MD, Meharry’s senior vice president and chief academic officer, said in an interview that the degree program remains fully accredited despite the fact that LCME representatives found “notable areas of concern,” including the “need for some infrastructure updates and additional educational and financial resources for students.”

Specifically, students did not have sufficient access to advising services, broadband internet, and study spaces. In addition, faculty shortages caused delays in student evaluations, she said.

The new status does not affect the ability of students to complete their medical degrees or residency programs, she said. Dr. South-Paul added that school officials have begun addressing several of the issues and anticipate a swift resolution “guided by an aggressive action plan over the next 18-24 months.”

The university, located in Nashville, Tenn., has had accreditation problems before. In January, following a site visit and low scores on annual resident surveys, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) placed several of the schools’ residency and fellowship programs on probationary status.

At the time, school officials said that all programs would remain accredited, and they committed to expanding available resources, such as hiring additional staff and an independent expert to make program recommendations. A follow-up site visit was scheduled for August.

Regarding the most recent accreditation challenges, Veronica M. Catanese, MD, MBA, co-secretary of LCME, said the organization could only disclose the accreditation status of a medical school.

“LCME is not able to discuss any details concerning the accreditation of individual medical education programs, including the review process, resulting decisions, or survey results,” she said.

Established medical education programs typically undergo a self-study process and a full survey visit every 8 years. According to LCME’s website, a full survey visit may be conducted sooner if concerns arise about the program’s quality or sustainability.

The LCME program directory lists Meharry Medical College’s accreditation status as “full, on probation.” The next survey visit is scheduled for the 2023-2024 school year.

LCME accreditation is a prerequisite for having access to federal grants and programs, such as Title VII funding, which helps increase minority participation in health care careers. In addition, most state licensure boards and ACGME-affiliated residency programs require applicants to graduate from an LCME-accredited school.

Last year, when Meharry Medical College received pandemic aid money as part of the CARES Act, the school distributed nearly $10 million in scholarships to students – many of whom come from modest-income families and struggle to afford college tuition.

But in general, endowments to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are often at least 70% smaller than those made to non-HBCUs, which raises the question: Does the lack of funding make it more difficult for schools such as Meharry to maintain accreditation standards?

“Many different factors played into this finding by LCME,” said Dr. South-Paul. “It is a well-known fact that HBCUs have historically not been as well funded or possess the same size endowments as their mainstream academic peers. That is true of Meharry, but it would not be accurate to say this probation is because we are an HBCU.”

Similarly, Dr. Catanese said there is no evidence that HBCUs and non-HBCUs differ in their ability to meet LCME accreditation standards.

About half of the school’s residency and fellowship programs continue to have accreditation problems. According to ACGME’s database, the internal medicine program is currently on “continued accreditation with warning” status. The psychiatry and ob.gyn. programs are on “probationary accreditation” after receiving warnings in previous years.

Meharry was chartered in 1915 but was founded in 1876 as one of the first medical schools in the South for Black Americans.

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

Meharry Medical College, one of the oldest and largest historically Black academic health institutions in the United States, disclosed recently that its MD program had been placed on probationary status after a national accrediting agency’s onsite survey uncovered “infrastructure” problems earlier this year. Those include faculty shortages and inadequate student access to financial aid as well as to career and wellness counseling.

The inspection was conducted by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), an accrediting body sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

While participation is voluntary, institutions must comply with 12 standards to maintain their standing. These include hiring qualified faculty and providing students with financial aid and debt management counseling.

Jeannette South-Paul, MD, Meharry’s senior vice president and chief academic officer, said in an interview that the degree program remains fully accredited despite the fact that LCME representatives found “notable areas of concern,” including the “need for some infrastructure updates and additional educational and financial resources for students.”

Specifically, students did not have sufficient access to advising services, broadband internet, and study spaces. In addition, faculty shortages caused delays in student evaluations, she said.

The new status does not affect the ability of students to complete their medical degrees or residency programs, she said. Dr. South-Paul added that school officials have begun addressing several of the issues and anticipate a swift resolution “guided by an aggressive action plan over the next 18-24 months.”

The university, located in Nashville, Tenn., has had accreditation problems before. In January, following a site visit and low scores on annual resident surveys, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) placed several of the schools’ residency and fellowship programs on probationary status.

At the time, school officials said that all programs would remain accredited, and they committed to expanding available resources, such as hiring additional staff and an independent expert to make program recommendations. A follow-up site visit was scheduled for August.

Regarding the most recent accreditation challenges, Veronica M. Catanese, MD, MBA, co-secretary of LCME, said the organization could only disclose the accreditation status of a medical school.

“LCME is not able to discuss any details concerning the accreditation of individual medical education programs, including the review process, resulting decisions, or survey results,” she said.

Established medical education programs typically undergo a self-study process and a full survey visit every 8 years. According to LCME’s website, a full survey visit may be conducted sooner if concerns arise about the program’s quality or sustainability.

The LCME program directory lists Meharry Medical College’s accreditation status as “full, on probation.” The next survey visit is scheduled for the 2023-2024 school year.

LCME accreditation is a prerequisite for having access to federal grants and programs, such as Title VII funding, which helps increase minority participation in health care careers. In addition, most state licensure boards and ACGME-affiliated residency programs require applicants to graduate from an LCME-accredited school.

Last year, when Meharry Medical College received pandemic aid money as part of the CARES Act, the school distributed nearly $10 million in scholarships to students – many of whom come from modest-income families and struggle to afford college tuition.

But in general, endowments to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are often at least 70% smaller than those made to non-HBCUs, which raises the question: Does the lack of funding make it more difficult for schools such as Meharry to maintain accreditation standards?

“Many different factors played into this finding by LCME,” said Dr. South-Paul. “It is a well-known fact that HBCUs have historically not been as well funded or possess the same size endowments as their mainstream academic peers. That is true of Meharry, but it would not be accurate to say this probation is because we are an HBCU.”

Similarly, Dr. Catanese said there is no evidence that HBCUs and non-HBCUs differ in their ability to meet LCME accreditation standards.

About half of the school’s residency and fellowship programs continue to have accreditation problems. According to ACGME’s database, the internal medicine program is currently on “continued accreditation with warning” status. The psychiatry and ob.gyn. programs are on “probationary accreditation” after receiving warnings in previous years.

Meharry was chartered in 1915 but was founded in 1876 as one of the first medical schools in the South for Black Americans.

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

Meharry Medical College, one of the oldest and largest historically Black academic health institutions in the United States, disclosed recently that its MD program had been placed on probationary status after a national accrediting agency’s onsite survey uncovered “infrastructure” problems earlier this year. Those include faculty shortages and inadequate student access to financial aid as well as to career and wellness counseling.

The inspection was conducted by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), an accrediting body sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

While participation is voluntary, institutions must comply with 12 standards to maintain their standing. These include hiring qualified faculty and providing students with financial aid and debt management counseling.

Jeannette South-Paul, MD, Meharry’s senior vice president and chief academic officer, said in an interview that the degree program remains fully accredited despite the fact that LCME representatives found “notable areas of concern,” including the “need for some infrastructure updates and additional educational and financial resources for students.”

Specifically, students did not have sufficient access to advising services, broadband internet, and study spaces. In addition, faculty shortages caused delays in student evaluations, she said.

The new status does not affect the ability of students to complete their medical degrees or residency programs, she said. Dr. South-Paul added that school officials have begun addressing several of the issues and anticipate a swift resolution “guided by an aggressive action plan over the next 18-24 months.”

The university, located in Nashville, Tenn., has had accreditation problems before. In January, following a site visit and low scores on annual resident surveys, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) placed several of the schools’ residency and fellowship programs on probationary status.

At the time, school officials said that all programs would remain accredited, and they committed to expanding available resources, such as hiring additional staff and an independent expert to make program recommendations. A follow-up site visit was scheduled for August.

Regarding the most recent accreditation challenges, Veronica M. Catanese, MD, MBA, co-secretary of LCME, said the organization could only disclose the accreditation status of a medical school.

“LCME is not able to discuss any details concerning the accreditation of individual medical education programs, including the review process, resulting decisions, or survey results,” she said.

Established medical education programs typically undergo a self-study process and a full survey visit every 8 years. According to LCME’s website, a full survey visit may be conducted sooner if concerns arise about the program’s quality or sustainability.

The LCME program directory lists Meharry Medical College’s accreditation status as “full, on probation.” The next survey visit is scheduled for the 2023-2024 school year.

LCME accreditation is a prerequisite for having access to federal grants and programs, such as Title VII funding, which helps increase minority participation in health care careers. In addition, most state licensure boards and ACGME-affiliated residency programs require applicants to graduate from an LCME-accredited school.

Last year, when Meharry Medical College received pandemic aid money as part of the CARES Act, the school distributed nearly $10 million in scholarships to students – many of whom come from modest-income families and struggle to afford college tuition.

But in general, endowments to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are often at least 70% smaller than those made to non-HBCUs, which raises the question: Does the lack of funding make it more difficult for schools such as Meharry to maintain accreditation standards?

“Many different factors played into this finding by LCME,” said Dr. South-Paul. “It is a well-known fact that HBCUs have historically not been as well funded or possess the same size endowments as their mainstream academic peers. That is true of Meharry, but it would not be accurate to say this probation is because we are an HBCU.”

Similarly, Dr. Catanese said there is no evidence that HBCUs and non-HBCUs differ in their ability to meet LCME accreditation standards.

About half of the school’s residency and fellowship programs continue to have accreditation problems. According to ACGME’s database, the internal medicine program is currently on “continued accreditation with warning” status. The psychiatry and ob.gyn. programs are on “probationary accreditation” after receiving warnings in previous years.

Meharry was chartered in 1915 but was founded in 1876 as one of the first medical schools in the South for Black Americans.

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

Just 56% of infectious disease fellowship programs filled their 2023 slots, according to new data released by the National Resident Matching Program. Infectious disease (ID) fellowships had seen a jump in applications in the previous 2 years, but these new numbers may suggest a backward slide in a specialty that for many years has struggled to recruit residents.

This latest match rate in ID fellowships is lower than those of the previous 5 years. There are unfilled positions across the country, including in health care hot spots. In Boston, all three slots at Boston Medical Center ID fellowship program are currently empty.

“For our program, going unfilled is a pretty rare event,” said Daniel Bourque, MD, an assistant professor of infectious disease at Boston University and director of the program. “For a program in the city of Boston that’s at a large tertiary care center, that definitely was a big surprise.”

Many other ID fellowships have joined BMC in posting about their vacancies on social media, looking for residents who may not have matched in other fellowships and for physicians who initially decided not to pursue additional training but are now reconsidering.

“If you are interested in a career in this exciting field, in the amazing city of Seattle, with incredible and friendly colleagues, please contact us,” the University of Washington’s ID fellowship program tweeted. Tulane University, Creighton University, the University of Connecticut, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Colorado also advertised their unfilled positions.

Other ID doctors commiserated with the disappointing match year. “I made a new riddle after yesterday’s match results: In the hospital, everyone needs me. Yet, no one wants to be me. What am I? An ID doctor,” tweeted Nathan Nolan, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at the Veterans Health Administration in St. Louis.
 

Infectious disease positions continue to grow

One contributor to this downturn could be the growing number of infectious disease programs offered, whereas the number of applicants has generally remained stable. In 2018, there were 394 slots at 151 infectious disease fellowship programs offered. For the 2023 match year, there were 441 slots at 175 programs.

At the same time, there has not been a notable rise in applicants. From match years 2018 to 2020, about 320 applicants applied for ID fellowship positions each year. There was a rise in in interest in first 2 years of the pandemic, with 404 and 387 applicants in the 2021 and 2022 match years, respectively. The most recent round suggests a return to prepandemic numbers, with 330 residents applying to ID programs.

“I think it’s fair to question whether, as a field, we should be increasing training programs and spots at this point, and if it’s better to focus on ways to increase interest and demand,” said Daniel Diekema, MD, an ID physician at Maine Medical Center in Portland. “Otherwise, we’re just going to look worse and worse every year,” he added, and the work that goes into creating these training opportunities will not have a return on investment.
 

More training, less pay

The fellowship recruitment issues combined with an already short supply of infectious disease specialists can be traced back to comparatively worse pay compared with other subspecialties, experts say. Infectious disease was the fifth lowest paid specialty in the 2022 Medscape Physician Compensation Report – ranking above only primary care specialties and diabetes and endocrinology.

Pursuing this subspeciality in medicine may not translate to higher pay, Dr. Diekema noted. For example, a physician who completes an internal medicine residency and then a 2- to 3-year infectious disease fellowship can make less than a physician who pursues hospital medicine directly after completing the same residency.

“You’re in a situation where you’re doing additional training to reduce your income earning potential, and that’s a very hard sales pitch to make,” he said. It’s become more difficult as student loan debts continue to increase, he added.

Because infectious disease is a cognitive specialty and does not perform procedures, it is at a disadvantage in a typical fee-for-service pay model. ID physicians also advise on hospital policies for testing and personal protective equipment, which is not always compensated, said Wendy Armstrong, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta.
 

A reflection of pandemic burnout?

Experts also wonder if the past 2 years of the pandemic and the notable burnout in ID and other in-demand specialties may have dissuaded applicants from pursuing the ID career path.

“This residency class is the class that started their training in June or July of 2020 and represent that residency class that has trained throughout the pandemic,” Dr. Bourque said. “Does [this low match rate] reflect a negative outlook on the field of ID because of COVID? Is it a reflection of trainee burnout in the setting of the pandemic?”

Dr. Diekema wonders if increased public scrutiny and politicization of the field may have discouraged residents. “The vilification of public health and [of] infectious disease experts like Dr. Fauci by significant portions of our society can be demoralizing,” he said. “People might say, ‘Why would I want to put myself through that?’ ”

But Dr. Armstrong doubts this is the case. “I’ve never had a resident tell me that was on their radar screen,” she said, noting that while there had been recent improvements in applicants, lower match numbers for ID fellowships have been a long-standing issue.
 

Rethinking reimbursement

Experts agree that pay issues need to be addressed to make ID a more attractive specialty. Moving away from traditional payment plans to value-based models using quality measurements specific to infectious disease could be one way to quantify the value of ID specialists in care systems.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently met with the panel that sets compensation rates for Medicare to discuss ways to increase compensation for ID, said IDSA president Carlos del Rio, MD. He is also a professor of medicine at Emory University.

ID specialists need to be able to put a dollar value to their policy work that’s not related to patient reimbursement, Dr. del Rio said. IDSA’s ongoing compensation initiative advocates for value-based care and provides salary negotiation tools for ID specialists, he added.

“Salaries shouldn’t simply be defined by what reimbursement is, and that’s true for other specialties,” such as hospital medicine and palliative care at many institutions, Dr. Armstrong said. “Infectious disease needs to be held at the same level of respect and value.”

But despite issues within the specialties, ID physicians remain passionate about their field.

“It is the most fascinating specialty I can ever imagine,” Dr. Armstrong said. Dr. Bourque agreed, noting the dynamic nature of specialty, with the emergence of new diseases like COVID-19 and reemergence of diseases like mpox (formerly called monkeypox), Zika, Ebola, and chikungunya in the past decade.

“There’s nothing about the field of infectious diseases that, in my mind, isn’t fascinating or rewarding enough to bring people in,” added Dr. Diekema. “The factors that are keeping people out are primarily economic factors and aspects of our health care system that need attention.”

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

Just 56% of infectious disease fellowship programs filled their 2023 slots, according to new data released by the National Resident Matching Program. Infectious disease (ID) fellowships had seen a jump in applications in the previous 2 years, but these new numbers may suggest a backward slide in a specialty that for many years has struggled to recruit residents.

This latest match rate in ID fellowships is lower than those of the previous 5 years. There are unfilled positions across the country, including in health care hot spots. In Boston, all three slots at Boston Medical Center ID fellowship program are currently empty.

“For our program, going unfilled is a pretty rare event,” said Daniel Bourque, MD, an assistant professor of infectious disease at Boston University and director of the program. “For a program in the city of Boston that’s at a large tertiary care center, that definitely was a big surprise.”

Many other ID fellowships have joined BMC in posting about their vacancies on social media, looking for residents who may not have matched in other fellowships and for physicians who initially decided not to pursue additional training but are now reconsidering.

“If you are interested in a career in this exciting field, in the amazing city of Seattle, with incredible and friendly colleagues, please contact us,” the University of Washington’s ID fellowship program tweeted. Tulane University, Creighton University, the University of Connecticut, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Colorado also advertised their unfilled positions.

Other ID doctors commiserated with the disappointing match year. “I made a new riddle after yesterday’s match results: In the hospital, everyone needs me. Yet, no one wants to be me. What am I? An ID doctor,” tweeted Nathan Nolan, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at the Veterans Health Administration in St. Louis.
 

Infectious disease positions continue to grow

One contributor to this downturn could be the growing number of infectious disease programs offered, whereas the number of applicants has generally remained stable. In 2018, there were 394 slots at 151 infectious disease fellowship programs offered. For the 2023 match year, there were 441 slots at 175 programs.

At the same time, there has not been a notable rise in applicants. From match years 2018 to 2020, about 320 applicants applied for ID fellowship positions each year. There was a rise in in interest in first 2 years of the pandemic, with 404 and 387 applicants in the 2021 and 2022 match years, respectively. The most recent round suggests a return to prepandemic numbers, with 330 residents applying to ID programs.

“I think it’s fair to question whether, as a field, we should be increasing training programs and spots at this point, and if it’s better to focus on ways to increase interest and demand,” said Daniel Diekema, MD, an ID physician at Maine Medical Center in Portland. “Otherwise, we’re just going to look worse and worse every year,” he added, and the work that goes into creating these training opportunities will not have a return on investment.
 

More training, less pay

The fellowship recruitment issues combined with an already short supply of infectious disease specialists can be traced back to comparatively worse pay compared with other subspecialties, experts say. Infectious disease was the fifth lowest paid specialty in the 2022 Medscape Physician Compensation Report – ranking above only primary care specialties and diabetes and endocrinology.

Pursuing this subspeciality in medicine may not translate to higher pay, Dr. Diekema noted. For example, a physician who completes an internal medicine residency and then a 2- to 3-year infectious disease fellowship can make less than a physician who pursues hospital medicine directly after completing the same residency.

“You’re in a situation where you’re doing additional training to reduce your income earning potential, and that’s a very hard sales pitch to make,” he said. It’s become more difficult as student loan debts continue to increase, he added.

Because infectious disease is a cognitive specialty and does not perform procedures, it is at a disadvantage in a typical fee-for-service pay model. ID physicians also advise on hospital policies for testing and personal protective equipment, which is not always compensated, said Wendy Armstrong, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta.
 

A reflection of pandemic burnout?

Experts also wonder if the past 2 years of the pandemic and the notable burnout in ID and other in-demand specialties may have dissuaded applicants from pursuing the ID career path.

“This residency class is the class that started their training in June or July of 2020 and represent that residency class that has trained throughout the pandemic,” Dr. Bourque said. “Does [this low match rate] reflect a negative outlook on the field of ID because of COVID? Is it a reflection of trainee burnout in the setting of the pandemic?”

Dr. Diekema wonders if increased public scrutiny and politicization of the field may have discouraged residents. “The vilification of public health and [of] infectious disease experts like Dr. Fauci by significant portions of our society can be demoralizing,” he said. “People might say, ‘Why would I want to put myself through that?’ ”

But Dr. Armstrong doubts this is the case. “I’ve never had a resident tell me that was on their radar screen,” she said, noting that while there had been recent improvements in applicants, lower match numbers for ID fellowships have been a long-standing issue.
 

Rethinking reimbursement

Experts agree that pay issues need to be addressed to make ID a more attractive specialty. Moving away from traditional payment plans to value-based models using quality measurements specific to infectious disease could be one way to quantify the value of ID specialists in care systems.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently met with the panel that sets compensation rates for Medicare to discuss ways to increase compensation for ID, said IDSA president Carlos del Rio, MD. He is also a professor of medicine at Emory University.

ID specialists need to be able to put a dollar value to their policy work that’s not related to patient reimbursement, Dr. del Rio said. IDSA’s ongoing compensation initiative advocates for value-based care and provides salary negotiation tools for ID specialists, he added.

“Salaries shouldn’t simply be defined by what reimbursement is, and that’s true for other specialties,” such as hospital medicine and palliative care at many institutions, Dr. Armstrong said. “Infectious disease needs to be held at the same level of respect and value.”

But despite issues within the specialties, ID physicians remain passionate about their field.

“It is the most fascinating specialty I can ever imagine,” Dr. Armstrong said. Dr. Bourque agreed, noting the dynamic nature of specialty, with the emergence of new diseases like COVID-19 and reemergence of diseases like mpox (formerly called monkeypox), Zika, Ebola, and chikungunya in the past decade.

“There’s nothing about the field of infectious diseases that, in my mind, isn’t fascinating or rewarding enough to bring people in,” added Dr. Diekema. “The factors that are keeping people out are primarily economic factors and aspects of our health care system that need attention.”

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

Just 56% of infectious disease fellowship programs filled their 2023 slots, according to new data released by the National Resident Matching Program. Infectious disease (ID) fellowships had seen a jump in applications in the previous 2 years, but these new numbers may suggest a backward slide in a specialty that for many years has struggled to recruit residents.

This latest match rate in ID fellowships is lower than those of the previous 5 years. There are unfilled positions across the country, including in health care hot spots. In Boston, all three slots at Boston Medical Center ID fellowship program are currently empty.

“For our program, going unfilled is a pretty rare event,” said Daniel Bourque, MD, an assistant professor of infectious disease at Boston University and director of the program. “For a program in the city of Boston that’s at a large tertiary care center, that definitely was a big surprise.”

Many other ID fellowships have joined BMC in posting about their vacancies on social media, looking for residents who may not have matched in other fellowships and for physicians who initially decided not to pursue additional training but are now reconsidering.

“If you are interested in a career in this exciting field, in the amazing city of Seattle, with incredible and friendly colleagues, please contact us,” the University of Washington’s ID fellowship program tweeted. Tulane University, Creighton University, the University of Connecticut, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Colorado also advertised their unfilled positions.

Other ID doctors commiserated with the disappointing match year. “I made a new riddle after yesterday’s match results: In the hospital, everyone needs me. Yet, no one wants to be me. What am I? An ID doctor,” tweeted Nathan Nolan, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at the Veterans Health Administration in St. Louis.
 

Infectious disease positions continue to grow

One contributor to this downturn could be the growing number of infectious disease programs offered, whereas the number of applicants has generally remained stable. In 2018, there were 394 slots at 151 infectious disease fellowship programs offered. For the 2023 match year, there were 441 slots at 175 programs.

At the same time, there has not been a notable rise in applicants. From match years 2018 to 2020, about 320 applicants applied for ID fellowship positions each year. There was a rise in in interest in first 2 years of the pandemic, with 404 and 387 applicants in the 2021 and 2022 match years, respectively. The most recent round suggests a return to prepandemic numbers, with 330 residents applying to ID programs.

“I think it’s fair to question whether, as a field, we should be increasing training programs and spots at this point, and if it’s better to focus on ways to increase interest and demand,” said Daniel Diekema, MD, an ID physician at Maine Medical Center in Portland. “Otherwise, we’re just going to look worse and worse every year,” he added, and the work that goes into creating these training opportunities will not have a return on investment.
 

More training, less pay

The fellowship recruitment issues combined with an already short supply of infectious disease specialists can be traced back to comparatively worse pay compared with other subspecialties, experts say. Infectious disease was the fifth lowest paid specialty in the 2022 Medscape Physician Compensation Report – ranking above only primary care specialties and diabetes and endocrinology.

Pursuing this subspeciality in medicine may not translate to higher pay, Dr. Diekema noted. For example, a physician who completes an internal medicine residency and then a 2- to 3-year infectious disease fellowship can make less than a physician who pursues hospital medicine directly after completing the same residency.

“You’re in a situation where you’re doing additional training to reduce your income earning potential, and that’s a very hard sales pitch to make,” he said. It’s become more difficult as student loan debts continue to increase, he added.

Because infectious disease is a cognitive specialty and does not perform procedures, it is at a disadvantage in a typical fee-for-service pay model. ID physicians also advise on hospital policies for testing and personal protective equipment, which is not always compensated, said Wendy Armstrong, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta.
 

A reflection of pandemic burnout?

Experts also wonder if the past 2 years of the pandemic and the notable burnout in ID and other in-demand specialties may have dissuaded applicants from pursuing the ID career path.

“This residency class is the class that started their training in June or July of 2020 and represent that residency class that has trained throughout the pandemic,” Dr. Bourque said. “Does [this low match rate] reflect a negative outlook on the field of ID because of COVID? Is it a reflection of trainee burnout in the setting of the pandemic?”

Dr. Diekema wonders if increased public scrutiny and politicization of the field may have discouraged residents. “The vilification of public health and [of] infectious disease experts like Dr. Fauci by significant portions of our society can be demoralizing,” he said. “People might say, ‘Why would I want to put myself through that?’ ”

But Dr. Armstrong doubts this is the case. “I’ve never had a resident tell me that was on their radar screen,” she said, noting that while there had been recent improvements in applicants, lower match numbers for ID fellowships have been a long-standing issue.
 

Rethinking reimbursement

Experts agree that pay issues need to be addressed to make ID a more attractive specialty. Moving away from traditional payment plans to value-based models using quality measurements specific to infectious disease could be one way to quantify the value of ID specialists in care systems.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently met with the panel that sets compensation rates for Medicare to discuss ways to increase compensation for ID, said IDSA president Carlos del Rio, MD. He is also a professor of medicine at Emory University.

ID specialists need to be able to put a dollar value to their policy work that’s not related to patient reimbursement, Dr. del Rio said. IDSA’s ongoing compensation initiative advocates for value-based care and provides salary negotiation tools for ID specialists, he added.

“Salaries shouldn’t simply be defined by what reimbursement is, and that’s true for other specialties,” such as hospital medicine and palliative care at many institutions, Dr. Armstrong said. “Infectious disease needs to be held at the same level of respect and value.”

But despite issues within the specialties, ID physicians remain passionate about their field.

“It is the most fascinating specialty I can ever imagine,” Dr. Armstrong said. Dr. Bourque agreed, noting the dynamic nature of specialty, with the emergence of new diseases like COVID-19 and reemergence of diseases like mpox (formerly called monkeypox), Zika, Ebola, and chikungunya in the past decade.

“There’s nothing about the field of infectious diseases that, in my mind, isn’t fascinating or rewarding enough to bring people in,” added Dr. Diekema. “The factors that are keeping people out are primarily economic factors and aspects of our health care system that need attention.”

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

PHILADELPHIA – New rheumatology fellowships in underserved areas. Rheumatology training for nonspecialists. Telemedicine training, tools, and resources. These are a few of the remedies the American College of Rheumatology’s new Workforce Solutions Committee has concocted to address a shrinking U.S. rheumatology workforce in the face of a rising population of patients with rheumatologic diseases.

In two sessions at the ACR’s annual meeting, committee members provided insights on current workforce projections since the most recent ACR workforce study in 2015. They also outlined the 1-year-old committee’s response to bridge the looming gap in patient care. Some projects are already underway, while others have yet to be implemented and require sustained monetary and project coordination commitments to make their impacts felt across the targeted regions.

Jeff Evans/MDedge News

“At the current pace of physician departures from the workforce, even with fellows graduating from adult and pediatric rheumatology training programs, the subspecialty cannot be sustained,” said Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the Workforce Solution Committee, professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., and adjunct professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

The Northwest is an example of the problem at hand. “For an adult, there’s 1.65 rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015. In 2025, there’s going to be 0.5 [adult] rheumatologists per 100,000. That’s a problem. If you look at every region in the United States, every single region is decrementing significantly,” he said.

Even the Northeast, which boasted 3.07 adult rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, will drop to 1.61 in 2025. Other regions are much worse off. The Southwest will drop from 1.28 to 0.64, and North Central will drop from 1.64 to 0.69, projections show.

The situation for pediatrics “has been in a crisis since 2015,” Dr. Battafarano said. It is much worse off than the situation for adult rheumatology, with 2015 figures going from 0.17 to 0.20 in the Southwest and from 0.03 to 0.04 in the South Central region by 2025, and in the Northwest from 0.67 to 0.13 and Northeast from 0.83 to 0.16.

“The ill effects of the pandemic are immeasurable to this point, but anecdotally we know we lost colleagues to part-time employment, we saw early retirements, and that happened across the full spectrum of the United States,” he said. It’s possible that up to 10% of full-time equivalents of physicians left practice in the United States since the pandemic began.

Rheumatologists largely practice in the 392 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), which are defined as a “core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core.” The smallest MSA has nearly 59,000 people. This distribution leaves many people in the Northwest, Southwest, South Central, and North Central regions with few rheumatologists. Over 86% of locations where rheumatologists train and work are in MSAs.

“By definition, if you get into a region where there’s 60,000 people or less, you can’t support a rheumatologist,” Dr. Battafarano said. He also noted that all pediatric hospitals tend to be in dense MSAs where rheumatologists might be.
 

South Central region serves as an example

People in certain MSAs of the South Central region (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas) such as Laredo, Tex., population 281,805 – where there is no adult rheumatologist – have to drive nearly 2.5 hours to the nearest well-served MSA (San Antonio) where there is a rheumatology fellowship program and medical school.

“Texas may have rheumatologists, but it depends on where you live,” Dr. Battafarano said. “The same applies to Waco, Texas; Texarkana, Arkansas; Lawton, Oklahoma; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; and Enid, Oklahoma, and you can see the range of traveling is between 45 minutes and 2.5 hours. That’s adult rheumatology.”

People in Laredo have an even longer drive to find a pediatric rheumatologist. In pediatrics, he said, “we don’t even look at towns, we look at pediatrics by state. You can see there’s a pediatric fellowship program in Dallas, and there’s one in Houston. There’s one or two [pediatric] rheumatologists in Austin. It just depends on how quickly they burn out and how long they stay. I’m in San Antonio. We don’t have a pediatric rheumatologist in San Antonio, the seventh-largest city in the United States.”

Pediatric rheumatologists are very often found where fellowship programs are located. “Ninety-five percent or greater of pediatric rheumatologists are housed in a pediatric hospital,” Dr. Battafarano said. “There are very few adult rheumatologists who see children, for a variety of reasons.”

In a panel discussion and question-and-answer session that took place after Dr. Battafarano outlined concerns with the numbers and distribution of rheumatologists across the United States, committee member Beth Jonas, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that the rheumatology specialty match is competitive and typically leaves close to 100 residents who had rheumatology as their first choice without a match because there are not enough fellowship positions for them to fill.

The Workforce Solutions Committee hopes to reduce this “bottleneck,” she said, by identifying institutions that are ripe for opening new fellowship programs or have existing programs that can expand their number of positions, as well as expanding musculoskeletal training among nonrheumatologists, such as primary care physicians, advanced practice providers, and sports medicine physicians.

“I think that we’re going to find ourselves needing to be more creative as we become overcome with events with shortages of physicians,” Dr. Battafarano said. He gave an example of a recent pediatric rheumatology fellow in Seattle who wanted to go back home to Montana to practice. At the same time, the pediatric program wanted her to become a faculty member, so they said they would bridge their program to her, rotating fellows and covering her while on vacation.

“That’s an example of a pediatric program spreading its wings,” he said. “I think that we need to think that way, whether we talk about urban, suburban, rural. It’s how can we stage rheumatologists in areas, how can we embrace our primary care providers, and have rheumatology health care teams so that we have rheumatology expertise located within arm’s length but also within telemedicine length.”
 

Interventions for 2023

As part of a report on the activities of the Workforce Solutions Committee, Dr. Jonas outlined a number of interventions that the ACR is set to launch in 2023. The committee created five intervention teams to support fellowship positions and training providers, recruitment opportunities, fostering patient-centered communities, virtual training programs, and grants for research and training. The ACR’s initial pilot interventions are focused on, but not limited to, the Northwest, Southwest, and South Central regions.

The committee identified 10 potential partner institutions to develop new fellowship programs in the Northwest, Southwest, and South Central regions: University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Texas Tech University Permian Basin Program; Baylor Scott and White Medical Center Round Rock (Tex.) Program; Texas Tech University Health Science Center El Paso Program; University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School Program; Abrazo Health Network Program in Arizona; University of Arizona Phoenix Program; University of Arkansas (pediatric program); Oklahoma State University; and University of Texas, San Antonio (pediatric program).

Dr. Jonas explained that opening new programs in these underserved areas should help establish new rheumatologists in these areas, because studies have shown that fellows tend to stay within 100-200 miles of where they trained.

In addition to starting new programs, “if you want to grow your program, if you want to add another fellow, we can support that,” Dr. Jonas said.

To help convince institutions of the value of rheumatology care, a position paper will soon be released by the ACR that outlines the benefits of the specialty to a health care system. The paper will describe an annual preventive cost savings of $2,762 per patient who is in the care of a rheumatologist and an annual direct or downstream income of $3.5 million per rheumatologist in a community, committee members said.

To help with recruitment and retention efforts, the ACR will revise its CareerConnection website to make it more useful.

To help in developing patient-centered communities of care, there will be a discussion series with payers on topics such as access, care delivery, and financing, in which 12 payers (including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Kaiser) will discuss patient access, cost, and quality measures. An in-person payer summit is also scheduled for 2023.

Interventions to enhance rheumatology care will also keep an ongoing focus on virtual training programs for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers, including a Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) virtual lecture and case-based training and mentoring series for nonrheumatologists, an online library of searchable topics targeted to nonrheumatologists, as well as a grand rounds podcast series on certain rheumatic diseases for residents in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatric programs. For rheumatology educators in 2023, there also will be an online portal curated by the ACR and other sources to use as a resource for developing curriculum.

A newly revised Fundamentals of Rheumatology course started in June 2022, which can help many medical students, residents, primary care physicians, and students in rehabilitation professions to learn about rheumatologic diseases, said committee member Janet Poole, PhD, division chief, professor, and director of the occupational therapy graduate program at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation are available to offset the costs of the course for attendees.

An “onboarding toolkit” for nurse practitioners and physician assistants is now available to provide advice to practices for hiring, mentoring, and conducting performance evaluations in rheumatology care teams, Dr. Poole said. And fact sheets about the roles of interprofessional team members are being revised to give nonspecialty providers a sense of what other disciplines are available to care for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disorders. The Advanced Rheumatology course is also being revised and will be available in summer 2023.

Other planned interventions aim to optimize telemedicine for the rheumatology community with a telehealth curriculum for rheumatology fellows, tools to improve telehealth implementation and delivery, and educational materials for patients to optimize their participation in telehealth visits.

The committee created targeted outreach to promote all grants focused on workforce expansion. As a result, in the last year the committee noted a three- to fourfold rise in the number of grant applications, including people and programs in underserved areas that had not previously applied. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also created a baseline for measuring success of grant funding in underserved areas and earmarked funds to increase awareness of the grants and facilitate applications.

Early signs of success are evident in the Rheumatology Access Expansion initiative in the ACR’s Collaborative Initiatives (COIN) department, said committee member Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman, MD, DrPH, professor of medicine/rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. A team of rheumatologists, a pharmacist, and Navajo cultural interpreters developed a 12-week rheumatoid arthritis training program for primary care physicians in the Navajo Nation American Indian reservation, where there’s a high prevalence of RA and a shortage of local rheumatology providers. Results of the pilot study were presented in a plenary session at the meeting.

COIN also worked with the ACR’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion task force to sponsor 2022 annual meeting attendance for 11 medical students who identify themselves as underrepresented in medicine to expose them to rheumatology early in their career, said Dr. Ramsey-Goldman. The ACR is starting a program for medical students at historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions to include mentoring, round tables, and attendance at next year’s annual meeting.

None of the rheumatologists had relevant financial disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – New rheumatology fellowships in underserved areas. Rheumatology training for nonspecialists. Telemedicine training, tools, and resources. These are a few of the remedies the American College of Rheumatology’s new Workforce Solutions Committee has concocted to address a shrinking U.S. rheumatology workforce in the face of a rising population of patients with rheumatologic diseases.

In two sessions at the ACR’s annual meeting, committee members provided insights on current workforce projections since the most recent ACR workforce study in 2015. They also outlined the 1-year-old committee’s response to bridge the looming gap in patient care. Some projects are already underway, while others have yet to be implemented and require sustained monetary and project coordination commitments to make their impacts felt across the targeted regions.

Jeff Evans/MDedge News

“At the current pace of physician departures from the workforce, even with fellows graduating from adult and pediatric rheumatology training programs, the subspecialty cannot be sustained,” said Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the Workforce Solution Committee, professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., and adjunct professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

The Northwest is an example of the problem at hand. “For an adult, there’s 1.65 rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015. In 2025, there’s going to be 0.5 [adult] rheumatologists per 100,000. That’s a problem. If you look at every region in the United States, every single region is decrementing significantly,” he said.

Even the Northeast, which boasted 3.07 adult rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, will drop to 1.61 in 2025. Other regions are much worse off. The Southwest will drop from 1.28 to 0.64, and North Central will drop from 1.64 to 0.69, projections show.

The situation for pediatrics “has been in a crisis since 2015,” Dr. Battafarano said. It is much worse off than the situation for adult rheumatology, with 2015 figures going from 0.17 to 0.20 in the Southwest and from 0.03 to 0.04 in the South Central region by 2025, and in the Northwest from 0.67 to 0.13 and Northeast from 0.83 to 0.16.

“The ill effects of the pandemic are immeasurable to this point, but anecdotally we know we lost colleagues to part-time employment, we saw early retirements, and that happened across the full spectrum of the United States,” he said. It’s possible that up to 10% of full-time equivalents of physicians left practice in the United States since the pandemic began.

Rheumatologists largely practice in the 392 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), which are defined as a “core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core.” The smallest MSA has nearly 59,000 people. This distribution leaves many people in the Northwest, Southwest, South Central, and North Central regions with few rheumatologists. Over 86% of locations where rheumatologists train and work are in MSAs.

“By definition, if you get into a region where there’s 60,000 people or less, you can’t support a rheumatologist,” Dr. Battafarano said. He also noted that all pediatric hospitals tend to be in dense MSAs where rheumatologists might be.
 

South Central region serves as an example

People in certain MSAs of the South Central region (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas) such as Laredo, Tex., population 281,805 – where there is no adult rheumatologist – have to drive nearly 2.5 hours to the nearest well-served MSA (San Antonio) where there is a rheumatology fellowship program and medical school.

“Texas may have rheumatologists, but it depends on where you live,” Dr. Battafarano said. “The same applies to Waco, Texas; Texarkana, Arkansas; Lawton, Oklahoma; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; and Enid, Oklahoma, and you can see the range of traveling is between 45 minutes and 2.5 hours. That’s adult rheumatology.”

People in Laredo have an even longer drive to find a pediatric rheumatologist. In pediatrics, he said, “we don’t even look at towns, we look at pediatrics by state. You can see there’s a pediatric fellowship program in Dallas, and there’s one in Houston. There’s one or two [pediatric] rheumatologists in Austin. It just depends on how quickly they burn out and how long they stay. I’m in San Antonio. We don’t have a pediatric rheumatologist in San Antonio, the seventh-largest city in the United States.”

Pediatric rheumatologists are very often found where fellowship programs are located. “Ninety-five percent or greater of pediatric rheumatologists are housed in a pediatric hospital,” Dr. Battafarano said. “There are very few adult rheumatologists who see children, for a variety of reasons.”

In a panel discussion and question-and-answer session that took place after Dr. Battafarano outlined concerns with the numbers and distribution of rheumatologists across the United States, committee member Beth Jonas, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that the rheumatology specialty match is competitive and typically leaves close to 100 residents who had rheumatology as their first choice without a match because there are not enough fellowship positions for them to fill.

The Workforce Solutions Committee hopes to reduce this “bottleneck,” she said, by identifying institutions that are ripe for opening new fellowship programs or have existing programs that can expand their number of positions, as well as expanding musculoskeletal training among nonrheumatologists, such as primary care physicians, advanced practice providers, and sports medicine physicians.

“I think that we’re going to find ourselves needing to be more creative as we become overcome with events with shortages of physicians,” Dr. Battafarano said. He gave an example of a recent pediatric rheumatology fellow in Seattle who wanted to go back home to Montana to practice. At the same time, the pediatric program wanted her to become a faculty member, so they said they would bridge their program to her, rotating fellows and covering her while on vacation.

“That’s an example of a pediatric program spreading its wings,” he said. “I think that we need to think that way, whether we talk about urban, suburban, rural. It’s how can we stage rheumatologists in areas, how can we embrace our primary care providers, and have rheumatology health care teams so that we have rheumatology expertise located within arm’s length but also within telemedicine length.”
 

Interventions for 2023

As part of a report on the activities of the Workforce Solutions Committee, Dr. Jonas outlined a number of interventions that the ACR is set to launch in 2023. The committee created five intervention teams to support fellowship positions and training providers, recruitment opportunities, fostering patient-centered communities, virtual training programs, and grants for research and training. The ACR’s initial pilot interventions are focused on, but not limited to, the Northwest, Southwest, and South Central regions.

The committee identified 10 potential partner institutions to develop new fellowship programs in the Northwest, Southwest, and South Central regions: University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Texas Tech University Permian Basin Program; Baylor Scott and White Medical Center Round Rock (Tex.) Program; Texas Tech University Health Science Center El Paso Program; University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School Program; Abrazo Health Network Program in Arizona; University of Arizona Phoenix Program; University of Arkansas (pediatric program); Oklahoma State University; and University of Texas, San Antonio (pediatric program).

Dr. Jonas explained that opening new programs in these underserved areas should help establish new rheumatologists in these areas, because studies have shown that fellows tend to stay within 100-200 miles of where they trained.

In addition to starting new programs, “if you want to grow your program, if you want to add another fellow, we can support that,” Dr. Jonas said.

To help convince institutions of the value of rheumatology care, a position paper will soon be released by the ACR that outlines the benefits of the specialty to a health care system. The paper will describe an annual preventive cost savings of $2,762 per patient who is in the care of a rheumatologist and an annual direct or downstream income of $3.5 million per rheumatologist in a community, committee members said.

To help with recruitment and retention efforts, the ACR will revise its CareerConnection website to make it more useful.

To help in developing patient-centered communities of care, there will be a discussion series with payers on topics such as access, care delivery, and financing, in which 12 payers (including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Kaiser) will discuss patient access, cost, and quality measures. An in-person payer summit is also scheduled for 2023.

Interventions to enhance rheumatology care will also keep an ongoing focus on virtual training programs for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers, including a Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) virtual lecture and case-based training and mentoring series for nonrheumatologists, an online library of searchable topics targeted to nonrheumatologists, as well as a grand rounds podcast series on certain rheumatic diseases for residents in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatric programs. For rheumatology educators in 2023, there also will be an online portal curated by the ACR and other sources to use as a resource for developing curriculum.

A newly revised Fundamentals of Rheumatology course started in June 2022, which can help many medical students, residents, primary care physicians, and students in rehabilitation professions to learn about rheumatologic diseases, said committee member Janet Poole, PhD, division chief, professor, and director of the occupational therapy graduate program at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation are available to offset the costs of the course for attendees.

An “onboarding toolkit” for nurse practitioners and physician assistants is now available to provide advice to practices for hiring, mentoring, and conducting performance evaluations in rheumatology care teams, Dr. Poole said. And fact sheets about the roles of interprofessional team members are being revised to give nonspecialty providers a sense of what other disciplines are available to care for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disorders. The Advanced Rheumatology course is also being revised and will be available in summer 2023.

Other planned interventions aim to optimize telemedicine for the rheumatology community with a telehealth curriculum for rheumatology fellows, tools to improve telehealth implementation and delivery, and educational materials for patients to optimize their participation in telehealth visits.

The committee created targeted outreach to promote all grants focused on workforce expansion. As a result, in the last year the committee noted a three- to fourfold rise in the number of grant applications, including people and programs in underserved areas that had not previously applied. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also created a baseline for measuring success of grant funding in underserved areas and earmarked funds to increase awareness of the grants and facilitate applications.

Early signs of success are evident in the Rheumatology Access Expansion initiative in the ACR’s Collaborative Initiatives (COIN) department, said committee member Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman, MD, DrPH, professor of medicine/rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. A team of rheumatologists, a pharmacist, and Navajo cultural interpreters developed a 12-week rheumatoid arthritis training program for primary care physicians in the Navajo Nation American Indian reservation, where there’s a high prevalence of RA and a shortage of local rheumatology providers. Results of the pilot study were presented in a plenary session at the meeting.

COIN also worked with the ACR’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion task force to sponsor 2022 annual meeting attendance for 11 medical students who identify themselves as underrepresented in medicine to expose them to rheumatology early in their career, said Dr. Ramsey-Goldman. The ACR is starting a program for medical students at historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions to include mentoring, round tables, and attendance at next year’s annual meeting.

None of the rheumatologists had relevant financial disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – New rheumatology fellowships in underserved areas. Rheumatology training for nonspecialists. Telemedicine training, tools, and resources. These are a few of the remedies the American College of Rheumatology’s new Workforce Solutions Committee has concocted to address a shrinking U.S. rheumatology workforce in the face of a rising population of patients with rheumatologic diseases.

In two sessions at the ACR’s annual meeting, committee members provided insights on current workforce projections since the most recent ACR workforce study in 2015. They also outlined the 1-year-old committee’s response to bridge the looming gap in patient care. Some projects are already underway, while others have yet to be implemented and require sustained monetary and project coordination commitments to make their impacts felt across the targeted regions.

Jeff Evans/MDedge News

“At the current pace of physician departures from the workforce, even with fellows graduating from adult and pediatric rheumatology training programs, the subspecialty cannot be sustained,” said Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the Workforce Solution Committee, professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., and adjunct professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

The Northwest is an example of the problem at hand. “For an adult, there’s 1.65 rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015. In 2025, there’s going to be 0.5 [adult] rheumatologists per 100,000. That’s a problem. If you look at every region in the United States, every single region is decrementing significantly,” he said.

Even the Northeast, which boasted 3.07 adult rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, will drop to 1.61 in 2025. Other regions are much worse off. The Southwest will drop from 1.28 to 0.64, and North Central will drop from 1.64 to 0.69, projections show.

The situation for pediatrics “has been in a crisis since 2015,” Dr. Battafarano said. It is much worse off than the situation for adult rheumatology, with 2015 figures going from 0.17 to 0.20 in the Southwest and from 0.03 to 0.04 in the South Central region by 2025, and in the Northwest from 0.67 to 0.13 and Northeast from 0.83 to 0.16.

“The ill effects of the pandemic are immeasurable to this point, but anecdotally we know we lost colleagues to part-time employment, we saw early retirements, and that happened across the full spectrum of the United States,” he said. It’s possible that up to 10% of full-time equivalents of physicians left practice in the United States since the pandemic began.

Rheumatologists largely practice in the 392 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), which are defined as a “core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core.” The smallest MSA has nearly 59,000 people. This distribution leaves many people in the Northwest, Southwest, South Central, and North Central regions with few rheumatologists. Over 86% of locations where rheumatologists train and work are in MSAs.

“By definition, if you get into a region where there’s 60,000 people or less, you can’t support a rheumatologist,” Dr. Battafarano said. He also noted that all pediatric hospitals tend to be in dense MSAs where rheumatologists might be.
 

South Central region serves as an example

People in certain MSAs of the South Central region (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas) such as Laredo, Tex., population 281,805 – where there is no adult rheumatologist – have to drive nearly 2.5 hours to the nearest well-served MSA (San Antonio) where there is a rheumatology fellowship program and medical school.

“Texas may have rheumatologists, but it depends on where you live,” Dr. Battafarano said. “The same applies to Waco, Texas; Texarkana, Arkansas; Lawton, Oklahoma; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; and Enid, Oklahoma, and you can see the range of traveling is between 45 minutes and 2.5 hours. That’s adult rheumatology.”

People in Laredo have an even longer drive to find a pediatric rheumatologist. In pediatrics, he said, “we don’t even look at towns, we look at pediatrics by state. You can see there’s a pediatric fellowship program in Dallas, and there’s one in Houston. There’s one or two [pediatric] rheumatologists in Austin. It just depends on how quickly they burn out and how long they stay. I’m in San Antonio. We don’t have a pediatric rheumatologist in San Antonio, the seventh-largest city in the United States.”

Pediatric rheumatologists are very often found where fellowship programs are located. “Ninety-five percent or greater of pediatric rheumatologists are housed in a pediatric hospital,” Dr. Battafarano said. “There are very few adult rheumatologists who see children, for a variety of reasons.”

In a panel discussion and question-and-answer session that took place after Dr. Battafarano outlined concerns with the numbers and distribution of rheumatologists across the United States, committee member Beth Jonas, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, noted that the rheumatology specialty match is competitive and typically leaves close to 100 residents who had rheumatology as their first choice without a match because there are not enough fellowship positions for them to fill.

The Workforce Solutions Committee hopes to reduce this “bottleneck,” she said, by identifying institutions that are ripe for opening new fellowship programs or have existing programs that can expand their number of positions, as well as expanding musculoskeletal training among nonrheumatologists, such as primary care physicians, advanced practice providers, and sports medicine physicians.

“I think that we’re going to find ourselves needing to be more creative as we become overcome with events with shortages of physicians,” Dr. Battafarano said. He gave an example of a recent pediatric rheumatology fellow in Seattle who wanted to go back home to Montana to practice. At the same time, the pediatric program wanted her to become a faculty member, so they said they would bridge their program to her, rotating fellows and covering her while on vacation.

“That’s an example of a pediatric program spreading its wings,” he said. “I think that we need to think that way, whether we talk about urban, suburban, rural. It’s how can we stage rheumatologists in areas, how can we embrace our primary care providers, and have rheumatology health care teams so that we have rheumatology expertise located within arm’s length but also within telemedicine length.”
 

Interventions for 2023

As part of a report on the activities of the Workforce Solutions Committee, Dr. Jonas outlined a number of interventions that the ACR is set to launch in 2023. The committee created five intervention teams to support fellowship positions and training providers, recruitment opportunities, fostering patient-centered communities, virtual training programs, and grants for research and training. The ACR’s initial pilot interventions are focused on, but not limited to, the Northwest, Southwest, and South Central regions.

The committee identified 10 potential partner institutions to develop new fellowship programs in the Northwest, Southwest, and South Central regions: University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Texas Tech University Permian Basin Program; Baylor Scott and White Medical Center Round Rock (Tex.) Program; Texas Tech University Health Science Center El Paso Program; University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School Program; Abrazo Health Network Program in Arizona; University of Arizona Phoenix Program; University of Arkansas (pediatric program); Oklahoma State University; and University of Texas, San Antonio (pediatric program).

Dr. Jonas explained that opening new programs in these underserved areas should help establish new rheumatologists in these areas, because studies have shown that fellows tend to stay within 100-200 miles of where they trained.

In addition to starting new programs, “if you want to grow your program, if you want to add another fellow, we can support that,” Dr. Jonas said.

To help convince institutions of the value of rheumatology care, a position paper will soon be released by the ACR that outlines the benefits of the specialty to a health care system. The paper will describe an annual preventive cost savings of $2,762 per patient who is in the care of a rheumatologist and an annual direct or downstream income of $3.5 million per rheumatologist in a community, committee members said.

To help with recruitment and retention efforts, the ACR will revise its CareerConnection website to make it more useful.

To help in developing patient-centered communities of care, there will be a discussion series with payers on topics such as access, care delivery, and financing, in which 12 payers (including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Kaiser) will discuss patient access, cost, and quality measures. An in-person payer summit is also scheduled for 2023.

Interventions to enhance rheumatology care will also keep an ongoing focus on virtual training programs for primary care physicians and advanced practice providers, including a Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) virtual lecture and case-based training and mentoring series for nonrheumatologists, an online library of searchable topics targeted to nonrheumatologists, as well as a grand rounds podcast series on certain rheumatic diseases for residents in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatric programs. For rheumatology educators in 2023, there also will be an online portal curated by the ACR and other sources to use as a resource for developing curriculum.

A newly revised Fundamentals of Rheumatology course started in June 2022, which can help many medical students, residents, primary care physicians, and students in rehabilitation professions to learn about rheumatologic diseases, said committee member Janet Poole, PhD, division chief, professor, and director of the occupational therapy graduate program at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation are available to offset the costs of the course for attendees.

An “onboarding toolkit” for nurse practitioners and physician assistants is now available to provide advice to practices for hiring, mentoring, and conducting performance evaluations in rheumatology care teams, Dr. Poole said. And fact sheets about the roles of interprofessional team members are being revised to give nonspecialty providers a sense of what other disciplines are available to care for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disorders. The Advanced Rheumatology course is also being revised and will be available in summer 2023.

Other planned interventions aim to optimize telemedicine for the rheumatology community with a telehealth curriculum for rheumatology fellows, tools to improve telehealth implementation and delivery, and educational materials for patients to optimize their participation in telehealth visits.

The committee created targeted outreach to promote all grants focused on workforce expansion. As a result, in the last year the committee noted a three- to fourfold rise in the number of grant applications, including people and programs in underserved areas that had not previously applied. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also created a baseline for measuring success of grant funding in underserved areas and earmarked funds to increase awareness of the grants and facilitate applications.

Early signs of success are evident in the Rheumatology Access Expansion initiative in the ACR’s Collaborative Initiatives (COIN) department, said committee member Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman, MD, DrPH, professor of medicine/rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. A team of rheumatologists, a pharmacist, and Navajo cultural interpreters developed a 12-week rheumatoid arthritis training program for primary care physicians in the Navajo Nation American Indian reservation, where there’s a high prevalence of RA and a shortage of local rheumatology providers. Results of the pilot study were presented in a plenary session at the meeting.

COIN also worked with the ACR’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion task force to sponsor 2022 annual meeting attendance for 11 medical students who identify themselves as underrepresented in medicine to expose them to rheumatology early in their career, said Dr. Ramsey-Goldman. The ACR is starting a program for medical students at historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions to include mentoring, round tables, and attendance at next year’s annual meeting.

None of the rheumatologists had relevant financial disclosures.

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

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

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

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

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

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

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, PhD, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Dr. Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Ind., “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.”

Two of the grant applications were funded. Dr. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of NIH, from 2018 to 2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Dr. Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

“Leptin–STAT3–G9a Signaling Promotes Obesity-Mediated Breast Cancer Progression,” published in May 2015 in Cancer Research and cited 83 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

“Retinoic acid directs breast cancer cell state changes through regulation of TET2-PKC-zeta pathway,” published in February 2017 in Oncogene and cited 26 times. 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Dr. Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Dr. Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, PhD, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Dr. Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Ind., “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.”

Two of the grant applications were funded. Dr. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of NIH, from 2018 to 2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Dr. Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

“Leptin–STAT3–G9a Signaling Promotes Obesity-Mediated Breast Cancer Progression,” published in May 2015 in Cancer Research and cited 83 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

“Retinoic acid directs breast cancer cell state changes through regulation of TET2-PKC-zeta pathway,” published in February 2017 in Oncogene and cited 26 times. 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Dr. Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Dr. Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, PhD, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Dr. Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Ind., “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.”

Two of the grant applications were funded. Dr. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of NIH, from 2018 to 2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Dr. Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

“Leptin–STAT3–G9a Signaling Promotes Obesity-Mediated Breast Cancer Progression,” published in May 2015 in Cancer Research and cited 83 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

“Retinoic acid directs breast cancer cell state changes through regulation of TET2-PKC-zeta pathway,” published in February 2017 in Oncogene and cited 26 times. 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Dr. Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Dr. Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

LAS VEGAS – Improving diversity in dermatology starts with education, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, where she led a panel discussion on opportunities to improve diversity in the specialty.

The growing ethnic minority population in the United States “underscores the need for medical education to ensure dermatologists are prepared to provide quality care for patients of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds,” said Dr. Taylor, the Bernett L. Johnson Jr., MD, Professor, and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Improving education includes diversifying resource material, she said. A recent study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed the representation of skin tones on Google searches for skin conditions was mostly light skin (91.7%), although non-Hispanic Whites account for less than two-thirds (approximately 60%) of the U.S. population, she said. Many people with darker skin tones “are not finding people who look like themselves” when they search skin conditions online, she noted.

The lack of diversity in images occurs not only on Google, “but in our textbooks, which are the foundational resources for our students,” said Nada M. Elbuluk, MD, founder and director of the Skin of Color and Pigmentary Disorders Program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She also established the Dermatology Diversity and Inclusion Program at USC.

Although more than 13% of Americans are Black, only 3% of dermatologists in the United States are Black, Dr. Callender noted. Similarly, 4.2% of dermatologists in the United States are Hispanic or Latino, but these groups make up more than 18% of the general U.S. population, according to a recent study, she said.

Cheryl M. Burgess, MD, founder and medical director of the Center for Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery in Washington, presented a roadmap of strategies for improving diversity in dermatology, starting with increasing STEM education at the high school and college levels among all populations and increasing the pipeline of underrepresented students to medical schools.

Then, faculty should work to increase interest in dermatology among underrepresented medical students and increase the numbers of underrepresented medical students in dermatology residency programs, said Dr. Burgess, assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Georgetown University and George Washington University, Washington.

“The more diversity we have in our specialty, the more we learn from each other,” and increased diversity can promote new research questions, said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Increasing the diversity of populations in clinical trials is another important strategy to improve diversity in dermatology, he emphasized.

Mentoring is an excellent way to help underrepresented students develop and pursue a career in dermatology, the panelists agreed. Time is precious for everyone, so don’t hesitate to use Zoom and other technology to help connect with mentees, Dr. Burgess advised.

Dr. Taylor added that mentoring doesn’t have to be a huge time commitment, it can be as simple as volunteering once a year at a school career forum. “It is so gratifying to have these young people looking up to you,” she said.

The panelists disclosed relationships with multiple companies, but none were relevant to this panel discussion. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Improving diversity in dermatology starts with education, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, where she led a panel discussion on opportunities to improve diversity in the specialty.

The growing ethnic minority population in the United States “underscores the need for medical education to ensure dermatologists are prepared to provide quality care for patients of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds,” said Dr. Taylor, the Bernett L. Johnson Jr., MD, Professor, and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Improving education includes diversifying resource material, she said. A recent study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed the representation of skin tones on Google searches for skin conditions was mostly light skin (91.7%), although non-Hispanic Whites account for less than two-thirds (approximately 60%) of the U.S. population, she said. Many people with darker skin tones “are not finding people who look like themselves” when they search skin conditions online, she noted.

The lack of diversity in images occurs not only on Google, “but in our textbooks, which are the foundational resources for our students,” said Nada M. Elbuluk, MD, founder and director of the Skin of Color and Pigmentary Disorders Program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She also established the Dermatology Diversity and Inclusion Program at USC.

Although more than 13% of Americans are Black, only 3% of dermatologists in the United States are Black, Dr. Callender noted. Similarly, 4.2% of dermatologists in the United States are Hispanic or Latino, but these groups make up more than 18% of the general U.S. population, according to a recent study, she said.

Cheryl M. Burgess, MD, founder and medical director of the Center for Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery in Washington, presented a roadmap of strategies for improving diversity in dermatology, starting with increasing STEM education at the high school and college levels among all populations and increasing the pipeline of underrepresented students to medical schools.

Then, faculty should work to increase interest in dermatology among underrepresented medical students and increase the numbers of underrepresented medical students in dermatology residency programs, said Dr. Burgess, assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Georgetown University and George Washington University, Washington.

“The more diversity we have in our specialty, the more we learn from each other,” and increased diversity can promote new research questions, said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Increasing the diversity of populations in clinical trials is another important strategy to improve diversity in dermatology, he emphasized.

Mentoring is an excellent way to help underrepresented students develop and pursue a career in dermatology, the panelists agreed. Time is precious for everyone, so don’t hesitate to use Zoom and other technology to help connect with mentees, Dr. Burgess advised.

Dr. Taylor added that mentoring doesn’t have to be a huge time commitment, it can be as simple as volunteering once a year at a school career forum. “It is so gratifying to have these young people looking up to you,” she said.

The panelists disclosed relationships with multiple companies, but none were relevant to this panel discussion. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Improving diversity in dermatology starts with education, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, where she led a panel discussion on opportunities to improve diversity in the specialty.

The growing ethnic minority population in the United States “underscores the need for medical education to ensure dermatologists are prepared to provide quality care for patients of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds,” said Dr. Taylor, the Bernett L. Johnson Jr., MD, Professor, and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Improving education includes diversifying resource material, she said. A recent study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed the representation of skin tones on Google searches for skin conditions was mostly light skin (91.7%), although non-Hispanic Whites account for less than two-thirds (approximately 60%) of the U.S. population, she said. Many people with darker skin tones “are not finding people who look like themselves” when they search skin conditions online, she noted.

The lack of diversity in images occurs not only on Google, “but in our textbooks, which are the foundational resources for our students,” said Nada M. Elbuluk, MD, founder and director of the Skin of Color and Pigmentary Disorders Program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She also established the Dermatology Diversity and Inclusion Program at USC.

Although more than 13% of Americans are Black, only 3% of dermatologists in the United States are Black, Dr. Callender noted. Similarly, 4.2% of dermatologists in the United States are Hispanic or Latino, but these groups make up more than 18% of the general U.S. population, according to a recent study, she said.

Cheryl M. Burgess, MD, founder and medical director of the Center for Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery in Washington, presented a roadmap of strategies for improving diversity in dermatology, starting with increasing STEM education at the high school and college levels among all populations and increasing the pipeline of underrepresented students to medical schools.

Then, faculty should work to increase interest in dermatology among underrepresented medical students and increase the numbers of underrepresented medical students in dermatology residency programs, said Dr. Burgess, assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Georgetown University and George Washington University, Washington.

“The more diversity we have in our specialty, the more we learn from each other,” and increased diversity can promote new research questions, said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Increasing the diversity of populations in clinical trials is another important strategy to improve diversity in dermatology, he emphasized.

Mentoring is an excellent way to help underrepresented students develop and pursue a career in dermatology, the panelists agreed. Time is precious for everyone, so don’t hesitate to use Zoom and other technology to help connect with mentees, Dr. Burgess advised.

Dr. Taylor added that mentoring doesn’t have to be a huge time commitment, it can be as simple as volunteering once a year at a school career forum. “It is so gratifying to have these young people looking up to you,” she said.

The panelists disclosed relationships with multiple companies, but none were relevant to this panel discussion. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

Regular readers of Federal Practitioner may recall that I have had a tradition of dedicating the last column of the year to an ethics rendition of the popular trope of the annual best and worst. This year we will examine the stories of 2 military physicians through the lens of virtue ethics. Aristotle (384-322 bce), arguably the most famous Western philosopher, is the acknowledged founder of virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics is among the oldest of ethical theories, and Aristotle articulates this school of thought in his work Nicomachean Ethics.² It is a good fit for Federal Practitioner as it has been constructively applied to the moral development of both military³ and medical professionals.⁴

Here is a Reader’s Digest version of virtue theory with apologizes to all the real philosophers out there. There are different ways to categorize ethical theories. One approach is to distinguish them based on the aspects of primary interest. Consequentialist ethics theories are concerned with the outcomes of actions. Deontologic theories emphasize the intention of the moral agent. In contrast, virtue ethics theories focus on the character of a person. The virtuous individual is one who has practiced the habits of moral excellence and embodies the good life. They are honored as heroes and revered as saints; they are the exemplars we imitate in our aspirations.³

The epigraph sums up one of Aristotle’s central philosophical doctrines: the close relationship of ethics and politics.¹ Personal virtue is intelligible only in the context of community and aim, and the goal of virtue is to contribute to human happiness.⁵ War, whether in ancient Greece or modern Europe, is among the forces most inimical to human flourishing. The current war in Ukraine that has united much of the Western world in opposition to tyranny has divided the 2 physicians in our story along the normative lines of virtue ethics.

The doctor of virtue: Michael Siclari, MD. A 71-year-old US Department of Veterans Affairs physician, Siclari had previously served in the military as a National Guard physician during Operation Enduring Freedom (2001-2014) in Afghanistan. He decided to serve again in Ukraine. Siclari expressed his reasons for going to Ukraine in the language of what Aristotle thought was among the highest virtues: justice. “In retrospect, as I think about why I wanted to go to Ukraine, I think it’s more of a sense that I thought an injustice was happening.”⁷

Echoing the great Rabbi Hillel, Siclari saw the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a personal call to use his experience and training as a trauma and emergency medicine physician to help the Ukrainian people. “If not me, then who?” Siclari demonstrated another virtue: generosity in taking 10 days of personal leave in August 2022 to make the trip to Ukraine, hoping to work in a combat zone tending to wounded soldiers as he had in Afghanistan. When due to logistics he instead was assigned to care for refugees and assist with evacuations from the battlefield, he humbly and compassionately cared for those in his charge. Even now, back home, he speaks to audiences of health care professionals encouraging them to consider similar acts of altruism.⁵

Virtue for Aristotle is technically defined as the mean between 2 extremes of disposition or temperament. The virtue of courage is found in the moral middle ground between the deficiency of bravery that is cowardice and the vice of excess of reckless abandon. The former person fears too much and the latter too little and both thus exhibit vicious behavior.

The doctor of vice: James Lee Henry. Henry is a major and internal medicine physician in the United States Army stationed at Fort Bragg, headquarters of the US Army Special Operations Command. Along with his wife Anna Gabrielian, a civilian anesthesiologist, he was charged in September with conspiring to divulge the protected health information of American military and government employees to the Russian government.⁸ According to the Grand Jury indictment, Henry delivered into the hands of an undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent, the medical records of a US Army officer, Department of Defense employee, and the spouses of 3 Army veterans, 2 of whom were deceased.⁹ In a gross twisting of virtue language, Gabrielian explained her motivation for the couple’s espionage in terms of sacrifice and loyalty. In an antipode of Siclari’s service, Henry purportedly wanted to join the Russian army but did not have the requisite combat experience. For his part, Henry’s abysmal defense of his betrayal of his country and his oath speaks for itself, if the United States were to declare war on Russia, Henry told the FBI agent, “at that point, I’ll have some ethical issues I have to work through.”⁸

We become virtuous people through imitating the example of those who have perfected the habits of moral excellence. During 2022, 2 federal practitioners responded to the challenge of war: one displayed the zenith of virtue, the other exhibited the nadir of vice. Seldom does a single year present us with such clear choices of who and how we want to be in 2023. American culture has so trivialized New Year’s resolutions that they are no longer substantive enough for the weight of the profound question of what constitutes the good life. Rather let us make a commitment in keeping with such morally serious matters. All of us live as mixed creatures, drawn to virtue and prone to vice. May we all strive this coming year to help each other meet the high bar another great man of virtue Abraham Lincoln set in his first inaugural address, to be the “better angels of our natures.”¹⁰

Regular readers of Federal Practitioner may recall that I have had a tradition of dedicating the last column of the year to an ethics rendition of the popular trope of the annual best and worst. This year we will examine the stories of 2 military physicians through the lens of virtue ethics. Aristotle (384-322 bce), arguably the most famous Western philosopher, is the acknowledged founder of virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics is among the oldest of ethical theories, and Aristotle articulates this school of thought in his work Nicomachean Ethics.² It is a good fit for Federal Practitioner as it has been constructively applied to the moral development of both military³ and medical professionals.⁴

Here is a Reader’s Digest version of virtue theory with apologizes to all the real philosophers out there. There are different ways to categorize ethical theories. One approach is to distinguish them based on the aspects of primary interest. Consequentialist ethics theories are concerned with the outcomes of actions. Deontologic theories emphasize the intention of the moral agent. In contrast, virtue ethics theories focus on the character of a person. The virtuous individual is one who has practiced the habits of moral excellence and embodies the good life. They are honored as heroes and revered as saints; they are the exemplars we imitate in our aspirations.³

The epigraph sums up one of Aristotle’s central philosophical doctrines: the close relationship of ethics and politics.¹ Personal virtue is intelligible only in the context of community and aim, and the goal of virtue is to contribute to human happiness.⁵ War, whether in ancient Greece or modern Europe, is among the forces most inimical to human flourishing. The current war in Ukraine that has united much of the Western world in opposition to tyranny has divided the 2 physicians in our story along the normative lines of virtue ethics.

The doctor of virtue: Michael Siclari, MD. A 71-year-old US Department of Veterans Affairs physician, Siclari had previously served in the military as a National Guard physician during Operation Enduring Freedom (2001-2014) in Afghanistan. He decided to serve again in Ukraine. Siclari expressed his reasons for going to Ukraine in the language of what Aristotle thought was among the highest virtues: justice. “In retrospect, as I think about why I wanted to go to Ukraine, I think it’s more of a sense that I thought an injustice was happening.”⁷

Echoing the great Rabbi Hillel, Siclari saw the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a personal call to use his experience and training as a trauma and emergency medicine physician to help the Ukrainian people. “If not me, then who?” Siclari demonstrated another virtue: generosity in taking 10 days of personal leave in August 2022 to make the trip to Ukraine, hoping to work in a combat zone tending to wounded soldiers as he had in Afghanistan. When due to logistics he instead was assigned to care for refugees and assist with evacuations from the battlefield, he humbly and compassionately cared for those in his charge. Even now, back home, he speaks to audiences of health care professionals encouraging them to consider similar acts of altruism.⁵

Virtue for Aristotle is technically defined as the mean between 2 extremes of disposition or temperament. The virtue of courage is found in the moral middle ground between the deficiency of bravery that is cowardice and the vice of excess of reckless abandon. The former person fears too much and the latter too little and both thus exhibit vicious behavior.

The doctor of vice: James Lee Henry. Henry is a major and internal medicine physician in the United States Army stationed at Fort Bragg, headquarters of the US Army Special Operations Command. Along with his wife Anna Gabrielian, a civilian anesthesiologist, he was charged in September with conspiring to divulge the protected health information of American military and government employees to the Russian government.⁸ According to the Grand Jury indictment, Henry delivered into the hands of an undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent, the medical records of a US Army officer, Department of Defense employee, and the spouses of 3 Army veterans, 2 of whom were deceased.⁹ In a gross twisting of virtue language, Gabrielian explained her motivation for the couple’s espionage in terms of sacrifice and loyalty. In an antipode of Siclari’s service, Henry purportedly wanted to join the Russian army but did not have the requisite combat experience. For his part, Henry’s abysmal defense of his betrayal of his country and his oath speaks for itself, if the United States were to declare war on Russia, Henry told the FBI agent, “at that point, I’ll have some ethical issues I have to work through.”⁸

We become virtuous people through imitating the example of those who have perfected the habits of moral excellence. During 2022, 2 federal practitioners responded to the challenge of war: one displayed the zenith of virtue, the other exhibited the nadir of vice. Seldom does a single year present us with such clear choices of who and how we want to be in 2023. American culture has so trivialized New Year’s resolutions that they are no longer substantive enough for the weight of the profound question of what constitutes the good life. Rather let us make a commitment in keeping with such morally serious matters. All of us live as mixed creatures, drawn to virtue and prone to vice. May we all strive this coming year to help each other meet the high bar another great man of virtue Abraham Lincoln set in his first inaugural address, to be the “better angels of our natures.”¹⁰

Regular readers of Federal Practitioner may recall that I have had a tradition of dedicating the last column of the year to an ethics rendition of the popular trope of the annual best and worst. This year we will examine the stories of 2 military physicians through the lens of virtue ethics. Aristotle (384-322 bce), arguably the most famous Western philosopher, is the acknowledged founder of virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics is among the oldest of ethical theories, and Aristotle articulates this school of thought in his work Nicomachean Ethics.² It is a good fit for Federal Practitioner as it has been constructively applied to the moral development of both military³ and medical professionals.⁴

Here is a Reader’s Digest version of virtue theory with apologizes to all the real philosophers out there. There are different ways to categorize ethical theories. One approach is to distinguish them based on the aspects of primary interest. Consequentialist ethics theories are concerned with the outcomes of actions. Deontologic theories emphasize the intention of the moral agent. In contrast, virtue ethics theories focus on the character of a person. The virtuous individual is one who has practiced the habits of moral excellence and embodies the good life. They are honored as heroes and revered as saints; they are the exemplars we imitate in our aspirations.³

The epigraph sums up one of Aristotle’s central philosophical doctrines: the close relationship of ethics and politics.¹ Personal virtue is intelligible only in the context of community and aim, and the goal of virtue is to contribute to human happiness.⁵ War, whether in ancient Greece or modern Europe, is among the forces most inimical to human flourishing. The current war in Ukraine that has united much of the Western world in opposition to tyranny has divided the 2 physicians in our story along the normative lines of virtue ethics.

The doctor of virtue: Michael Siclari, MD. A 71-year-old US Department of Veterans Affairs physician, Siclari had previously served in the military as a National Guard physician during Operation Enduring Freedom (2001-2014) in Afghanistan. He decided to serve again in Ukraine. Siclari expressed his reasons for going to Ukraine in the language of what Aristotle thought was among the highest virtues: justice. “In retrospect, as I think about why I wanted to go to Ukraine, I think it’s more of a sense that I thought an injustice was happening.”⁷

Echoing the great Rabbi Hillel, Siclari saw the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a personal call to use his experience and training as a trauma and emergency medicine physician to help the Ukrainian people. “If not me, then who?” Siclari demonstrated another virtue: generosity in taking 10 days of personal leave in August 2022 to make the trip to Ukraine, hoping to work in a combat zone tending to wounded soldiers as he had in Afghanistan. When due to logistics he instead was assigned to care for refugees and assist with evacuations from the battlefield, he humbly and compassionately cared for those in his charge. Even now, back home, he speaks to audiences of health care professionals encouraging them to consider similar acts of altruism.⁵

Virtue for Aristotle is technically defined as the mean between 2 extremes of disposition or temperament. The virtue of courage is found in the moral middle ground between the deficiency of bravery that is cowardice and the vice of excess of reckless abandon. The former person fears too much and the latter too little and both thus exhibit vicious behavior.

The doctor of vice: James Lee Henry. Henry is a major and internal medicine physician in the United States Army stationed at Fort Bragg, headquarters of the US Army Special Operations Command. Along with his wife Anna Gabrielian, a civilian anesthesiologist, he was charged in September with conspiring to divulge the protected health information of American military and government employees to the Russian government.⁸ According to the Grand Jury indictment, Henry delivered into the hands of an undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent, the medical records of a US Army officer, Department of Defense employee, and the spouses of 3 Army veterans, 2 of whom were deceased.⁹ In a gross twisting of virtue language, Gabrielian explained her motivation for the couple’s espionage in terms of sacrifice and loyalty. In an antipode of Siclari’s service, Henry purportedly wanted to join the Russian army but did not have the requisite combat experience. For his part, Henry’s abysmal defense of his betrayal of his country and his oath speaks for itself, if the United States were to declare war on Russia, Henry told the FBI agent, “at that point, I’ll have some ethical issues I have to work through.”⁸

We become virtuous people through imitating the example of those who have perfected the habits of moral excellence. During 2022, 2 federal practitioners responded to the challenge of war: one displayed the zenith of virtue, the other exhibited the nadir of vice. Seldom does a single year present us with such clear choices of who and how we want to be in 2023. American culture has so trivialized New Year’s resolutions that they are no longer substantive enough for the weight of the profound question of what constitutes the good life. Rather let us make a commitment in keeping with such morally serious matters. All of us live as mixed creatures, drawn to virtue and prone to vice. May we all strive this coming year to help each other meet the high bar another great man of virtue Abraham Lincoln set in his first inaugural address, to be the “better angels of our natures.”¹⁰

Endometrial receptivity testing (ERT) did not increase the chances of achieving live birth in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.

The study was promoted by widespread use of the tests in reproductive medicine and earlier conflicting studies regarding its effectiveness. The procedure, in which doctors extract cells from a woman’s endometrial lining in an effort to determine the best day to perform in vitro fertilization, requires a biopsy, can take a month to generate results, and costs up to $1,000.

But the new study, published online December 6 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that embryo transfer based on the timing of ERT was no better than that based on the standard protocol.

“Endometrial receptivity testing ended up not being beneficial in the population of interest, a good-prognosis IVF patient population,” said Nicole Doyle, MD, PhD, of Shady Grove Fertility, in Arlington, Va., who led the study. “For this particular patient population I would not recommend ERT based on the results of the trial.”

“Unfortunately, as is our history in reproductive medicine, we may embrace technology prematurely given patient desperation and physician eagerness to improve pregnancy outcomes,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center in Orlando, who was not involved in the new research.

The double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolled 726 women treated at Dr. Doyle’s clinic between May 2018 and September 2020.

All the women underwent ERT. Of those who received adjusted progesterone exposure after the test, live birth occurred in 58.5% of transfers (223 of 381). Among those in a control group who did not have their progesterone adjusted after ERT and underwent IVF on a standardized schedule, 61.9% of transfers (239 of 386) resulted in live birth, according to the researchers.

The differences in rates of clinical (77.2% vs. 79.5% [95% confidence interval, −10.4% to 2.4%]) and biochemical pregnancy (68.8% vs. 72.8% [95% CI, −8.2% to 3.5%]) were not statistically significant between the two groups, Dr. Doyle and her colleagues reported.

Women who experienced recurrent implantation failure (RIF), defined as more than two failed embryo transfers, were excluded from the study. “We can’t assess the benefit of an endometrial receptivity testing in this particular patient population,” Dr. Doyle said.

However, she noted that the number of women who undergo RIF is “a very small fraction of all IVF patients, less than 5%.” Of those, half are expected to have embryos that are not suitable for implantation, Dr. Doyle said.

As a result, she said, “it’s really only about 2.5% of IVF patients for which we don’t yet have an answer regarding the utility of ERT.”

Dr. Trolice, also a professor at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, expressed certainty that the “one-size-fits-all approach” for ERT has been disproven by the study’s failure to find a benefit from the procedure in women with a “good prognosis.” But, he added, whether ERT is of value in a subset of patients, such as those with recurrent implantation failure, remains “a question of vital importance.”

Dr. Doyle and Dr. Trolice reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endometrial receptivity testing (ERT) did not increase the chances of achieving live birth in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.

The study was promoted by widespread use of the tests in reproductive medicine and earlier conflicting studies regarding its effectiveness. The procedure, in which doctors extract cells from a woman’s endometrial lining in an effort to determine the best day to perform in vitro fertilization, requires a biopsy, can take a month to generate results, and costs up to $1,000.

But the new study, published online December 6 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that embryo transfer based on the timing of ERT was no better than that based on the standard protocol.

“Endometrial receptivity testing ended up not being beneficial in the population of interest, a good-prognosis IVF patient population,” said Nicole Doyle, MD, PhD, of Shady Grove Fertility, in Arlington, Va., who led the study. “For this particular patient population I would not recommend ERT based on the results of the trial.”

“Unfortunately, as is our history in reproductive medicine, we may embrace technology prematurely given patient desperation and physician eagerness to improve pregnancy outcomes,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center in Orlando, who was not involved in the new research.

The double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolled 726 women treated at Dr. Doyle’s clinic between May 2018 and September 2020.

All the women underwent ERT. Of those who received adjusted progesterone exposure after the test, live birth occurred in 58.5% of transfers (223 of 381). Among those in a control group who did not have their progesterone adjusted after ERT and underwent IVF on a standardized schedule, 61.9% of transfers (239 of 386) resulted in live birth, according to the researchers.

The differences in rates of clinical (77.2% vs. 79.5% [95% confidence interval, −10.4% to 2.4%]) and biochemical pregnancy (68.8% vs. 72.8% [95% CI, −8.2% to 3.5%]) were not statistically significant between the two groups, Dr. Doyle and her colleagues reported.

Women who experienced recurrent implantation failure (RIF), defined as more than two failed embryo transfers, were excluded from the study. “We can’t assess the benefit of an endometrial receptivity testing in this particular patient population,” Dr. Doyle said.

However, she noted that the number of women who undergo RIF is “a very small fraction of all IVF patients, less than 5%.” Of those, half are expected to have embryos that are not suitable for implantation, Dr. Doyle said.

As a result, she said, “it’s really only about 2.5% of IVF patients for which we don’t yet have an answer regarding the utility of ERT.”

Dr. Trolice, also a professor at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, expressed certainty that the “one-size-fits-all approach” for ERT has been disproven by the study’s failure to find a benefit from the procedure in women with a “good prognosis.” But, he added, whether ERT is of value in a subset of patients, such as those with recurrent implantation failure, remains “a question of vital importance.”

Dr. Doyle and Dr. Trolice reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endometrial receptivity testing (ERT) did not increase the chances of achieving live birth in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.

The study was promoted by widespread use of the tests in reproductive medicine and earlier conflicting studies regarding its effectiveness. The procedure, in which doctors extract cells from a woman’s endometrial lining in an effort to determine the best day to perform in vitro fertilization, requires a biopsy, can take a month to generate results, and costs up to $1,000.

But the new study, published online December 6 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that embryo transfer based on the timing of ERT was no better than that based on the standard protocol.

“Endometrial receptivity testing ended up not being beneficial in the population of interest, a good-prognosis IVF patient population,” said Nicole Doyle, MD, PhD, of Shady Grove Fertility, in Arlington, Va., who led the study. “For this particular patient population I would not recommend ERT based on the results of the trial.”

“Unfortunately, as is our history in reproductive medicine, we may embrace technology prematurely given patient desperation and physician eagerness to improve pregnancy outcomes,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center in Orlando, who was not involved in the new research.

The double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolled 726 women treated at Dr. Doyle’s clinic between May 2018 and September 2020.

All the women underwent ERT. Of those who received adjusted progesterone exposure after the test, live birth occurred in 58.5% of transfers (223 of 381). Among those in a control group who did not have their progesterone adjusted after ERT and underwent IVF on a standardized schedule, 61.9% of transfers (239 of 386) resulted in live birth, according to the researchers.

The differences in rates of clinical (77.2% vs. 79.5% [95% confidence interval, −10.4% to 2.4%]) and biochemical pregnancy (68.8% vs. 72.8% [95% CI, −8.2% to 3.5%]) were not statistically significant between the two groups, Dr. Doyle and her colleagues reported.

Women who experienced recurrent implantation failure (RIF), defined as more than two failed embryo transfers, were excluded from the study. “We can’t assess the benefit of an endometrial receptivity testing in this particular patient population,” Dr. Doyle said.

However, she noted that the number of women who undergo RIF is “a very small fraction of all IVF patients, less than 5%.” Of those, half are expected to have embryos that are not suitable for implantation, Dr. Doyle said.

As a result, she said, “it’s really only about 2.5% of IVF patients for which we don’t yet have an answer regarding the utility of ERT.”

Dr. Trolice, also a professor at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, expressed certainty that the “one-size-fits-all approach” for ERT has been disproven by the study’s failure to find a benefit from the procedure in women with a “good prognosis.” But, he added, whether ERT is of value in a subset of patients, such as those with recurrent implantation failure, remains “a question of vital importance.”

Dr. Doyle and Dr. Trolice reported no relevant financial relationships.

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