User login
Cardiologist sues hospital, claims he was fired in retaliation
alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.
Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.
In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”
Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”
Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.
The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”
Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”
It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.
Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”
Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.
In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
Voiced concerns
In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.
“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.
He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”
He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.
“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.
In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.
This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.
Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.
In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”
Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”
Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.
The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”
Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”
It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.
Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”
Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.
In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
Voiced concerns
In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.
“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.
He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”
He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.
“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.
In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.
This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.
Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.
In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”
Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”
Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.
The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”
Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”
It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.
Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”
Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.
In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
Voiced concerns
In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.
“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.
He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”
He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.
“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.
In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.
This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hospital financial decisions play a role in the critical shortage of pediatric beds for RSV patients
The dire shortage of pediatric hospital beds plaguing the nation in the fall of 2022 is a byproduct of financial decisions made by hospitals over the past decade, as they shuttered children’s wards, which often operate in the red, and expanded the number of beds available for more profitable endeavors like joint replacements and cancer care.
To cope with the flood of young patients sickened by a sweeping convergence of nasty bugs – especially respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and coronavirus – medical centers nationwide have deployed triage tents, delayed elective surgeries, and transferred critically ill children out of state.
A major factor in the bed shortage is a years-long trend among hospitals of eliminating pediatric units, which tend to be less profitable than adult units, said Mark Wietecha, MS, MBA, CEO of the Children’s Hospital Association. Hospitals optimize revenue by striving to keep their beds 100% full – and filled with patients whose conditions command generous insurance reimbursements.
“It really has to do with dollars,” said Scott Krugman, MD, MS, vice chair of pediatrics at the Herman and Walter Samuelson Children’s Hospital at Sinai in Baltimore. “Hospitals rely on high-volume, high-reimbursement procedures from good payers to make money. There’s no incentive for hospitals to provide money-losing services.”
The number of pediatric inpatient units in hospitals fell 19% from 2008 to 2018, according to a study published in 2021 in the journal Pediatrics. Just this year, hospitals have closed pediatric units in Boston and Springfield, Mass.; Richmond, Va.; and Tulsa, Okla.
The current surge in dangerous respiratory illnesses among children is yet another example of how COVID-19 has upended the health care system. The lockdowns and isolation that marked the first years of the pandemic left kids largely unexposed – and still vulnerable – to viruses other than COVID for two winters, and doctors are now essentially treating multiple years’ worth of respiratory ailments.
The pandemic also accelerated changes in the health care industry that have left many communities with fewer hospital beds available for children who are acutely ill, along with fewer doctors and nurses to care for them.
When intensive care units were flooded with older COVID patients in 2020, some hospitals began using children’s beds to treat adults. Many of those pediatric beds haven’t been restored, said Daniel Rauch, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on hospital care.
In addition, the relentless pace of the pandemic has spurred more than 230,000 health care providers – including doctors, nurses, and physician assistants – to quit. Before the pandemic, about 10% of nurses left their jobs every year; the rate has risen to about 20%, Dr. Wietecha said. He estimates that pediatric hospitals are unable to maintain as many as 10% of their beds because of staffing shortages.
“There is just not enough space for all the kids who need beds,” said Megan Ranney, MD, MPH, who works in several emergency departments in Providence, R.I., including Hasbro Children’s Hospital. The number of children seeking emergency care in recent weeks was 25% higher than the hospital’s previous record.
“We have doctors who are cleaning beds so we can get children into them faster,” said Dr. Ranney, a deputy dean at Brown University’s School of Public Health.
There’s not great money in treating kids. About 40% of U.S. children are covered by Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for low-income patients and people with disabilities. Base Medicaid rates are typically more than 20% below those paid by Medicare, the government insurance program for older adults, and are even lower when compared with private insurance. While specialty care for a range of common adult procedures, from knee and hip replacements to heart surgeries and cancer treatments, generates major profits for medical centers, hospitals complain they typically lose money on inpatient pediatric care.
When Tufts Children’s Hospital closed 41 pediatric beds this summer, hospital officials assured residents that young patients could receive care at nearby Boston Children’s Hospital. Now, Boston Children’s is delaying some elective surgeries to make room for kids who are acutely ill.
Dr. Rauch noted that children’s hospitals, which specialize in treating rare and serious conditions such as pediatric cancer, cystic fibrosis, and heart defects, simply aren’t designed to handle this season’s crush of kids acutely ill with respiratory bugs.
Even before the autumn’s viral trifecta, pediatric units were straining to absorb rising numbers of young people in acute mental distress. Stories abound of children in mental crises being marooned for weeks in emergency departments while awaiting transfer to a pediatric psychiatric unit. On a good day, Dr. Ranney said, 20% of pediatric emergency room beds at Hasbro Children’s Hospital are occupied by children experiencing mental health issues.
In hopes of adding pediatric capacity, the American Academy of Pediatrics joined the Children’s Hospital Association last month in calling on the White House to declare a national emergency due to child respiratory infections and provide additional resources to help cover the costs of care. The Biden administration has said that the flexibility hospital systems and providers have been given during the pandemic to sidestep certain staffing requirements also applies to RSV and flu.
Doernbecher Children’s Hospital at Oregon Health & Science University has shifted to “crisis standards of care,” enabling intensive care nurses to treat more patients than they’re usually assigned. Hospitals in Atlanta, Pittsburgh, and Aurora, Colorado, meanwhile, have resorted to treating young patients in overflow tents in parking lots.
Alex Kon, MD, a pediatric critical care physician at Community Medical Center in Missoula, Mont., said providers there have made plans to care for older kids in the adult intensive care unit, and to divert ambulances to other facilities when necessary. With only three pediatric ICUs in the state, that means young patients may be flown as far as Seattle or Spokane, Wash., or Idaho.
Hollis Lillard took her 1-year-old son, Calder, to an Army hospital in Northern Virginia last month after he experienced several days of fever, coughing, and labored breathing. They spent 7 anguished hours in the emergency room before the hospital found an open bed and transferred them by ambulance to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland.
With proper therapy and instructions for home care, Calder’s virus was readily treatable: He recovered after he was given oxygen and treated with steroids, which fight inflammation, and albuterol, which counteracts bronchospasms. He was discharged the next day.
Although hospitalizations for RSV are falling, rates remain well above the norm for this time of year. And hospitals may not get much relief.
People can be infected with RSV more than once a year, and Dr. Krugman worries about a resurgence in the months to come. Because of the coronavirus, which competes with other viruses, “the usual seasonal pattern of viruses has gone out the window,” he said.
Like RSV, influenza arrived early this season. Both viruses usually peak around January. Three strains of flu are circulating and have caused an estimated 8.7 million illnesses, 78,000 hospitalizations, and 4,500 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Krugman doubts the health care industry will learn any quick lessons from the current crisis. “Unless there is a radical change in how we pay for pediatric hospital care,” Dr. Krugman said, “the bed shortage is only going to get worse.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
The dire shortage of pediatric hospital beds plaguing the nation in the fall of 2022 is a byproduct of financial decisions made by hospitals over the past decade, as they shuttered children’s wards, which often operate in the red, and expanded the number of beds available for more profitable endeavors like joint replacements and cancer care.
To cope with the flood of young patients sickened by a sweeping convergence of nasty bugs – especially respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and coronavirus – medical centers nationwide have deployed triage tents, delayed elective surgeries, and transferred critically ill children out of state.
A major factor in the bed shortage is a years-long trend among hospitals of eliminating pediatric units, which tend to be less profitable than adult units, said Mark Wietecha, MS, MBA, CEO of the Children’s Hospital Association. Hospitals optimize revenue by striving to keep their beds 100% full – and filled with patients whose conditions command generous insurance reimbursements.
“It really has to do with dollars,” said Scott Krugman, MD, MS, vice chair of pediatrics at the Herman and Walter Samuelson Children’s Hospital at Sinai in Baltimore. “Hospitals rely on high-volume, high-reimbursement procedures from good payers to make money. There’s no incentive for hospitals to provide money-losing services.”
The number of pediatric inpatient units in hospitals fell 19% from 2008 to 2018, according to a study published in 2021 in the journal Pediatrics. Just this year, hospitals have closed pediatric units in Boston and Springfield, Mass.; Richmond, Va.; and Tulsa, Okla.
The current surge in dangerous respiratory illnesses among children is yet another example of how COVID-19 has upended the health care system. The lockdowns and isolation that marked the first years of the pandemic left kids largely unexposed – and still vulnerable – to viruses other than COVID for two winters, and doctors are now essentially treating multiple years’ worth of respiratory ailments.
The pandemic also accelerated changes in the health care industry that have left many communities with fewer hospital beds available for children who are acutely ill, along with fewer doctors and nurses to care for them.
When intensive care units were flooded with older COVID patients in 2020, some hospitals began using children’s beds to treat adults. Many of those pediatric beds haven’t been restored, said Daniel Rauch, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on hospital care.
In addition, the relentless pace of the pandemic has spurred more than 230,000 health care providers – including doctors, nurses, and physician assistants – to quit. Before the pandemic, about 10% of nurses left their jobs every year; the rate has risen to about 20%, Dr. Wietecha said. He estimates that pediatric hospitals are unable to maintain as many as 10% of their beds because of staffing shortages.
“There is just not enough space for all the kids who need beds,” said Megan Ranney, MD, MPH, who works in several emergency departments in Providence, R.I., including Hasbro Children’s Hospital. The number of children seeking emergency care in recent weeks was 25% higher than the hospital’s previous record.
“We have doctors who are cleaning beds so we can get children into them faster,” said Dr. Ranney, a deputy dean at Brown University’s School of Public Health.
There’s not great money in treating kids. About 40% of U.S. children are covered by Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for low-income patients and people with disabilities. Base Medicaid rates are typically more than 20% below those paid by Medicare, the government insurance program for older adults, and are even lower when compared with private insurance. While specialty care for a range of common adult procedures, from knee and hip replacements to heart surgeries and cancer treatments, generates major profits for medical centers, hospitals complain they typically lose money on inpatient pediatric care.
When Tufts Children’s Hospital closed 41 pediatric beds this summer, hospital officials assured residents that young patients could receive care at nearby Boston Children’s Hospital. Now, Boston Children’s is delaying some elective surgeries to make room for kids who are acutely ill.
Dr. Rauch noted that children’s hospitals, which specialize in treating rare and serious conditions such as pediatric cancer, cystic fibrosis, and heart defects, simply aren’t designed to handle this season’s crush of kids acutely ill with respiratory bugs.
Even before the autumn’s viral trifecta, pediatric units were straining to absorb rising numbers of young people in acute mental distress. Stories abound of children in mental crises being marooned for weeks in emergency departments while awaiting transfer to a pediatric psychiatric unit. On a good day, Dr. Ranney said, 20% of pediatric emergency room beds at Hasbro Children’s Hospital are occupied by children experiencing mental health issues.
In hopes of adding pediatric capacity, the American Academy of Pediatrics joined the Children’s Hospital Association last month in calling on the White House to declare a national emergency due to child respiratory infections and provide additional resources to help cover the costs of care. The Biden administration has said that the flexibility hospital systems and providers have been given during the pandemic to sidestep certain staffing requirements also applies to RSV and flu.
Doernbecher Children’s Hospital at Oregon Health & Science University has shifted to “crisis standards of care,” enabling intensive care nurses to treat more patients than they’re usually assigned. Hospitals in Atlanta, Pittsburgh, and Aurora, Colorado, meanwhile, have resorted to treating young patients in overflow tents in parking lots.
Alex Kon, MD, a pediatric critical care physician at Community Medical Center in Missoula, Mont., said providers there have made plans to care for older kids in the adult intensive care unit, and to divert ambulances to other facilities when necessary. With only three pediatric ICUs in the state, that means young patients may be flown as far as Seattle or Spokane, Wash., or Idaho.
Hollis Lillard took her 1-year-old son, Calder, to an Army hospital in Northern Virginia last month after he experienced several days of fever, coughing, and labored breathing. They spent 7 anguished hours in the emergency room before the hospital found an open bed and transferred them by ambulance to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland.
With proper therapy and instructions for home care, Calder’s virus was readily treatable: He recovered after he was given oxygen and treated with steroids, which fight inflammation, and albuterol, which counteracts bronchospasms. He was discharged the next day.
Although hospitalizations for RSV are falling, rates remain well above the norm for this time of year. And hospitals may not get much relief.
People can be infected with RSV more than once a year, and Dr. Krugman worries about a resurgence in the months to come. Because of the coronavirus, which competes with other viruses, “the usual seasonal pattern of viruses has gone out the window,” he said.
Like RSV, influenza arrived early this season. Both viruses usually peak around January. Three strains of flu are circulating and have caused an estimated 8.7 million illnesses, 78,000 hospitalizations, and 4,500 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Krugman doubts the health care industry will learn any quick lessons from the current crisis. “Unless there is a radical change in how we pay for pediatric hospital care,” Dr. Krugman said, “the bed shortage is only going to get worse.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
The dire shortage of pediatric hospital beds plaguing the nation in the fall of 2022 is a byproduct of financial decisions made by hospitals over the past decade, as they shuttered children’s wards, which often operate in the red, and expanded the number of beds available for more profitable endeavors like joint replacements and cancer care.
To cope with the flood of young patients sickened by a sweeping convergence of nasty bugs – especially respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and coronavirus – medical centers nationwide have deployed triage tents, delayed elective surgeries, and transferred critically ill children out of state.
A major factor in the bed shortage is a years-long trend among hospitals of eliminating pediatric units, which tend to be less profitable than adult units, said Mark Wietecha, MS, MBA, CEO of the Children’s Hospital Association. Hospitals optimize revenue by striving to keep their beds 100% full – and filled with patients whose conditions command generous insurance reimbursements.
“It really has to do with dollars,” said Scott Krugman, MD, MS, vice chair of pediatrics at the Herman and Walter Samuelson Children’s Hospital at Sinai in Baltimore. “Hospitals rely on high-volume, high-reimbursement procedures from good payers to make money. There’s no incentive for hospitals to provide money-losing services.”
The number of pediatric inpatient units in hospitals fell 19% from 2008 to 2018, according to a study published in 2021 in the journal Pediatrics. Just this year, hospitals have closed pediatric units in Boston and Springfield, Mass.; Richmond, Va.; and Tulsa, Okla.
The current surge in dangerous respiratory illnesses among children is yet another example of how COVID-19 has upended the health care system. The lockdowns and isolation that marked the first years of the pandemic left kids largely unexposed – and still vulnerable – to viruses other than COVID for two winters, and doctors are now essentially treating multiple years’ worth of respiratory ailments.
The pandemic also accelerated changes in the health care industry that have left many communities with fewer hospital beds available for children who are acutely ill, along with fewer doctors and nurses to care for them.
When intensive care units were flooded with older COVID patients in 2020, some hospitals began using children’s beds to treat adults. Many of those pediatric beds haven’t been restored, said Daniel Rauch, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on hospital care.
In addition, the relentless pace of the pandemic has spurred more than 230,000 health care providers – including doctors, nurses, and physician assistants – to quit. Before the pandemic, about 10% of nurses left their jobs every year; the rate has risen to about 20%, Dr. Wietecha said. He estimates that pediatric hospitals are unable to maintain as many as 10% of their beds because of staffing shortages.
“There is just not enough space for all the kids who need beds,” said Megan Ranney, MD, MPH, who works in several emergency departments in Providence, R.I., including Hasbro Children’s Hospital. The number of children seeking emergency care in recent weeks was 25% higher than the hospital’s previous record.
“We have doctors who are cleaning beds so we can get children into them faster,” said Dr. Ranney, a deputy dean at Brown University’s School of Public Health.
There’s not great money in treating kids. About 40% of U.S. children are covered by Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for low-income patients and people with disabilities. Base Medicaid rates are typically more than 20% below those paid by Medicare, the government insurance program for older adults, and are even lower when compared with private insurance. While specialty care for a range of common adult procedures, from knee and hip replacements to heart surgeries and cancer treatments, generates major profits for medical centers, hospitals complain they typically lose money on inpatient pediatric care.
When Tufts Children’s Hospital closed 41 pediatric beds this summer, hospital officials assured residents that young patients could receive care at nearby Boston Children’s Hospital. Now, Boston Children’s is delaying some elective surgeries to make room for kids who are acutely ill.
Dr. Rauch noted that children’s hospitals, which specialize in treating rare and serious conditions such as pediatric cancer, cystic fibrosis, and heart defects, simply aren’t designed to handle this season’s crush of kids acutely ill with respiratory bugs.
Even before the autumn’s viral trifecta, pediatric units were straining to absorb rising numbers of young people in acute mental distress. Stories abound of children in mental crises being marooned for weeks in emergency departments while awaiting transfer to a pediatric psychiatric unit. On a good day, Dr. Ranney said, 20% of pediatric emergency room beds at Hasbro Children’s Hospital are occupied by children experiencing mental health issues.
In hopes of adding pediatric capacity, the American Academy of Pediatrics joined the Children’s Hospital Association last month in calling on the White House to declare a national emergency due to child respiratory infections and provide additional resources to help cover the costs of care. The Biden administration has said that the flexibility hospital systems and providers have been given during the pandemic to sidestep certain staffing requirements also applies to RSV and flu.
Doernbecher Children’s Hospital at Oregon Health & Science University has shifted to “crisis standards of care,” enabling intensive care nurses to treat more patients than they’re usually assigned. Hospitals in Atlanta, Pittsburgh, and Aurora, Colorado, meanwhile, have resorted to treating young patients in overflow tents in parking lots.
Alex Kon, MD, a pediatric critical care physician at Community Medical Center in Missoula, Mont., said providers there have made plans to care for older kids in the adult intensive care unit, and to divert ambulances to other facilities when necessary. With only three pediatric ICUs in the state, that means young patients may be flown as far as Seattle or Spokane, Wash., or Idaho.
Hollis Lillard took her 1-year-old son, Calder, to an Army hospital in Northern Virginia last month after he experienced several days of fever, coughing, and labored breathing. They spent 7 anguished hours in the emergency room before the hospital found an open bed and transferred them by ambulance to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland.
With proper therapy and instructions for home care, Calder’s virus was readily treatable: He recovered after he was given oxygen and treated with steroids, which fight inflammation, and albuterol, which counteracts bronchospasms. He was discharged the next day.
Although hospitalizations for RSV are falling, rates remain well above the norm for this time of year. And hospitals may not get much relief.
People can be infected with RSV more than once a year, and Dr. Krugman worries about a resurgence in the months to come. Because of the coronavirus, which competes with other viruses, “the usual seasonal pattern of viruses has gone out the window,” he said.
Like RSV, influenza arrived early this season. Both viruses usually peak around January. Three strains of flu are circulating and have caused an estimated 8.7 million illnesses, 78,000 hospitalizations, and 4,500 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Krugman doubts the health care industry will learn any quick lessons from the current crisis. “Unless there is a radical change in how we pay for pediatric hospital care,” Dr. Krugman said, “the bed shortage is only going to get worse.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
What in medicine is “permissible but not edifying”?
Morality is often talked about in binary terms, black and white, right or wrong. That is how children 4-8 years old first conceive of it. Moral development progresses alongside motor, language, and social skills, but pediatricians typically do not screen for it or chart it. In adolescence, the ability for abstract thought develops and, once susceptibility to peer pressure lessens, nuances begin to shade the binary model. Honor codes become possible by the college years; scandals at colleges and military academies demonstrate that some 18- to 22-year-old young adults still lack that maturity. Lawrence Kohlberg, PhD, in the 1950s proposed a six-stage model of moral development and indicated that some people never achieve the upper stages.
Recently, neuroimaging research has demonstrated that the prefrontal cortex is still developing up to 25 years of age. Those data have ramifications for obtaining truly informed consent for medical procedures. Arbitrarily, driver’s licenses are issued at 16 years of age, the right to vote comes at age 18, and the purchase of alcohol allowed at age 21. Consent for medical care varies by state and by procedure. Treatment for general medical care, pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and mental health problems often have different age requirements. In some states, a 14-year-old can give consent for treatment of depression or pregnancy but cannot get a tattoo.
The rules for firearms are also complex and vary by state. Perhaps more important is the determination of medical, psychological, moral, and criminal conditions for which guns should be removed from someone’s access. Some states have created formalized red flag laws to accomplish this. Other states have informal procedures used by police and social workers rather than involving medical personnel. Recent gun-related tragedies at a St. Louis high school near me and at a Colorado Springs bar demonstrate deficiencies in the red flag approach, with multiple fatal consequences.
Some moral issues do not neatly fit the binary approach. There are many concerns that are better described by a paradigm that “all things are permissible but not everything is edifying.” Take as a model of this the consumption of alcohol. The risks of an occasional single drink are very small for most people. For some, one drink leads to binges of alcoholism. Others drink and drive. Over the centuries, various groups in various localities have counseled temperance. Some personally avoid alcohol to avoid leading others astray.
The United States from 1920 to 1933 carried out the national social experiment Prohibition that outlawed intoxicating beverages. Ultimately, the organized crime of black market alcohol production, distribution, and consumption was found to be worse than the disease. Alcohol use was again legalized. That is understandable. Still, I doubt Carrie Nation ever thought that the sponsorship of most major sporting events would rely heavily on beer and liquor companies. Legalization and promotion are two distinct acts.
A federal prohibition of marijuana since the 1950s similarly produced crime from drug dealing. It also induced many otherwise law-abiding citizens to be scofflaws. (I think the 55 mph national speed limit under President Nixon created greater numbers of scofflaws.) In my state recreational marijuana became legal as I write this column. But is that good? Wise? Edifying?
State lotteries were created partly to reduce the negative effects of the numbers games funding organized crime. That rationale is understandable, but why are states promoting the games with commercials and billion dollar payouts?
I find the “permissible but not edifying” paradigm helpful in many areas of medical ethics. The ethical concerns typically then fall into one of four categories: Slippery slope, bright lines, overuse, and conscientiously opting out. All are subspecies of the theme of going too far.
Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act was enacted 25 years ago. Nine other states now allow some form of medically assisted death. Most states prohibit it. As is now the case for abortion, medical care is typically legislated at the state level to reflect local values. Canada goes beyond assisted suicide and in the vast majority of cases employs active euthanasia with a physician pushing lethal drugs intravenously. That action is forbidden in the United States. Currently, euthanasia is involved in 10,000 deaths per year in Canada. A terminal illness is no longer needed; that requirement was ruled unconstitutional. By March 2023, intractable mental health problems will be eligible for the euthanasia cure in Canada. I have long considered myself a navigator of ethical slippery slopes because that is where the suffering people are. Canada has gone too far down this particular slope for my skill set.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
Morality is often talked about in binary terms, black and white, right or wrong. That is how children 4-8 years old first conceive of it. Moral development progresses alongside motor, language, and social skills, but pediatricians typically do not screen for it or chart it. In adolescence, the ability for abstract thought develops and, once susceptibility to peer pressure lessens, nuances begin to shade the binary model. Honor codes become possible by the college years; scandals at colleges and military academies demonstrate that some 18- to 22-year-old young adults still lack that maturity. Lawrence Kohlberg, PhD, in the 1950s proposed a six-stage model of moral development and indicated that some people never achieve the upper stages.
Recently, neuroimaging research has demonstrated that the prefrontal cortex is still developing up to 25 years of age. Those data have ramifications for obtaining truly informed consent for medical procedures. Arbitrarily, driver’s licenses are issued at 16 years of age, the right to vote comes at age 18, and the purchase of alcohol allowed at age 21. Consent for medical care varies by state and by procedure. Treatment for general medical care, pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and mental health problems often have different age requirements. In some states, a 14-year-old can give consent for treatment of depression or pregnancy but cannot get a tattoo.
The rules for firearms are also complex and vary by state. Perhaps more important is the determination of medical, psychological, moral, and criminal conditions for which guns should be removed from someone’s access. Some states have created formalized red flag laws to accomplish this. Other states have informal procedures used by police and social workers rather than involving medical personnel. Recent gun-related tragedies at a St. Louis high school near me and at a Colorado Springs bar demonstrate deficiencies in the red flag approach, with multiple fatal consequences.
Some moral issues do not neatly fit the binary approach. There are many concerns that are better described by a paradigm that “all things are permissible but not everything is edifying.” Take as a model of this the consumption of alcohol. The risks of an occasional single drink are very small for most people. For some, one drink leads to binges of alcoholism. Others drink and drive. Over the centuries, various groups in various localities have counseled temperance. Some personally avoid alcohol to avoid leading others astray.
The United States from 1920 to 1933 carried out the national social experiment Prohibition that outlawed intoxicating beverages. Ultimately, the organized crime of black market alcohol production, distribution, and consumption was found to be worse than the disease. Alcohol use was again legalized. That is understandable. Still, I doubt Carrie Nation ever thought that the sponsorship of most major sporting events would rely heavily on beer and liquor companies. Legalization and promotion are two distinct acts.
A federal prohibition of marijuana since the 1950s similarly produced crime from drug dealing. It also induced many otherwise law-abiding citizens to be scofflaws. (I think the 55 mph national speed limit under President Nixon created greater numbers of scofflaws.) In my state recreational marijuana became legal as I write this column. But is that good? Wise? Edifying?
State lotteries were created partly to reduce the negative effects of the numbers games funding organized crime. That rationale is understandable, but why are states promoting the games with commercials and billion dollar payouts?
I find the “permissible but not edifying” paradigm helpful in many areas of medical ethics. The ethical concerns typically then fall into one of four categories: Slippery slope, bright lines, overuse, and conscientiously opting out. All are subspecies of the theme of going too far.
Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act was enacted 25 years ago. Nine other states now allow some form of medically assisted death. Most states prohibit it. As is now the case for abortion, medical care is typically legislated at the state level to reflect local values. Canada goes beyond assisted suicide and in the vast majority of cases employs active euthanasia with a physician pushing lethal drugs intravenously. That action is forbidden in the United States. Currently, euthanasia is involved in 10,000 deaths per year in Canada. A terminal illness is no longer needed; that requirement was ruled unconstitutional. By March 2023, intractable mental health problems will be eligible for the euthanasia cure in Canada. I have long considered myself a navigator of ethical slippery slopes because that is where the suffering people are. Canada has gone too far down this particular slope for my skill set.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
Morality is often talked about in binary terms, black and white, right or wrong. That is how children 4-8 years old first conceive of it. Moral development progresses alongside motor, language, and social skills, but pediatricians typically do not screen for it or chart it. In adolescence, the ability for abstract thought develops and, once susceptibility to peer pressure lessens, nuances begin to shade the binary model. Honor codes become possible by the college years; scandals at colleges and military academies demonstrate that some 18- to 22-year-old young adults still lack that maturity. Lawrence Kohlberg, PhD, in the 1950s proposed a six-stage model of moral development and indicated that some people never achieve the upper stages.
Recently, neuroimaging research has demonstrated that the prefrontal cortex is still developing up to 25 years of age. Those data have ramifications for obtaining truly informed consent for medical procedures. Arbitrarily, driver’s licenses are issued at 16 years of age, the right to vote comes at age 18, and the purchase of alcohol allowed at age 21. Consent for medical care varies by state and by procedure. Treatment for general medical care, pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and mental health problems often have different age requirements. In some states, a 14-year-old can give consent for treatment of depression or pregnancy but cannot get a tattoo.
The rules for firearms are also complex and vary by state. Perhaps more important is the determination of medical, psychological, moral, and criminal conditions for which guns should be removed from someone’s access. Some states have created formalized red flag laws to accomplish this. Other states have informal procedures used by police and social workers rather than involving medical personnel. Recent gun-related tragedies at a St. Louis high school near me and at a Colorado Springs bar demonstrate deficiencies in the red flag approach, with multiple fatal consequences.
Some moral issues do not neatly fit the binary approach. There are many concerns that are better described by a paradigm that “all things are permissible but not everything is edifying.” Take as a model of this the consumption of alcohol. The risks of an occasional single drink are very small for most people. For some, one drink leads to binges of alcoholism. Others drink and drive. Over the centuries, various groups in various localities have counseled temperance. Some personally avoid alcohol to avoid leading others astray.
The United States from 1920 to 1933 carried out the national social experiment Prohibition that outlawed intoxicating beverages. Ultimately, the organized crime of black market alcohol production, distribution, and consumption was found to be worse than the disease. Alcohol use was again legalized. That is understandable. Still, I doubt Carrie Nation ever thought that the sponsorship of most major sporting events would rely heavily on beer and liquor companies. Legalization and promotion are two distinct acts.
A federal prohibition of marijuana since the 1950s similarly produced crime from drug dealing. It also induced many otherwise law-abiding citizens to be scofflaws. (I think the 55 mph national speed limit under President Nixon created greater numbers of scofflaws.) In my state recreational marijuana became legal as I write this column. But is that good? Wise? Edifying?
State lotteries were created partly to reduce the negative effects of the numbers games funding organized crime. That rationale is understandable, but why are states promoting the games with commercials and billion dollar payouts?
I find the “permissible but not edifying” paradigm helpful in many areas of medical ethics. The ethical concerns typically then fall into one of four categories: Slippery slope, bright lines, overuse, and conscientiously opting out. All are subspecies of the theme of going too far.
Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act was enacted 25 years ago. Nine other states now allow some form of medically assisted death. Most states prohibit it. As is now the case for abortion, medical care is typically legislated at the state level to reflect local values. Canada goes beyond assisted suicide and in the vast majority of cases employs active euthanasia with a physician pushing lethal drugs intravenously. That action is forbidden in the United States. Currently, euthanasia is involved in 10,000 deaths per year in Canada. A terminal illness is no longer needed; that requirement was ruled unconstitutional. By March 2023, intractable mental health problems will be eligible for the euthanasia cure in Canada. I have long considered myself a navigator of ethical slippery slopes because that is where the suffering people are. Canada has gone too far down this particular slope for my skill set.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
Physicians and your staffs: Be nice
Several years ago I visited my primary care provider in her new office. She had just left the practice where we had been coworkers for over a decade. I was “roomed” by Louise (not her real name) whom I had never met before. I assumed she had come with the new waiting room furniture. She took my vital signs, asked a few boilerplate questions, and told me that my PCP would be in shortly.
After our initial ping-pong match of how-are-things-going I mentioned to my old friend/PCP that I thought Louise needed to work on her person-to-person skills. She thanked me and said there were so many challenges in the new practice setting she hadn’t had a chance to work on staff training.
When I returned 6 months later Louise was a different person. She appeared and sounded interested in who I was and left me in the room to wait feeling glad I had spoken up. I wasn’t surprised at the change, knowing my former coworker’s past history. I was confident that in time she would coach her new staff and continue to reinforce her message by setting an example by being a caring and concerned physician.
The old Louise certainly wasn’t a rude or unpleasant person but good customer service just didn’t come naturally to her. She thought she was doing a good job, at least as far as she understood what her job was supposed to be. On the whole spectrum of professional misbehavior she would barely warrant a pixel of color. Unfortunately, we are seeing and suffering through a surge of rude behavior and incivility not just in the medical community but across all segments of our society.
It is particularly troubling in health care, which has an organizational nonsystem that was initially paternalistic and male dominated but continues to be hierarchical even as gender stereotypes are becoming less rigid. Rudeness within a team, whether it is a medical office or a factory assembly line, can create a toxic work environment that can affect the quality of the product. In this case the end product is the health and wellness of our patients. While incivility within a team can occasionally be hidden from the patients, eventually it will surface and take its toll on the customer service component of the practice.
One wonders why so many of us are behaving rudely. Is it examples we see in the media, is it our political leaders, or is the pandemic a contributor? Has democracy run its course? Are we victims of our departure from organized religion? Do we need to reorganize our medical training to be less hierarchical? I don’t think there is any single cause nor do I believe we need to restructure our medical training system to remedy the situation. We will always need to transfer information and skills from people who have them to people who need to learn them. If there is a low-hanging fruit in the customer service orchard it is one person at a time deciding to behave in a civil manner toward fellow citizens.
While a colorful crop of political signs arrived in the run-up to the November election, recently, here on the midcoast of Maine, simple white-on-black signs have appeared saying “BE NICE.”
The good news is that being nice can be contagious. Simply think of that golden rule. Treat your patients/customers/coworkers as you would like to be treated yourself.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Several years ago I visited my primary care provider in her new office. She had just left the practice where we had been coworkers for over a decade. I was “roomed” by Louise (not her real name) whom I had never met before. I assumed she had come with the new waiting room furniture. She took my vital signs, asked a few boilerplate questions, and told me that my PCP would be in shortly.
After our initial ping-pong match of how-are-things-going I mentioned to my old friend/PCP that I thought Louise needed to work on her person-to-person skills. She thanked me and said there were so many challenges in the new practice setting she hadn’t had a chance to work on staff training.
When I returned 6 months later Louise was a different person. She appeared and sounded interested in who I was and left me in the room to wait feeling glad I had spoken up. I wasn’t surprised at the change, knowing my former coworker’s past history. I was confident that in time she would coach her new staff and continue to reinforce her message by setting an example by being a caring and concerned physician.
The old Louise certainly wasn’t a rude or unpleasant person but good customer service just didn’t come naturally to her. She thought she was doing a good job, at least as far as she understood what her job was supposed to be. On the whole spectrum of professional misbehavior she would barely warrant a pixel of color. Unfortunately, we are seeing and suffering through a surge of rude behavior and incivility not just in the medical community but across all segments of our society.
It is particularly troubling in health care, which has an organizational nonsystem that was initially paternalistic and male dominated but continues to be hierarchical even as gender stereotypes are becoming less rigid. Rudeness within a team, whether it is a medical office or a factory assembly line, can create a toxic work environment that can affect the quality of the product. In this case the end product is the health and wellness of our patients. While incivility within a team can occasionally be hidden from the patients, eventually it will surface and take its toll on the customer service component of the practice.
One wonders why so many of us are behaving rudely. Is it examples we see in the media, is it our political leaders, or is the pandemic a contributor? Has democracy run its course? Are we victims of our departure from organized religion? Do we need to reorganize our medical training to be less hierarchical? I don’t think there is any single cause nor do I believe we need to restructure our medical training system to remedy the situation. We will always need to transfer information and skills from people who have them to people who need to learn them. If there is a low-hanging fruit in the customer service orchard it is one person at a time deciding to behave in a civil manner toward fellow citizens.
While a colorful crop of political signs arrived in the run-up to the November election, recently, here on the midcoast of Maine, simple white-on-black signs have appeared saying “BE NICE.”
The good news is that being nice can be contagious. Simply think of that golden rule. Treat your patients/customers/coworkers as you would like to be treated yourself.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Several years ago I visited my primary care provider in her new office. She had just left the practice where we had been coworkers for over a decade. I was “roomed” by Louise (not her real name) whom I had never met before. I assumed she had come with the new waiting room furniture. She took my vital signs, asked a few boilerplate questions, and told me that my PCP would be in shortly.
After our initial ping-pong match of how-are-things-going I mentioned to my old friend/PCP that I thought Louise needed to work on her person-to-person skills. She thanked me and said there were so many challenges in the new practice setting she hadn’t had a chance to work on staff training.
When I returned 6 months later Louise was a different person. She appeared and sounded interested in who I was and left me in the room to wait feeling glad I had spoken up. I wasn’t surprised at the change, knowing my former coworker’s past history. I was confident that in time she would coach her new staff and continue to reinforce her message by setting an example by being a caring and concerned physician.
The old Louise certainly wasn’t a rude or unpleasant person but good customer service just didn’t come naturally to her. She thought she was doing a good job, at least as far as she understood what her job was supposed to be. On the whole spectrum of professional misbehavior she would barely warrant a pixel of color. Unfortunately, we are seeing and suffering through a surge of rude behavior and incivility not just in the medical community but across all segments of our society.
It is particularly troubling in health care, which has an organizational nonsystem that was initially paternalistic and male dominated but continues to be hierarchical even as gender stereotypes are becoming less rigid. Rudeness within a team, whether it is a medical office or a factory assembly line, can create a toxic work environment that can affect the quality of the product. In this case the end product is the health and wellness of our patients. While incivility within a team can occasionally be hidden from the patients, eventually it will surface and take its toll on the customer service component of the practice.
One wonders why so many of us are behaving rudely. Is it examples we see in the media, is it our political leaders, or is the pandemic a contributor? Has democracy run its course? Are we victims of our departure from organized religion? Do we need to reorganize our medical training to be less hierarchical? I don’t think there is any single cause nor do I believe we need to restructure our medical training system to remedy the situation. We will always need to transfer information and skills from people who have them to people who need to learn them. If there is a low-hanging fruit in the customer service orchard it is one person at a time deciding to behave in a civil manner toward fellow citizens.
While a colorful crop of political signs arrived in the run-up to the November election, recently, here on the midcoast of Maine, simple white-on-black signs have appeared saying “BE NICE.”
The good news is that being nice can be contagious. Simply think of that golden rule. Treat your patients/customers/coworkers as you would like to be treated yourself.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Breaking bad news during IVF: How to soften the blow
Two years ago, Ashley Hingston had a miscarriage. The 35-year-old Floridian and her husband had been going through in vitro fertilization when they received the news no one wants to get, but which many in their position reflexively expect: “You are going to lose the pregnancy.”
On the other end of the line was Ms. Hingston’s physician, who offered her advice and comfort to ease the pain of the bad news.
“I was a complete wreck and could barely even talk,” Ms. Hingston recalled. “But I think my doctor knew what I was asking, and she was doing the best to answer the questions I had: Why did this happen? What does this mean? And she sat and listened to me.”
An estimated 2% of babies born in the United States each year are the result of IVF, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The process is often emotionally, physically, and economically taxing for patients. According to the CDC, the chance a pregnancy will be successful through IVF is 21.3%. Consequently, doctors often find themselves the bearers of bad news.
But interaction with a care team or a string of nurses and providers, rather than a physician, is the norm for IVF patients, according to Aimee Eyvazzadeh, MD, a specialist in infertility and reproductive endocrinology in San Ramon, Calif.
“Patients see a doctor for all of 10 minutes and then they are handed off to a care team who don’t know their whole story,” she said.
For Dr. Eyvazzadeh and other health care professionals, physicians must improve the ways they share bad news, and how they divide tasks with care teams.
Personalized care works best
Providing personalized care will improve how IVF patients respond to bad news, according to Dr. Eyvazzadeh and others.
“When people have gone through so much trauma, anything you say to them, sometimes they can’t process it very well, so they have to see the information in different ways,” she told this news organization. “After each phone call, I’ll actually type up a summary for them, with links and articles for them to read, so they are directed in a way that I think is healthy so they aren’t pulled into a rabbit hole.”
Dr. Eyvazzadeh said she encourages her patients to seek counseling during IVF treatment, and even pays for their initial psychiatric consultation. Not many doctors do this, she noted.
“Taking the time to allow the patient to process the bad news is vital,” said Linda Kim, PhD, a psychiatrist at Moon Mental Health, to whom Dr. Eyvazzadeh refers couples. Sometimes, several calls are necessary.
“Rather than thinking of the conversation as a linear process, consider it a sphere of processing,” Dr. Kim said. “The patient may need space to grieve, may ask many questions, may need to clarify what happened, or may need to vent and release frustration. This is space that the patient needs to process the bad news.” (See below for more tips on how to share bad news with your patients.)
Many care teams are skilled in delivering bad news to patients, according to Liz Grill, PsyD, a psychologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. The challenge for them is ensuring new nurses and clinicians continue to have empathy training, she said.
“You want to make sure clinicians are building relationships, and empathy. Whether there is a protocol to build that level of empathy, or if they have their own innate ability to build empathy, it’s about communicating in the right way,” Dr. Grill told this news organization.
But Mark Trolice, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, agreed that nurses should not deliver bad news, even if they have the expertise and the compassion to do so.
“It’s the doctor’s responsibility to make that call. It’s a very difficult call and it puts an unnecessary burden on your care team to be making these calls all the time,” Dr. Trolice said. “I feel the patient wants to hear from the physician who oversaw their cycle and did the procedure and embryo transfer. It shows a tremendous amount of responsibility and commitment on the part of the physician.”
Dr. Trolice also recommended clinicians refer to the HEART (Hearing, Empathy, Apology, Response, and Thanks) guidelines to ensure proper conversations with patients about bad news.
“You give the patient time to process the information and ask questions, and then we schedule another time to talk about plans going forward,” he said.
“Patients can feel powerless and not in control of what is happening, or even over their own bodies,” Dr. Kim added. “To counteract this, it can be helpful to outline projected steps as much as possible.”
For Dr. Eyvazzadeh, caring for an IVF patient is a matter of knowing your strengths.
Providing links to web resources, recommending an organic diet, and sending them to support groups (see below) are helpful, she said. “For some people, their strength isn’t engaging with patients on the same level that I do. But I still feel like there are ways that we can still make the patients feel cared for without being extreme.”
Tips on how to share bad news with patients
A guide often cited by clinicians when delivering bad news is the Buckman Six Step Protocol:
- Get the physical context right.
- Find out how much the patient knows.
- Find out how much the patient wants to know.
- Share the information.
- Respond to the patient’s feelings.
- Plan and follow through.
Linda Kim, PhD, notes that patient preference in receiving bad news is often culturally mediated. She recommends asking patients how they would want to receive bad news, especially in during IVF process, where there can be many challenges over the course of treatment. Dr. Kim also recommends these steps:
- Get as much information in advance as possible and ask your patient directly how they want bad news. When you are meeting a patient and their families for the first time, and they are filling out their intake paperwork or health forms, you may consider adding a section on “What is your preferred method of communication?” And after that, you might add, “What is the best way to tell you challenging or difficult news? Would you prefer to be by yourself or with a loved one? Please elaborate any additional preferences.” Everyone is different, and it can be helpful to hear from the patient directly how they would like to receive bad news. It will not only meet them where they are during a difficult time, it will also demonstrate to the patient that you are respecting their preferences and involving those preferences in the process.
- Try to leave enough time for a difficult conversation with a patient. Even better is if a clinician can prepare a patient that there is some disappointing or difficult news to share.
- Finally, offer discussion on next steps. It never hurts to ask the patient directly when they are ready to discuss next steps. This may take a few hours, a few days, or even a few months or longer.
Social media as support
Monica Wunderman, a patient of Dr. Eyvazzadeh’s since 2020, began her own social media campaign on Instagram to find support and give support to women experiencing IVF.
“I started scrolling and liking posts, and a girl reached out to me to ask if I needed help” in the form of emotional support, she recalls.
Instagram became a haven for Ms. Wunderman to share information, experiences, and support with others. It also allowed her to create a network of support and meet other women, like Ashley Hingston, going through similar struggles.
Ms. Wunderman has been through four rounds of IVF so far. Three were completely unsuccessful; the last ended in miscarriage. Although she and her husband are trying again with a surrogate, the uncertainty remains. And she feels the health care system should be offering her – and the other would-be parents she has met online – more support.
“We place such importance as a society on growing families,” she says. “But then we do very little to support those who want them and struggle.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two years ago, Ashley Hingston had a miscarriage. The 35-year-old Floridian and her husband had been going through in vitro fertilization when they received the news no one wants to get, but which many in their position reflexively expect: “You are going to lose the pregnancy.”
On the other end of the line was Ms. Hingston’s physician, who offered her advice and comfort to ease the pain of the bad news.
“I was a complete wreck and could barely even talk,” Ms. Hingston recalled. “But I think my doctor knew what I was asking, and she was doing the best to answer the questions I had: Why did this happen? What does this mean? And she sat and listened to me.”
An estimated 2% of babies born in the United States each year are the result of IVF, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The process is often emotionally, physically, and economically taxing for patients. According to the CDC, the chance a pregnancy will be successful through IVF is 21.3%. Consequently, doctors often find themselves the bearers of bad news.
But interaction with a care team or a string of nurses and providers, rather than a physician, is the norm for IVF patients, according to Aimee Eyvazzadeh, MD, a specialist in infertility and reproductive endocrinology in San Ramon, Calif.
“Patients see a doctor for all of 10 minutes and then they are handed off to a care team who don’t know their whole story,” she said.
For Dr. Eyvazzadeh and other health care professionals, physicians must improve the ways they share bad news, and how they divide tasks with care teams.
Personalized care works best
Providing personalized care will improve how IVF patients respond to bad news, according to Dr. Eyvazzadeh and others.
“When people have gone through so much trauma, anything you say to them, sometimes they can’t process it very well, so they have to see the information in different ways,” she told this news organization. “After each phone call, I’ll actually type up a summary for them, with links and articles for them to read, so they are directed in a way that I think is healthy so they aren’t pulled into a rabbit hole.”
Dr. Eyvazzadeh said she encourages her patients to seek counseling during IVF treatment, and even pays for their initial psychiatric consultation. Not many doctors do this, she noted.
“Taking the time to allow the patient to process the bad news is vital,” said Linda Kim, PhD, a psychiatrist at Moon Mental Health, to whom Dr. Eyvazzadeh refers couples. Sometimes, several calls are necessary.
“Rather than thinking of the conversation as a linear process, consider it a sphere of processing,” Dr. Kim said. “The patient may need space to grieve, may ask many questions, may need to clarify what happened, or may need to vent and release frustration. This is space that the patient needs to process the bad news.” (See below for more tips on how to share bad news with your patients.)
Many care teams are skilled in delivering bad news to patients, according to Liz Grill, PsyD, a psychologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. The challenge for them is ensuring new nurses and clinicians continue to have empathy training, she said.
“You want to make sure clinicians are building relationships, and empathy. Whether there is a protocol to build that level of empathy, or if they have their own innate ability to build empathy, it’s about communicating in the right way,” Dr. Grill told this news organization.
But Mark Trolice, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, agreed that nurses should not deliver bad news, even if they have the expertise and the compassion to do so.
“It’s the doctor’s responsibility to make that call. It’s a very difficult call and it puts an unnecessary burden on your care team to be making these calls all the time,” Dr. Trolice said. “I feel the patient wants to hear from the physician who oversaw their cycle and did the procedure and embryo transfer. It shows a tremendous amount of responsibility and commitment on the part of the physician.”
Dr. Trolice also recommended clinicians refer to the HEART (Hearing, Empathy, Apology, Response, and Thanks) guidelines to ensure proper conversations with patients about bad news.
“You give the patient time to process the information and ask questions, and then we schedule another time to talk about plans going forward,” he said.
“Patients can feel powerless and not in control of what is happening, or even over their own bodies,” Dr. Kim added. “To counteract this, it can be helpful to outline projected steps as much as possible.”
For Dr. Eyvazzadeh, caring for an IVF patient is a matter of knowing your strengths.
Providing links to web resources, recommending an organic diet, and sending them to support groups (see below) are helpful, she said. “For some people, their strength isn’t engaging with patients on the same level that I do. But I still feel like there are ways that we can still make the patients feel cared for without being extreme.”
Tips on how to share bad news with patients
A guide often cited by clinicians when delivering bad news is the Buckman Six Step Protocol:
- Get the physical context right.
- Find out how much the patient knows.
- Find out how much the patient wants to know.
- Share the information.
- Respond to the patient’s feelings.
- Plan and follow through.
Linda Kim, PhD, notes that patient preference in receiving bad news is often culturally mediated. She recommends asking patients how they would want to receive bad news, especially in during IVF process, where there can be many challenges over the course of treatment. Dr. Kim also recommends these steps:
- Get as much information in advance as possible and ask your patient directly how they want bad news. When you are meeting a patient and their families for the first time, and they are filling out their intake paperwork or health forms, you may consider adding a section on “What is your preferred method of communication?” And after that, you might add, “What is the best way to tell you challenging or difficult news? Would you prefer to be by yourself or with a loved one? Please elaborate any additional preferences.” Everyone is different, and it can be helpful to hear from the patient directly how they would like to receive bad news. It will not only meet them where they are during a difficult time, it will also demonstrate to the patient that you are respecting their preferences and involving those preferences in the process.
- Try to leave enough time for a difficult conversation with a patient. Even better is if a clinician can prepare a patient that there is some disappointing or difficult news to share.
- Finally, offer discussion on next steps. It never hurts to ask the patient directly when they are ready to discuss next steps. This may take a few hours, a few days, or even a few months or longer.
Social media as support
Monica Wunderman, a patient of Dr. Eyvazzadeh’s since 2020, began her own social media campaign on Instagram to find support and give support to women experiencing IVF.
“I started scrolling and liking posts, and a girl reached out to me to ask if I needed help” in the form of emotional support, she recalls.
Instagram became a haven for Ms. Wunderman to share information, experiences, and support with others. It also allowed her to create a network of support and meet other women, like Ashley Hingston, going through similar struggles.
Ms. Wunderman has been through four rounds of IVF so far. Three were completely unsuccessful; the last ended in miscarriage. Although she and her husband are trying again with a surrogate, the uncertainty remains. And she feels the health care system should be offering her – and the other would-be parents she has met online – more support.
“We place such importance as a society on growing families,” she says. “But then we do very little to support those who want them and struggle.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two years ago, Ashley Hingston had a miscarriage. The 35-year-old Floridian and her husband had been going through in vitro fertilization when they received the news no one wants to get, but which many in their position reflexively expect: “You are going to lose the pregnancy.”
On the other end of the line was Ms. Hingston’s physician, who offered her advice and comfort to ease the pain of the bad news.
“I was a complete wreck and could barely even talk,” Ms. Hingston recalled. “But I think my doctor knew what I was asking, and she was doing the best to answer the questions I had: Why did this happen? What does this mean? And she sat and listened to me.”
An estimated 2% of babies born in the United States each year are the result of IVF, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The process is often emotionally, physically, and economically taxing for patients. According to the CDC, the chance a pregnancy will be successful through IVF is 21.3%. Consequently, doctors often find themselves the bearers of bad news.
But interaction with a care team or a string of nurses and providers, rather than a physician, is the norm for IVF patients, according to Aimee Eyvazzadeh, MD, a specialist in infertility and reproductive endocrinology in San Ramon, Calif.
“Patients see a doctor for all of 10 minutes and then they are handed off to a care team who don’t know their whole story,” she said.
For Dr. Eyvazzadeh and other health care professionals, physicians must improve the ways they share bad news, and how they divide tasks with care teams.
Personalized care works best
Providing personalized care will improve how IVF patients respond to bad news, according to Dr. Eyvazzadeh and others.
“When people have gone through so much trauma, anything you say to them, sometimes they can’t process it very well, so they have to see the information in different ways,” she told this news organization. “After each phone call, I’ll actually type up a summary for them, with links and articles for them to read, so they are directed in a way that I think is healthy so they aren’t pulled into a rabbit hole.”
Dr. Eyvazzadeh said she encourages her patients to seek counseling during IVF treatment, and even pays for their initial psychiatric consultation. Not many doctors do this, she noted.
“Taking the time to allow the patient to process the bad news is vital,” said Linda Kim, PhD, a psychiatrist at Moon Mental Health, to whom Dr. Eyvazzadeh refers couples. Sometimes, several calls are necessary.
“Rather than thinking of the conversation as a linear process, consider it a sphere of processing,” Dr. Kim said. “The patient may need space to grieve, may ask many questions, may need to clarify what happened, or may need to vent and release frustration. This is space that the patient needs to process the bad news.” (See below for more tips on how to share bad news with your patients.)
Many care teams are skilled in delivering bad news to patients, according to Liz Grill, PsyD, a psychologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. The challenge for them is ensuring new nurses and clinicians continue to have empathy training, she said.
“You want to make sure clinicians are building relationships, and empathy. Whether there is a protocol to build that level of empathy, or if they have their own innate ability to build empathy, it’s about communicating in the right way,” Dr. Grill told this news organization.
But Mark Trolice, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, agreed that nurses should not deliver bad news, even if they have the expertise and the compassion to do so.
“It’s the doctor’s responsibility to make that call. It’s a very difficult call and it puts an unnecessary burden on your care team to be making these calls all the time,” Dr. Trolice said. “I feel the patient wants to hear from the physician who oversaw their cycle and did the procedure and embryo transfer. It shows a tremendous amount of responsibility and commitment on the part of the physician.”
Dr. Trolice also recommended clinicians refer to the HEART (Hearing, Empathy, Apology, Response, and Thanks) guidelines to ensure proper conversations with patients about bad news.
“You give the patient time to process the information and ask questions, and then we schedule another time to talk about plans going forward,” he said.
“Patients can feel powerless and not in control of what is happening, or even over their own bodies,” Dr. Kim added. “To counteract this, it can be helpful to outline projected steps as much as possible.”
For Dr. Eyvazzadeh, caring for an IVF patient is a matter of knowing your strengths.
Providing links to web resources, recommending an organic diet, and sending them to support groups (see below) are helpful, she said. “For some people, their strength isn’t engaging with patients on the same level that I do. But I still feel like there are ways that we can still make the patients feel cared for without being extreme.”
Tips on how to share bad news with patients
A guide often cited by clinicians when delivering bad news is the Buckman Six Step Protocol:
- Get the physical context right.
- Find out how much the patient knows.
- Find out how much the patient wants to know.
- Share the information.
- Respond to the patient’s feelings.
- Plan and follow through.
Linda Kim, PhD, notes that patient preference in receiving bad news is often culturally mediated. She recommends asking patients how they would want to receive bad news, especially in during IVF process, where there can be many challenges over the course of treatment. Dr. Kim also recommends these steps:
- Get as much information in advance as possible and ask your patient directly how they want bad news. When you are meeting a patient and their families for the first time, and they are filling out their intake paperwork or health forms, you may consider adding a section on “What is your preferred method of communication?” And after that, you might add, “What is the best way to tell you challenging or difficult news? Would you prefer to be by yourself or with a loved one? Please elaborate any additional preferences.” Everyone is different, and it can be helpful to hear from the patient directly how they would like to receive bad news. It will not only meet them where they are during a difficult time, it will also demonstrate to the patient that you are respecting their preferences and involving those preferences in the process.
- Try to leave enough time for a difficult conversation with a patient. Even better is if a clinician can prepare a patient that there is some disappointing or difficult news to share.
- Finally, offer discussion on next steps. It never hurts to ask the patient directly when they are ready to discuss next steps. This may take a few hours, a few days, or even a few months or longer.
Social media as support
Monica Wunderman, a patient of Dr. Eyvazzadeh’s since 2020, began her own social media campaign on Instagram to find support and give support to women experiencing IVF.
“I started scrolling and liking posts, and a girl reached out to me to ask if I needed help” in the form of emotional support, she recalls.
Instagram became a haven for Ms. Wunderman to share information, experiences, and support with others. It also allowed her to create a network of support and meet other women, like Ashley Hingston, going through similar struggles.
Ms. Wunderman has been through four rounds of IVF so far. Three were completely unsuccessful; the last ended in miscarriage. Although she and her husband are trying again with a surrogate, the uncertainty remains. And she feels the health care system should be offering her – and the other would-be parents she has met online – more support.
“We place such importance as a society on growing families,” she says. “But then we do very little to support those who want them and struggle.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Taking our own advice
Like many Americans, I’m overweight. Working 70-80 hours a week doesn’t leave much time for exercise. I try to do what I can, such as using stairs instead of the elevator, but in a two-story office building that doesn’t get you very far. And when I get home there are still tests to read, dictations to do, finances to catch up on ... which leaves little time for anything else other than eating and sleeping.
Eating better? Easier said than done. When I was single, back in residency, that was easy. I only had one person to shop for and feed, but in a family you need to find something that will keep everyone happy, and with three teenagers that ain’t easy. Everyone wants this, that, or the other, and none of it seems to be particularly good for you.
In the modern era convenience generally beats pretty much everything else. Our lives are hurried. At some point it’s just easier to pick something up or order out than to go to the effort of preparing your own meals. Of course, it’s possible to get something healthy for takeout, but the unhealthy menu items sound so much better, and by that time of day I’m tired, hungry, and stressed, and the will power I had in the morning is pretty much gone.
It’s kind of a medical paradox. Those of us taking care of others often don’t do the same for ourselves. Part of this, as noted in a recent Medscape article, is that we live on schedules that are unrelated to the typical 9-to-5 jobs that most other professionals have, not to mention a very different set of stressors.
At least I haven’t started smoking.
As the article points out, I’m not alone. In fact, it’s reassuring to know other physicians are dealing with the same situation. We often assume we’re alone in our struggles, when the actual truth is the opposite.
All of our medical training doesn’t mean we’re not human. It would be nice if the job made us better able to practice what we preach, but human nature is older than medicine, and we’re susceptible to the same faults and temptations as those of our patients.
And always will be.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Like many Americans, I’m overweight. Working 70-80 hours a week doesn’t leave much time for exercise. I try to do what I can, such as using stairs instead of the elevator, but in a two-story office building that doesn’t get you very far. And when I get home there are still tests to read, dictations to do, finances to catch up on ... which leaves little time for anything else other than eating and sleeping.
Eating better? Easier said than done. When I was single, back in residency, that was easy. I only had one person to shop for and feed, but in a family you need to find something that will keep everyone happy, and with three teenagers that ain’t easy. Everyone wants this, that, or the other, and none of it seems to be particularly good for you.
In the modern era convenience generally beats pretty much everything else. Our lives are hurried. At some point it’s just easier to pick something up or order out than to go to the effort of preparing your own meals. Of course, it’s possible to get something healthy for takeout, but the unhealthy menu items sound so much better, and by that time of day I’m tired, hungry, and stressed, and the will power I had in the morning is pretty much gone.
It’s kind of a medical paradox. Those of us taking care of others often don’t do the same for ourselves. Part of this, as noted in a recent Medscape article, is that we live on schedules that are unrelated to the typical 9-to-5 jobs that most other professionals have, not to mention a very different set of stressors.
At least I haven’t started smoking.
As the article points out, I’m not alone. In fact, it’s reassuring to know other physicians are dealing with the same situation. We often assume we’re alone in our struggles, when the actual truth is the opposite.
All of our medical training doesn’t mean we’re not human. It would be nice if the job made us better able to practice what we preach, but human nature is older than medicine, and we’re susceptible to the same faults and temptations as those of our patients.
And always will be.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Like many Americans, I’m overweight. Working 70-80 hours a week doesn’t leave much time for exercise. I try to do what I can, such as using stairs instead of the elevator, but in a two-story office building that doesn’t get you very far. And when I get home there are still tests to read, dictations to do, finances to catch up on ... which leaves little time for anything else other than eating and sleeping.
Eating better? Easier said than done. When I was single, back in residency, that was easy. I only had one person to shop for and feed, but in a family you need to find something that will keep everyone happy, and with three teenagers that ain’t easy. Everyone wants this, that, or the other, and none of it seems to be particularly good for you.
In the modern era convenience generally beats pretty much everything else. Our lives are hurried. At some point it’s just easier to pick something up or order out than to go to the effort of preparing your own meals. Of course, it’s possible to get something healthy for takeout, but the unhealthy menu items sound so much better, and by that time of day I’m tired, hungry, and stressed, and the will power I had in the morning is pretty much gone.
It’s kind of a medical paradox. Those of us taking care of others often don’t do the same for ourselves. Part of this, as noted in a recent Medscape article, is that we live on schedules that are unrelated to the typical 9-to-5 jobs that most other professionals have, not to mention a very different set of stressors.
At least I haven’t started smoking.
As the article points out, I’m not alone. In fact, it’s reassuring to know other physicians are dealing with the same situation. We often assume we’re alone in our struggles, when the actual truth is the opposite.
All of our medical training doesn’t mean we’re not human. It would be nice if the job made us better able to practice what we preach, but human nature is older than medicine, and we’re susceptible to the same faults and temptations as those of our patients.
And always will be.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Let people take illegal drugs under medical supervision?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m the director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.
One is up in Washington Heights in Manhattan; the other, I believe, is over in Harlem.
These two centers will supervise people taking drugs. They have available all of the anti-overdose medications, such as Narcan. If you overdose, they will help you and try to counsel you to get off drugs, but they don’t insist that you do so. You can go there, even if you’re an addict, and continue to take drugs under supervision. This is called a risk-reduction strategy.
Some people note that there are over 100 centers like this worldwide. They’re in Canada, Switzerland, and many other countries, and they seem to work. “Working” means more people seem to come off drugs slowly – not huge numbers, but some – than if you don’t do something like this, and death rates from overdose go way down.
By the way, having these centers in place has other benefits. They save money because when someone overdoses out in the community, you have to pay all the costs of the ambulances and emergency rooms, and there are risks to the first responders due to fentanyl or other things. There are fewer syringes littering parks and public places where people shoot up. You have everything controlled when they come into a center, so that’s less burden on the community.
It turns out that you have less crime because people just aren’t out there harming or robbing other people to get money to get their next fix. The drugs are provided for them. Crime rates in neighborhoods around the world where these centers operate seem to dip. There are many positives.
There are also some negatives. People say it shouldn’t be the job of the state to keep people addicted. It’s just not the right role. Everything should be aimed at getting people off drugs, maybe including criminal penalties if that’s what it takes to get them to stop using.
My own view is that hasn’t worked. Implementing tough prison sentences in trying to fight the war on drugs just doesn’t seem to work. We had 100,000 deaths last year from drug overdoses. That number has been climbing. We all know that we’ve got a terrible epidemic of deaths due to drug overdose.
It seems to me that these centers that are involved in risk reduction are a better option for now, until we figure out some interventions that can cut the desire or the drive to use drugs, or antidotes that are effective for months or years, to prevent people from getting high no matter what drugs they take.
I’m going to come out and say that I think the New York experiment has worked. I think it has saved upward of 600 lives, they estimate, in the past year that would have been overdoses. I think costwise, it’s effective. [Reductions in] related damages and injuries from syringes being scattered around, and robbery, and so forth, are all to the good. There are even a few people coming off drugs due to counseling, which is a better outcome than we get when they’re just out in the streets.
I think other cities want to try this. I know Philadelphia does. I know New York wants to expand its program. The federal government isn’t sure, but I think the time has come to try an expansion. I think we’ve got something that – although far from perfect and I wish we had other tools – may be the best we’ve got. In the war on drugs, little victories ought to be reinforced.
Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m the director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.
One is up in Washington Heights in Manhattan; the other, I believe, is over in Harlem.
These two centers will supervise people taking drugs. They have available all of the anti-overdose medications, such as Narcan. If you overdose, they will help you and try to counsel you to get off drugs, but they don’t insist that you do so. You can go there, even if you’re an addict, and continue to take drugs under supervision. This is called a risk-reduction strategy.
Some people note that there are over 100 centers like this worldwide. They’re in Canada, Switzerland, and many other countries, and they seem to work. “Working” means more people seem to come off drugs slowly – not huge numbers, but some – than if you don’t do something like this, and death rates from overdose go way down.
By the way, having these centers in place has other benefits. They save money because when someone overdoses out in the community, you have to pay all the costs of the ambulances and emergency rooms, and there are risks to the first responders due to fentanyl or other things. There are fewer syringes littering parks and public places where people shoot up. You have everything controlled when they come into a center, so that’s less burden on the community.
It turns out that you have less crime because people just aren’t out there harming or robbing other people to get money to get their next fix. The drugs are provided for them. Crime rates in neighborhoods around the world where these centers operate seem to dip. There are many positives.
There are also some negatives. People say it shouldn’t be the job of the state to keep people addicted. It’s just not the right role. Everything should be aimed at getting people off drugs, maybe including criminal penalties if that’s what it takes to get them to stop using.
My own view is that hasn’t worked. Implementing tough prison sentences in trying to fight the war on drugs just doesn’t seem to work. We had 100,000 deaths last year from drug overdoses. That number has been climbing. We all know that we’ve got a terrible epidemic of deaths due to drug overdose.
It seems to me that these centers that are involved in risk reduction are a better option for now, until we figure out some interventions that can cut the desire or the drive to use drugs, or antidotes that are effective for months or years, to prevent people from getting high no matter what drugs they take.
I’m going to come out and say that I think the New York experiment has worked. I think it has saved upward of 600 lives, they estimate, in the past year that would have been overdoses. I think costwise, it’s effective. [Reductions in] related damages and injuries from syringes being scattered around, and robbery, and so forth, are all to the good. There are even a few people coming off drugs due to counseling, which is a better outcome than we get when they’re just out in the streets.
I think other cities want to try this. I know Philadelphia does. I know New York wants to expand its program. The federal government isn’t sure, but I think the time has come to try an expansion. I think we’ve got something that – although far from perfect and I wish we had other tools – may be the best we’ve got. In the war on drugs, little victories ought to be reinforced.
Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m the director of the division of medical ethics at New York University.
One is up in Washington Heights in Manhattan; the other, I believe, is over in Harlem.
These two centers will supervise people taking drugs. They have available all of the anti-overdose medications, such as Narcan. If you overdose, they will help you and try to counsel you to get off drugs, but they don’t insist that you do so. You can go there, even if you’re an addict, and continue to take drugs under supervision. This is called a risk-reduction strategy.
Some people note that there are over 100 centers like this worldwide. They’re in Canada, Switzerland, and many other countries, and they seem to work. “Working” means more people seem to come off drugs slowly – not huge numbers, but some – than if you don’t do something like this, and death rates from overdose go way down.
By the way, having these centers in place has other benefits. They save money because when someone overdoses out in the community, you have to pay all the costs of the ambulances and emergency rooms, and there are risks to the first responders due to fentanyl or other things. There are fewer syringes littering parks and public places where people shoot up. You have everything controlled when they come into a center, so that’s less burden on the community.
It turns out that you have less crime because people just aren’t out there harming or robbing other people to get money to get their next fix. The drugs are provided for them. Crime rates in neighborhoods around the world where these centers operate seem to dip. There are many positives.
There are also some negatives. People say it shouldn’t be the job of the state to keep people addicted. It’s just not the right role. Everything should be aimed at getting people off drugs, maybe including criminal penalties if that’s what it takes to get them to stop using.
My own view is that hasn’t worked. Implementing tough prison sentences in trying to fight the war on drugs just doesn’t seem to work. We had 100,000 deaths last year from drug overdoses. That number has been climbing. We all know that we’ve got a terrible epidemic of deaths due to drug overdose.
It seems to me that these centers that are involved in risk reduction are a better option for now, until we figure out some interventions that can cut the desire or the drive to use drugs, or antidotes that are effective for months or years, to prevent people from getting high no matter what drugs they take.
I’m going to come out and say that I think the New York experiment has worked. I think it has saved upward of 600 lives, they estimate, in the past year that would have been overdoses. I think costwise, it’s effective. [Reductions in] related damages and injuries from syringes being scattered around, and robbery, and so forth, are all to the good. There are even a few people coming off drugs due to counseling, which is a better outcome than we get when they’re just out in the streets.
I think other cities want to try this. I know Philadelphia does. I know New York wants to expand its program. The federal government isn’t sure, but I think the time has come to try an expansion. I think we’ve got something that – although far from perfect and I wish we had other tools – may be the best we’ve got. In the war on drugs, little victories ought to be reinforced.
Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Why doctors are losing trust in patients; what should be done?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University.
I want to talk about a paper that my colleagues in my division just published in Health Affairs.
As they pointed out, there’s a large amount of literature about what makes patients trust their doctor. There are many studies that show that, although patients sometimes have become more critical of the medical profession, in general they still try to trust their individual physician. Nurses remain in fairly high esteem among those who are getting hospital care.
What isn’t studied, as this paper properly points out, is, what can the doctor and the nurse do to trust the patient? How can that be assessed? Isn’t that just as important as saying that patients have to trust their doctors to do and comply with what they’re told?
What if doctors are afraid of violence? What if doctors are fearful that they can’t trust patients to listen, pay attention, or do what they’re being told? What if they think that patients are coming in with all kinds of disinformation, false information, or things they pick up on the Internet, so that even though you try your best to get across accurate and complete information about what to do about infectious diseases, taking care of a kid with strep throat, or whatever it might be, you’re thinking, Can I trust this patient to do what it is that I want them to do?
One particular problem that’s causing distrust is that more and more patients are showing stress and dependence on drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t make them less trustworthy per se, but it means they can’t regulate their own behavior as well.
That obviously has to be something that the physician or the nurse is thinking about. Is this person going to be able to contain anger? Is this person going to be able to handle bad news? Is this person going to deal with me when I tell them that some of the things they believe to be true about what’s good for their health care are false?
I think we have to really start to push administrators and people in positions of power to teach doctors and nurses how to defuse situations and how to make people more comfortable when they come in and the doctor suspects that they might be under the influence, impaired, or angry because of things they’ve seen on social media, whatever those might be – including concerns about racism, bigotry, and bias, which some patients are bringing into the clinic and the hospital setting.
We need more training. We’ve got to address this as a serious issue. What can we do to defuse situations where the doctor or the nurse rightly thinks that they can’t control or they can’t trust what the patient is thinking or how the patient might behave?
It’s also the case that I think we need more backup and quick access to security so that people feel safe and comfortable in providing care. We have to make sure that if you need someone to restrain a patient or to get somebody out of a situation, that they can get there quickly and respond rapidly, and that they know what to do to deescalate a situation.
It’s sad to say, but security in today’s health care world has to be something that we really test and check – not because we’re worried, as many places are, about a shooter entering the premises, which is its own bit of concern – but I’m just talking about when the doctor or the nurse says that this patient might be acting up, could get violent, or is someone I can’t trust.
My coauthors are basically saying that it’s not a one-way street. Yes, we have to figure out ways to make sure that our patients can trust what we say. Trust is absolutely the lubricant that makes health care flow. If patients don’t trust their doctors, they’re not going to do what they say. They’re not going to get their prescriptions filled. They’re not going to be compliant. They’re not going to try to lose weight or control their diabetes.
It also goes the other way. The doctor or the nurse has to trust the patient. They have to believe that they’re safe. They have to believe that the patient is capable of controlling themselves. They have to believe that the patient is capable of listening and hearing what they’re saying, and that they’re competent to follow up on instructions, including to come back if that’s what’s required.
Everybody has to feel secure in the environment in which they’re working. Security, sadly, has to be a priority if we’re going to have a health care workforce that really feels safe and comfortable dealing with a patient population that is increasingly aggressive and perhaps not as trustworthy.
That’s not news I like to read when my colleagues write it up, but it’s important and we have to take it seriously.
Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University.
I want to talk about a paper that my colleagues in my division just published in Health Affairs.
As they pointed out, there’s a large amount of literature about what makes patients trust their doctor. There are many studies that show that, although patients sometimes have become more critical of the medical profession, in general they still try to trust their individual physician. Nurses remain in fairly high esteem among those who are getting hospital care.
What isn’t studied, as this paper properly points out, is, what can the doctor and the nurse do to trust the patient? How can that be assessed? Isn’t that just as important as saying that patients have to trust their doctors to do and comply with what they’re told?
What if doctors are afraid of violence? What if doctors are fearful that they can’t trust patients to listen, pay attention, or do what they’re being told? What if they think that patients are coming in with all kinds of disinformation, false information, or things they pick up on the Internet, so that even though you try your best to get across accurate and complete information about what to do about infectious diseases, taking care of a kid with strep throat, or whatever it might be, you’re thinking, Can I trust this patient to do what it is that I want them to do?
One particular problem that’s causing distrust is that more and more patients are showing stress and dependence on drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t make them less trustworthy per se, but it means they can’t regulate their own behavior as well.
That obviously has to be something that the physician or the nurse is thinking about. Is this person going to be able to contain anger? Is this person going to be able to handle bad news? Is this person going to deal with me when I tell them that some of the things they believe to be true about what’s good for their health care are false?
I think we have to really start to push administrators and people in positions of power to teach doctors and nurses how to defuse situations and how to make people more comfortable when they come in and the doctor suspects that they might be under the influence, impaired, or angry because of things they’ve seen on social media, whatever those might be – including concerns about racism, bigotry, and bias, which some patients are bringing into the clinic and the hospital setting.
We need more training. We’ve got to address this as a serious issue. What can we do to defuse situations where the doctor or the nurse rightly thinks that they can’t control or they can’t trust what the patient is thinking or how the patient might behave?
It’s also the case that I think we need more backup and quick access to security so that people feel safe and comfortable in providing care. We have to make sure that if you need someone to restrain a patient or to get somebody out of a situation, that they can get there quickly and respond rapidly, and that they know what to do to deescalate a situation.
It’s sad to say, but security in today’s health care world has to be something that we really test and check – not because we’re worried, as many places are, about a shooter entering the premises, which is its own bit of concern – but I’m just talking about when the doctor or the nurse says that this patient might be acting up, could get violent, or is someone I can’t trust.
My coauthors are basically saying that it’s not a one-way street. Yes, we have to figure out ways to make sure that our patients can trust what we say. Trust is absolutely the lubricant that makes health care flow. If patients don’t trust their doctors, they’re not going to do what they say. They’re not going to get their prescriptions filled. They’re not going to be compliant. They’re not going to try to lose weight or control their diabetes.
It also goes the other way. The doctor or the nurse has to trust the patient. They have to believe that they’re safe. They have to believe that the patient is capable of controlling themselves. They have to believe that the patient is capable of listening and hearing what they’re saying, and that they’re competent to follow up on instructions, including to come back if that’s what’s required.
Everybody has to feel secure in the environment in which they’re working. Security, sadly, has to be a priority if we’re going to have a health care workforce that really feels safe and comfortable dealing with a patient population that is increasingly aggressive and perhaps not as trustworthy.
That’s not news I like to read when my colleagues write it up, but it’s important and we have to take it seriously.
Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University.
I want to talk about a paper that my colleagues in my division just published in Health Affairs.
As they pointed out, there’s a large amount of literature about what makes patients trust their doctor. There are many studies that show that, although patients sometimes have become more critical of the medical profession, in general they still try to trust their individual physician. Nurses remain in fairly high esteem among those who are getting hospital care.
What isn’t studied, as this paper properly points out, is, what can the doctor and the nurse do to trust the patient? How can that be assessed? Isn’t that just as important as saying that patients have to trust their doctors to do and comply with what they’re told?
What if doctors are afraid of violence? What if doctors are fearful that they can’t trust patients to listen, pay attention, or do what they’re being told? What if they think that patients are coming in with all kinds of disinformation, false information, or things they pick up on the Internet, so that even though you try your best to get across accurate and complete information about what to do about infectious diseases, taking care of a kid with strep throat, or whatever it might be, you’re thinking, Can I trust this patient to do what it is that I want them to do?
One particular problem that’s causing distrust is that more and more patients are showing stress and dependence on drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t make them less trustworthy per se, but it means they can’t regulate their own behavior as well.
That obviously has to be something that the physician or the nurse is thinking about. Is this person going to be able to contain anger? Is this person going to be able to handle bad news? Is this person going to deal with me when I tell them that some of the things they believe to be true about what’s good for their health care are false?
I think we have to really start to push administrators and people in positions of power to teach doctors and nurses how to defuse situations and how to make people more comfortable when they come in and the doctor suspects that they might be under the influence, impaired, or angry because of things they’ve seen on social media, whatever those might be – including concerns about racism, bigotry, and bias, which some patients are bringing into the clinic and the hospital setting.
We need more training. We’ve got to address this as a serious issue. What can we do to defuse situations where the doctor or the nurse rightly thinks that they can’t control or they can’t trust what the patient is thinking or how the patient might behave?
It’s also the case that I think we need more backup and quick access to security so that people feel safe and comfortable in providing care. We have to make sure that if you need someone to restrain a patient or to get somebody out of a situation, that they can get there quickly and respond rapidly, and that they know what to do to deescalate a situation.
It’s sad to say, but security in today’s health care world has to be something that we really test and check – not because we’re worried, as many places are, about a shooter entering the premises, which is its own bit of concern – but I’m just talking about when the doctor or the nurse says that this patient might be acting up, could get violent, or is someone I can’t trust.
My coauthors are basically saying that it’s not a one-way street. Yes, we have to figure out ways to make sure that our patients can trust what we say. Trust is absolutely the lubricant that makes health care flow. If patients don’t trust their doctors, they’re not going to do what they say. They’re not going to get their prescriptions filled. They’re not going to be compliant. They’re not going to try to lose weight or control their diabetes.
It also goes the other way. The doctor or the nurse has to trust the patient. They have to believe that they’re safe. They have to believe that the patient is capable of controlling themselves. They have to believe that the patient is capable of listening and hearing what they’re saying, and that they’re competent to follow up on instructions, including to come back if that’s what’s required.
Everybody has to feel secure in the environment in which they’re working. Security, sadly, has to be a priority if we’re going to have a health care workforce that really feels safe and comfortable dealing with a patient population that is increasingly aggressive and perhaps not as trustworthy.
That’s not news I like to read when my colleagues write it up, but it’s important and we have to take it seriously.
Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rheumatology Match Day follows same pattern as previous years
Rheumatology joined six other Medicine specialties that filled more than 95% of fellowship positions in 2022.
The National Resident Matching Program in its 2022 Medicine and Pediatric Specialties Match reported that rheumatology filled 123 of 127 certified programs (96.9%) along with 265 certified positions (97.8%).
Matched applicants for adult rheumatology programs included 40 U.S. foreign applicants (15.1%), 123 MD graduates (46.4%), 66 foreign (24.9%), and 36 DO graduates (13.6%).
A total of 352 applicants showed a preference for this specialty, and 75% matched to the specialty. Another 23% did not match to any program.
2022 was the first year that NRMP combined medical specialties, pediatric specialties, and adolescent medicine fellowship matches into the “Medicine and Pediatric Specialties Match.”
“We engaged the leadership of both pediatrics and internal medicine organizations to work with the NRMP to brainstorm solutions and were successful in combining pediatrics and internal medicine into one fellowship match,” said Jill Fussell, MD, immediate past chair of the Council of Pediatric Subspecialties in a statement. “It was an incredibly rewarding experience to work across pediatrics and internal medicine on behalf of resident well-being to make this collaborative change happen.”
Similar to 2021, pediatric rheumatology didn’t do as well as adult programs, filling just 18 of 32 certified programs (56.3%) and 27 out of 43 certified positions (62.8%). More than 66% of the applicants represented MD graduates. Eight were foreign, and one was a DO graduate.
The 2022 match was the largest on record, comprising 39 subspecialties in internal medicine, pediatrics, addiction, and multidisciplinary specialties. A total of 3,361 programs filled 7,648 (87.7%) of 8,724 positions in 2022. Three specialties – cardiovascular disease, interventional pulmonology, and oncology – filled all their positions offered in the match.
In addition to rheumatology, six other specialties filled 95% or more of their positions. This included clinical cardiac electrophysiology, critical care medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, and pulmonary/critical care medicine. Allergy and immunology, which accepts applicants from either internal medicine or pediatrics, also filled more than 95% of positions offered.
Matched applicants will start fellowship training in July 2023.
Rheumatology joined six other Medicine specialties that filled more than 95% of fellowship positions in 2022.
The National Resident Matching Program in its 2022 Medicine and Pediatric Specialties Match reported that rheumatology filled 123 of 127 certified programs (96.9%) along with 265 certified positions (97.8%).
Matched applicants for adult rheumatology programs included 40 U.S. foreign applicants (15.1%), 123 MD graduates (46.4%), 66 foreign (24.9%), and 36 DO graduates (13.6%).
A total of 352 applicants showed a preference for this specialty, and 75% matched to the specialty. Another 23% did not match to any program.
2022 was the first year that NRMP combined medical specialties, pediatric specialties, and adolescent medicine fellowship matches into the “Medicine and Pediatric Specialties Match.”
“We engaged the leadership of both pediatrics and internal medicine organizations to work with the NRMP to brainstorm solutions and were successful in combining pediatrics and internal medicine into one fellowship match,” said Jill Fussell, MD, immediate past chair of the Council of Pediatric Subspecialties in a statement. “It was an incredibly rewarding experience to work across pediatrics and internal medicine on behalf of resident well-being to make this collaborative change happen.”
Similar to 2021, pediatric rheumatology didn’t do as well as adult programs, filling just 18 of 32 certified programs (56.3%) and 27 out of 43 certified positions (62.8%). More than 66% of the applicants represented MD graduates. Eight were foreign, and one was a DO graduate.
The 2022 match was the largest on record, comprising 39 subspecialties in internal medicine, pediatrics, addiction, and multidisciplinary specialties. A total of 3,361 programs filled 7,648 (87.7%) of 8,724 positions in 2022. Three specialties – cardiovascular disease, interventional pulmonology, and oncology – filled all their positions offered in the match.
In addition to rheumatology, six other specialties filled 95% or more of their positions. This included clinical cardiac electrophysiology, critical care medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, and pulmonary/critical care medicine. Allergy and immunology, which accepts applicants from either internal medicine or pediatrics, also filled more than 95% of positions offered.
Matched applicants will start fellowship training in July 2023.
Rheumatology joined six other Medicine specialties that filled more than 95% of fellowship positions in 2022.
The National Resident Matching Program in its 2022 Medicine and Pediatric Specialties Match reported that rheumatology filled 123 of 127 certified programs (96.9%) along with 265 certified positions (97.8%).
Matched applicants for adult rheumatology programs included 40 U.S. foreign applicants (15.1%), 123 MD graduates (46.4%), 66 foreign (24.9%), and 36 DO graduates (13.6%).
A total of 352 applicants showed a preference for this specialty, and 75% matched to the specialty. Another 23% did not match to any program.
2022 was the first year that NRMP combined medical specialties, pediatric specialties, and adolescent medicine fellowship matches into the “Medicine and Pediatric Specialties Match.”
“We engaged the leadership of both pediatrics and internal medicine organizations to work with the NRMP to brainstorm solutions and were successful in combining pediatrics and internal medicine into one fellowship match,” said Jill Fussell, MD, immediate past chair of the Council of Pediatric Subspecialties in a statement. “It was an incredibly rewarding experience to work across pediatrics and internal medicine on behalf of resident well-being to make this collaborative change happen.”
Similar to 2021, pediatric rheumatology didn’t do as well as adult programs, filling just 18 of 32 certified programs (56.3%) and 27 out of 43 certified positions (62.8%). More than 66% of the applicants represented MD graduates. Eight were foreign, and one was a DO graduate.
The 2022 match was the largest on record, comprising 39 subspecialties in internal medicine, pediatrics, addiction, and multidisciplinary specialties. A total of 3,361 programs filled 7,648 (87.7%) of 8,724 positions in 2022. Three specialties – cardiovascular disease, interventional pulmonology, and oncology – filled all their positions offered in the match.
In addition to rheumatology, six other specialties filled 95% or more of their positions. This included clinical cardiac electrophysiology, critical care medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, and pulmonary/critical care medicine. Allergy and immunology, which accepts applicants from either internal medicine or pediatrics, also filled more than 95% of positions offered.
Matched applicants will start fellowship training in July 2023.
More states to consider extending postpartum Medicaid coverage beyond 2 months
Lawmakers in several conservative-led states – including Montana, Wyoming, Missouri, and Mississippi – are expected to consider proposals to provide a year of continuous health coverage to new mothers enrolled in Medicaid.
Medicaid beneficiaries nationwide are guaranteed continuous postpartum coverage during the ongoing covid-19 public health emergency. But momentum has been building for states to extend the default 60-day required coverage period ahead of the emergency’s eventual end. Approximately 42% of births nationwide are covered under Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people, and extending postpartum coverage aims to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and illnesses by ensuring that new mothers’ medical care isn’t interrupted.
The push comes as a provision in the American Rescue Plan Act makes extending postpartum Medicaid coverage easier because states no longer need to apply for a waiver. A renewed focus on maternal health amid high U.S. maternal mortality rates also is driving the proposals, as is the expectation that more women will need postpartum care as state abortion bans proliferate in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate federal protections.
Thirty-five states and Washington have already extended, or plan to extend, postpartum eligibility in their Medicaid programs. That number includes Texas and Wisconsin, which did not implement the ARPA provision but have proposed limited extensions of 6 months and 90 days, respectively.
The 15 states that limit postpartum Medicaid eligibility to 60 days are predominantly a swath of Republican-led states that stretch from the Mountain West to the South. But that could change when legislative sessions start in the new year.
In Montana, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte and Department of Public Health and Human Services Director Charlie Brereton included 12-month postpartum eligibility in the governor’s proposed state budget. It would cost $9.2 million in federal and state funding over the next 2 years, according to the proposal, with the federal government covering nearly 70%.
A 2021 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report estimated about 2,000 women in Montana would benefit from the change. State health department spokesperson Jon Ebelt said state officials’ estimate is half that number. The reason for the disparity was not immediately clear.
Mr. Brereton considers the “extension of coverage for new mothers to be a pro-life, pro-family reform,” Mr. Ebelt said.
To become law, the proposal must be approved by state lawmakers once the legislative session begins in January. It has already received enthusiastic support from the senior Democrat on the committee that oversees the health department’s budget. “Continuous eligibility for women after they have a baby is really important,” said state Rep. Mary Caferro during the Children’s Legislative Forum in Helena on Nov. 30.
The top Republican on the committee, state Rep.-elect Bob Keenan, said he hasn’t dug in on the governor’s budget proposal but added that he plans to survey his fellow lawmakers and health care providers on the postpartum extension. “I wouldn’t dare venture a guess as to its acceptance,” he said.
Nationwide, more than 1 in 5 mothers whose pregnancies were covered by Medicaid lose their insurance within 6 months of giving birth, and 1 in 3 pregnancy-related deaths happen between a week and a year after a birth occurs, according to federal health officials.
The United States had the highest overall maternal mortality rate, by far, among wealthy nations in 2020, at 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that supports research focused on health care issues. The rate for Black women in the United States is even higher, 55.3 deaths.
“Many maternal deaths result from missed or delayed opportunities for treatment,” the report said.
The maternal mortality rate in Montana is not publicly available because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suppressed the state data in 2020 “due to reliability and confidentiality restrictions.” Mr. Ebelt, the state health department spokesperson, could not provide a rate before this article’s publication.
Annie Glover, a senior research scientist for the University of Montana’s Rural Institute for Inclusive Communities, said the governor’s proposal to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage could make a significant difference in improving overall maternal health in Montana. The university was awarded a federal grant this year for such efforts, particularly to lower the mortality rate among Native Americans, and Ms. Glover said the state measure could further reduce rates.
“The reason really has to do with maintaining access to care during this very critical period,” Ms. Glover said. That goes for helping mothers with postpartum depression, as well as medical conditions like high blood pressure that require follow-ups with a physician well after delivery, she said.
In Wyoming, a legislative committee voted 6-5 in August to introduce a bill in the next session; dissenters cited the cost and their reluctance to further entangle the state in federal government programs.
About a third of Wyoming births are covered by Medicaid, and state officials estimate about 1,250 women would benefit from the change.
Postpartum eligibility bills are also expected to be taken up by legislators in Missouri and Mississippi, two states that have previously grappled with the issue. Both states have outlawed most abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted federal protections in June, and Mississippi leaders have said additional postpartum care is needed because of the thousands of additional births expected as a result of the state’s ban.
A proposed coverage expansion died in the Mississippi House last session, but Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann said the Senate will revive the measure, according to Mississippi Today.
Last year, federal officials approved a Medicaid waiver for Missouri that allows the state to extend postpartum eligibility. But state officials delayed implementing the change to determine how enrollment would be affected by Missouri voters’ decision in August 2020 to expand Medicaid eligibility to more people. The delay prompted a bill to be filed last session that would have extended postpartum coverage by a year. That measure died, but a state lawmaker has pre-filed a bill that will bring back the debate in the upcoming session.
In Idaho, a children’s advocacy group said it will press lawmakers to approve a postpartum eligibility extension, among other measures, after the state banned nearly all abortions this year.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Lawmakers in several conservative-led states – including Montana, Wyoming, Missouri, and Mississippi – are expected to consider proposals to provide a year of continuous health coverage to new mothers enrolled in Medicaid.
Medicaid beneficiaries nationwide are guaranteed continuous postpartum coverage during the ongoing covid-19 public health emergency. But momentum has been building for states to extend the default 60-day required coverage period ahead of the emergency’s eventual end. Approximately 42% of births nationwide are covered under Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people, and extending postpartum coverage aims to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and illnesses by ensuring that new mothers’ medical care isn’t interrupted.
The push comes as a provision in the American Rescue Plan Act makes extending postpartum Medicaid coverage easier because states no longer need to apply for a waiver. A renewed focus on maternal health amid high U.S. maternal mortality rates also is driving the proposals, as is the expectation that more women will need postpartum care as state abortion bans proliferate in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate federal protections.
Thirty-five states and Washington have already extended, or plan to extend, postpartum eligibility in their Medicaid programs. That number includes Texas and Wisconsin, which did not implement the ARPA provision but have proposed limited extensions of 6 months and 90 days, respectively.
The 15 states that limit postpartum Medicaid eligibility to 60 days are predominantly a swath of Republican-led states that stretch from the Mountain West to the South. But that could change when legislative sessions start in the new year.
In Montana, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte and Department of Public Health and Human Services Director Charlie Brereton included 12-month postpartum eligibility in the governor’s proposed state budget. It would cost $9.2 million in federal and state funding over the next 2 years, according to the proposal, with the federal government covering nearly 70%.
A 2021 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report estimated about 2,000 women in Montana would benefit from the change. State health department spokesperson Jon Ebelt said state officials’ estimate is half that number. The reason for the disparity was not immediately clear.
Mr. Brereton considers the “extension of coverage for new mothers to be a pro-life, pro-family reform,” Mr. Ebelt said.
To become law, the proposal must be approved by state lawmakers once the legislative session begins in January. It has already received enthusiastic support from the senior Democrat on the committee that oversees the health department’s budget. “Continuous eligibility for women after they have a baby is really important,” said state Rep. Mary Caferro during the Children’s Legislative Forum in Helena on Nov. 30.
The top Republican on the committee, state Rep.-elect Bob Keenan, said he hasn’t dug in on the governor’s budget proposal but added that he plans to survey his fellow lawmakers and health care providers on the postpartum extension. “I wouldn’t dare venture a guess as to its acceptance,” he said.
Nationwide, more than 1 in 5 mothers whose pregnancies were covered by Medicaid lose their insurance within 6 months of giving birth, and 1 in 3 pregnancy-related deaths happen between a week and a year after a birth occurs, according to federal health officials.
The United States had the highest overall maternal mortality rate, by far, among wealthy nations in 2020, at 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that supports research focused on health care issues. The rate for Black women in the United States is even higher, 55.3 deaths.
“Many maternal deaths result from missed or delayed opportunities for treatment,” the report said.
The maternal mortality rate in Montana is not publicly available because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suppressed the state data in 2020 “due to reliability and confidentiality restrictions.” Mr. Ebelt, the state health department spokesperson, could not provide a rate before this article’s publication.
Annie Glover, a senior research scientist for the University of Montana’s Rural Institute for Inclusive Communities, said the governor’s proposal to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage could make a significant difference in improving overall maternal health in Montana. The university was awarded a federal grant this year for such efforts, particularly to lower the mortality rate among Native Americans, and Ms. Glover said the state measure could further reduce rates.
“The reason really has to do with maintaining access to care during this very critical period,” Ms. Glover said. That goes for helping mothers with postpartum depression, as well as medical conditions like high blood pressure that require follow-ups with a physician well after delivery, she said.
In Wyoming, a legislative committee voted 6-5 in August to introduce a bill in the next session; dissenters cited the cost and their reluctance to further entangle the state in federal government programs.
About a third of Wyoming births are covered by Medicaid, and state officials estimate about 1,250 women would benefit from the change.
Postpartum eligibility bills are also expected to be taken up by legislators in Missouri and Mississippi, two states that have previously grappled with the issue. Both states have outlawed most abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted federal protections in June, and Mississippi leaders have said additional postpartum care is needed because of the thousands of additional births expected as a result of the state’s ban.
A proposed coverage expansion died in the Mississippi House last session, but Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann said the Senate will revive the measure, according to Mississippi Today.
Last year, federal officials approved a Medicaid waiver for Missouri that allows the state to extend postpartum eligibility. But state officials delayed implementing the change to determine how enrollment would be affected by Missouri voters’ decision in August 2020 to expand Medicaid eligibility to more people. The delay prompted a bill to be filed last session that would have extended postpartum coverage by a year. That measure died, but a state lawmaker has pre-filed a bill that will bring back the debate in the upcoming session.
In Idaho, a children’s advocacy group said it will press lawmakers to approve a postpartum eligibility extension, among other measures, after the state banned nearly all abortions this year.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Lawmakers in several conservative-led states – including Montana, Wyoming, Missouri, and Mississippi – are expected to consider proposals to provide a year of continuous health coverage to new mothers enrolled in Medicaid.
Medicaid beneficiaries nationwide are guaranteed continuous postpartum coverage during the ongoing covid-19 public health emergency. But momentum has been building for states to extend the default 60-day required coverage period ahead of the emergency’s eventual end. Approximately 42% of births nationwide are covered under Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people, and extending postpartum coverage aims to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and illnesses by ensuring that new mothers’ medical care isn’t interrupted.
The push comes as a provision in the American Rescue Plan Act makes extending postpartum Medicaid coverage easier because states no longer need to apply for a waiver. A renewed focus on maternal health amid high U.S. maternal mortality rates also is driving the proposals, as is the expectation that more women will need postpartum care as state abortion bans proliferate in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate federal protections.
Thirty-five states and Washington have already extended, or plan to extend, postpartum eligibility in their Medicaid programs. That number includes Texas and Wisconsin, which did not implement the ARPA provision but have proposed limited extensions of 6 months and 90 days, respectively.
The 15 states that limit postpartum Medicaid eligibility to 60 days are predominantly a swath of Republican-led states that stretch from the Mountain West to the South. But that could change when legislative sessions start in the new year.
In Montana, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte and Department of Public Health and Human Services Director Charlie Brereton included 12-month postpartum eligibility in the governor’s proposed state budget. It would cost $9.2 million in federal and state funding over the next 2 years, according to the proposal, with the federal government covering nearly 70%.
A 2021 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report estimated about 2,000 women in Montana would benefit from the change. State health department spokesperson Jon Ebelt said state officials’ estimate is half that number. The reason for the disparity was not immediately clear.
Mr. Brereton considers the “extension of coverage for new mothers to be a pro-life, pro-family reform,” Mr. Ebelt said.
To become law, the proposal must be approved by state lawmakers once the legislative session begins in January. It has already received enthusiastic support from the senior Democrat on the committee that oversees the health department’s budget. “Continuous eligibility for women after they have a baby is really important,” said state Rep. Mary Caferro during the Children’s Legislative Forum in Helena on Nov. 30.
The top Republican on the committee, state Rep.-elect Bob Keenan, said he hasn’t dug in on the governor’s budget proposal but added that he plans to survey his fellow lawmakers and health care providers on the postpartum extension. “I wouldn’t dare venture a guess as to its acceptance,” he said.
Nationwide, more than 1 in 5 mothers whose pregnancies were covered by Medicaid lose their insurance within 6 months of giving birth, and 1 in 3 pregnancy-related deaths happen between a week and a year after a birth occurs, according to federal health officials.
The United States had the highest overall maternal mortality rate, by far, among wealthy nations in 2020, at 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that supports research focused on health care issues. The rate for Black women in the United States is even higher, 55.3 deaths.
“Many maternal deaths result from missed or delayed opportunities for treatment,” the report said.
The maternal mortality rate in Montana is not publicly available because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suppressed the state data in 2020 “due to reliability and confidentiality restrictions.” Mr. Ebelt, the state health department spokesperson, could not provide a rate before this article’s publication.
Annie Glover, a senior research scientist for the University of Montana’s Rural Institute for Inclusive Communities, said the governor’s proposal to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage could make a significant difference in improving overall maternal health in Montana. The university was awarded a federal grant this year for such efforts, particularly to lower the mortality rate among Native Americans, and Ms. Glover said the state measure could further reduce rates.
“The reason really has to do with maintaining access to care during this very critical period,” Ms. Glover said. That goes for helping mothers with postpartum depression, as well as medical conditions like high blood pressure that require follow-ups with a physician well after delivery, she said.
In Wyoming, a legislative committee voted 6-5 in August to introduce a bill in the next session; dissenters cited the cost and their reluctance to further entangle the state in federal government programs.
About a third of Wyoming births are covered by Medicaid, and state officials estimate about 1,250 women would benefit from the change.
Postpartum eligibility bills are also expected to be taken up by legislators in Missouri and Mississippi, two states that have previously grappled with the issue. Both states have outlawed most abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted federal protections in June, and Mississippi leaders have said additional postpartum care is needed because of the thousands of additional births expected as a result of the state’s ban.
A proposed coverage expansion died in the Mississippi House last session, but Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann said the Senate will revive the measure, according to Mississippi Today.
Last year, federal officials approved a Medicaid waiver for Missouri that allows the state to extend postpartum eligibility. But state officials delayed implementing the change to determine how enrollment would be affected by Missouri voters’ decision in August 2020 to expand Medicaid eligibility to more people. The delay prompted a bill to be filed last session that would have extended postpartum coverage by a year. That measure died, but a state lawmaker has pre-filed a bill that will bring back the debate in the upcoming session.
In Idaho, a children’s advocacy group said it will press lawmakers to approve a postpartum eligibility extension, among other measures, after the state banned nearly all abortions this year.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.