Business of Medicine

It was 1970. I was in my second year of medical school. I had been up half the night preparing for a history and physical on a patient with aortic stenosis. When I arrived at the bedside, he refused to talk to me or allow me to examine him. He requested a “White doctor” instead. I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday.

Coming from the Deep South, I was very familiar with racial bias, but I did not expect it at that level and in that environment. From that point on, I was anxious at each patient encounter, concerned that this might happen again. And it did several times during my residency and fellowship.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration defines workplace violence as “any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults.”

There is considerable media focus on incidents of physical violence against health care workers, but when patients, their families, or visitors openly display bias and request a different doctor, nurse, or technician for nonmedical reasons, the impact is profound. This is extremely hurtful to a professional who has worked long and hard to acquire skills and expertise. And, while speech may not constitute violence in the strictest sense of the word, there is growing evidence that it can be physically harmful through its effect on the nervous system, even if no physical contact is involved.

Incidents of bias occur regularly and are clearly on the rise. In most cases the request for a different health care worker is granted to honor the rights of the patient. The healthcare worker is left alone and emotionally wounded; the healthcare institutions are complicit.

This bias is mostly racial but can also be based on religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, body size, accent, or gender.

An entire issue of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics was devoted to this topic. From recognizing that there are limits to what clinicians should be expected to tolerate when patients’ preferences express unjust bias, the issue also explored where those limits should be placed, why, and who is obliged to enforce them.

The newly adopted Mass General Patient Code of Conduct is evidence that health care systems are beginning to recognize this problem and that such behavior will not be tolerated.

But having a zero-tolerance policy is not enough. We must have procedures in place to discourage and mitigate the impact of patient bias.

A clear definition of what constitutes a bias incident is essential. All team members must be made aware of the procedures for reporting such incidents and the chain of command for escalation. Reporting should be encouraged, and resources must be made available to impacted team members. Surveillance, monitoring, and review are also essential as is clarification on when patient preferences should be honored.

The Mayo Clinic 5 Step Plan is an excellent example of a protocol to deal with patient bias against health care workers and is based on a thoughtful analysis of what constitutes an unreasonable request for a different clinician. I’m pleased to report that my health care system (Inova Health) is developing a similar protocol.

The health care setting should be a bias-free zone for both patients and health care workers. I have been a strong advocate of patients’ rights and worked hard to guard against bias and eliminate disparities in care, but health care workers have rights as well.

We should expect to be treated with respect.

The views expressed by the author are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Inova Health System. Dr. Francis is a cardiologist at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, McLean, Va. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

It was 1970. I was in my second year of medical school. I had been up half the night preparing for a history and physical on a patient with aortic stenosis. When I arrived at the bedside, he refused to talk to me or allow me to examine him. He requested a “White doctor” instead. I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday.

Coming from the Deep South, I was very familiar with racial bias, but I did not expect it at that level and in that environment. From that point on, I was anxious at each patient encounter, concerned that this might happen again. And it did several times during my residency and fellowship.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration defines workplace violence as “any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults.”

There is considerable media focus on incidents of physical violence against health care workers, but when patients, their families, or visitors openly display bias and request a different doctor, nurse, or technician for nonmedical reasons, the impact is profound. This is extremely hurtful to a professional who has worked long and hard to acquire skills and expertise. And, while speech may not constitute violence in the strictest sense of the word, there is growing evidence that it can be physically harmful through its effect on the nervous system, even if no physical contact is involved.

Incidents of bias occur regularly and are clearly on the rise. In most cases the request for a different health care worker is granted to honor the rights of the patient. The healthcare worker is left alone and emotionally wounded; the healthcare institutions are complicit.

This bias is mostly racial but can also be based on religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, body size, accent, or gender.

An entire issue of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics was devoted to this topic. From recognizing that there are limits to what clinicians should be expected to tolerate when patients’ preferences express unjust bias, the issue also explored where those limits should be placed, why, and who is obliged to enforce them.

The newly adopted Mass General Patient Code of Conduct is evidence that health care systems are beginning to recognize this problem and that such behavior will not be tolerated.

But having a zero-tolerance policy is not enough. We must have procedures in place to discourage and mitigate the impact of patient bias.

A clear definition of what constitutes a bias incident is essential. All team members must be made aware of the procedures for reporting such incidents and the chain of command for escalation. Reporting should be encouraged, and resources must be made available to impacted team members. Surveillance, monitoring, and review are also essential as is clarification on when patient preferences should be honored.

The Mayo Clinic 5 Step Plan is an excellent example of a protocol to deal with patient bias against health care workers and is based on a thoughtful analysis of what constitutes an unreasonable request for a different clinician. I’m pleased to report that my health care system (Inova Health) is developing a similar protocol.

The health care setting should be a bias-free zone for both patients and health care workers. I have been a strong advocate of patients’ rights and worked hard to guard against bias and eliminate disparities in care, but health care workers have rights as well.

We should expect to be treated with respect.

The views expressed by the author are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Inova Health System. Dr. Francis is a cardiologist at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, McLean, Va. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

It was 1970. I was in my second year of medical school. I had been up half the night preparing for a history and physical on a patient with aortic stenosis. When I arrived at the bedside, he refused to talk to me or allow me to examine him. He requested a “White doctor” instead. I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday.

Coming from the Deep South, I was very familiar with racial bias, but I did not expect it at that level and in that environment. From that point on, I was anxious at each patient encounter, concerned that this might happen again. And it did several times during my residency and fellowship.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration defines workplace violence as “any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults.”

There is considerable media focus on incidents of physical violence against health care workers, but when patients, their families, or visitors openly display bias and request a different doctor, nurse, or technician for nonmedical reasons, the impact is profound. This is extremely hurtful to a professional who has worked long and hard to acquire skills and expertise. And, while speech may not constitute violence in the strictest sense of the word, there is growing evidence that it can be physically harmful through its effect on the nervous system, even if no physical contact is involved.

Incidents of bias occur regularly and are clearly on the rise. In most cases the request for a different health care worker is granted to honor the rights of the patient. The healthcare worker is left alone and emotionally wounded; the healthcare institutions are complicit.

This bias is mostly racial but can also be based on religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, body size, accent, or gender.

An entire issue of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics was devoted to this topic. From recognizing that there are limits to what clinicians should be expected to tolerate when patients’ preferences express unjust bias, the issue also explored where those limits should be placed, why, and who is obliged to enforce them.

The newly adopted Mass General Patient Code of Conduct is evidence that health care systems are beginning to recognize this problem and that such behavior will not be tolerated.

But having a zero-tolerance policy is not enough. We must have procedures in place to discourage and mitigate the impact of patient bias.

A clear definition of what constitutes a bias incident is essential. All team members must be made aware of the procedures for reporting such incidents and the chain of command for escalation. Reporting should be encouraged, and resources must be made available to impacted team members. Surveillance, monitoring, and review are also essential as is clarification on when patient preferences should be honored.

The Mayo Clinic 5 Step Plan is an excellent example of a protocol to deal with patient bias against health care workers and is based on a thoughtful analysis of what constitutes an unreasonable request for a different clinician. I’m pleased to report that my health care system (Inova Health) is developing a similar protocol.

The health care setting should be a bias-free zone for both patients and health care workers. I have been a strong advocate of patients’ rights and worked hard to guard against bias and eliminate disparities in care, but health care workers have rights as well.

We should expect to be treated with respect.

The views expressed by the author are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Inova Health System. Dr. Francis is a cardiologist at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, McLean, Va. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

A new California law ensures that doctors found to have engaged in sexual misconduct with patients will never again practice medicine in the state.

It’s the latest example of states taking doctor sexual misconduct more seriously after longstanding criticism that medical boards have been too lenient.

The law, which takes effect in January 2023, requires the state’s medical board to permanently revoke these doctors’ licenses instead of allowing them to petition the board for reinstatement after 3 years.

“Physician licenses should not be reinstated after egregious sexual misconduct with patients. The doctor-patient relationship has to remain sacrosanct and trusted,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis.

Although the vast majority of the nation’s estimated 1 million doctors don’t sexually abuse patients, the problem is a national one.

The Federation of State Medical Boards defines sexual misconduct as the exploitation of the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way. The exploitation may be verbal or physical and can occur in person or virtually.

The FSMB conducted a 2-year review of how medical boards handled cases of sexual misconduct, issuing a report in 2020 that contained 38 recommended actions.

Four states in addition to California have enacted laws that incorporate some FSMB recommendations. These include revoking doctors’ licenses after a single egregious act of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), regardless of whether the physician was charged or convicted; increased reporting by hospitals and doctors of sexual misconduct; and training of physicians to recognize and report sexual misconduct.

The four state laws are:

• Georgia’s HB 458. It was signed into law in May 2021, and it authorizes the medical board to revoke or suspend a license if a physician is found guilty of sexually assaulting a patient in a criminal case. Doctors are required to report other doctors who have sexually abused patients and to take continuing medical education (CME) units on sexual misconduct.
• Florida’s SB 1934. This legislation was signed into law in June 2021, and it bars physicians charged with serious crimes such as sexual assault, sexual misconduct against patients, or possession of child pornography from seeing patients until those charges are resolved by the legal system.
• West Virginia’s SB 603. Signed into law in March 2022 it prohibits the medical board from issuing a license to a physician who engaged in sexual activity or misconduct with a patient whose license was revoked in another state or was involved in other violations.
• Tennessee HB 1045. It was signed into law in May 2021, and authorizes the medical board, upon learning of an indictment against a physician for a controlled substance violation or sexual offense, to immediately suspend the doctor’s ability to prescribe controlled substances until the doctor’s case is resolved.

A published study identified a total of 1,721 reports of physician sexual misconduct that were submitted to the National Practitioner Data Bank between 2000 and 2019. The annual incidence of sexual misconduct reports averaged 10.8 per 100,000 U.S. physician licensees, said the researchers.

In a groundbreaking 2016 investigation, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewed thousands of documents and found more than 2,400 doctors whose sexual misconduct cases clearly involved patients since 1999.
 

Physician sexual misconduct is likely underreported

The actual incidence of physician-patient sexual misconduct is likely higher as a result of underreporting, according to the researchers.

Because a substantial power differential exists between patients and their physicians, the researchers noted, it follows that patient victims, like other sexual assault victims, may be unwilling or unable to report the incident in question.

Many violations involving physician sexual misconduct of patients never came to the attention of state regulators, according to the Journal-Constitution investigation. Reporting showed that hospitals, clinics, and fellow doctors fail to report sexual misconduct to regulators, despite laws in most states requiring them to do so.
 

Media investigations highlight medical board shortcomings

Public pressure on the California Medical Board increased after the Los Angeles Times investigated what happened to doctors who surrendered or had their licenses revoked after being reported for sexual abuse with patients. The Times revealed in 2021 that the board reinstated 10 of 17 doctors who petitioned for reinstatement.

They include Esmail Nadjmabadi, MD, of Bakersfield, Calif., who had sexually abused six female patients, including one in her mid-teens. The Times reported that, in 2009, he pleaded no contest to a criminal charge that he sexually exploited two or more women and surrendered his medical license the following year.

Five years later, Dr. Nadjmabadi petitioned the medical board to be reinstated and the board approved his request.

The California board has also reinstated several doctors who underwent sex offender rehabilitation. Board members rely heavily on a doctor’s evidence of rehabilitation, usually with the testimony of therapists hired by the doctor, and no input from the patients who were harmed, according to the Times’ investigation.

High-profile sexual misconduct or abuse cases involving Larry Nassar, MD, and Robert Anderson, MD, in Michigan; Richard Strauss, MD, in Ohio; and Ricardo Cruciani, MD, in New York, added to the mounting criticism that medical boards were too lenient in their handling of complaints of sexual misconduct.
 

Another state tackles sexual misconduct

Ohio’s medical board created an administrative rule stating that licensed physicians have a legal and ethical duty to report colleagues for sexual misconduct with patients and to complete a 1-hour CME training. Failure to report sexual misconduct complaints can lead to a doctor being permanently stripped of his license.

This happened to Robert S. Geiger, MD, in 2016 after not reporting his colleague James Bressi, MD, to the medical board after receiving complaints that Dr. Bressi was sexually abusing female patients at their pain clinic.

Dr. Bressi was convicted of sexual misconduct with a patient, stripped of his medical license, and sentenced to 59 days in prison. 

“I think all of these reforms are a step in the right direction and will help to deter doctors from committing sexual misconduct to some extent,” said California activist Marian Hollingsworth, cofounder of the Patient Safety League.

But there’s room for improvement, she said, since “most states fall short in not requiring medical boards to notify law enforcement when they get a complaint of doctor sexual misconduct so the public can be aware of it.”

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

A new California law ensures that doctors found to have engaged in sexual misconduct with patients will never again practice medicine in the state.

It’s the latest example of states taking doctor sexual misconduct more seriously after longstanding criticism that medical boards have been too lenient.

The law, which takes effect in January 2023, requires the state’s medical board to permanently revoke these doctors’ licenses instead of allowing them to petition the board for reinstatement after 3 years.

“Physician licenses should not be reinstated after egregious sexual misconduct with patients. The doctor-patient relationship has to remain sacrosanct and trusted,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis.

Although the vast majority of the nation’s estimated 1 million doctors don’t sexually abuse patients, the problem is a national one.

The Federation of State Medical Boards defines sexual misconduct as the exploitation of the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way. The exploitation may be verbal or physical and can occur in person or virtually.

The FSMB conducted a 2-year review of how medical boards handled cases of sexual misconduct, issuing a report in 2020 that contained 38 recommended actions.

Four states in addition to California have enacted laws that incorporate some FSMB recommendations. These include revoking doctors’ licenses after a single egregious act of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), regardless of whether the physician was charged or convicted; increased reporting by hospitals and doctors of sexual misconduct; and training of physicians to recognize and report sexual misconduct.

The four state laws are:

• Georgia’s HB 458. It was signed into law in May 2021, and it authorizes the medical board to revoke or suspend a license if a physician is found guilty of sexually assaulting a patient in a criminal case. Doctors are required to report other doctors who have sexually abused patients and to take continuing medical education (CME) units on sexual misconduct.
• Florida’s SB 1934. This legislation was signed into law in June 2021, and it bars physicians charged with serious crimes such as sexual assault, sexual misconduct against patients, or possession of child pornography from seeing patients until those charges are resolved by the legal system.
• West Virginia’s SB 603. Signed into law in March 2022 it prohibits the medical board from issuing a license to a physician who engaged in sexual activity or misconduct with a patient whose license was revoked in another state or was involved in other violations.
• Tennessee HB 1045. It was signed into law in May 2021, and authorizes the medical board, upon learning of an indictment against a physician for a controlled substance violation or sexual offense, to immediately suspend the doctor’s ability to prescribe controlled substances until the doctor’s case is resolved.

A published study identified a total of 1,721 reports of physician sexual misconduct that were submitted to the National Practitioner Data Bank between 2000 and 2019. The annual incidence of sexual misconduct reports averaged 10.8 per 100,000 U.S. physician licensees, said the researchers.

In a groundbreaking 2016 investigation, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewed thousands of documents and found more than 2,400 doctors whose sexual misconduct cases clearly involved patients since 1999.
 

Physician sexual misconduct is likely underreported

The actual incidence of physician-patient sexual misconduct is likely higher as a result of underreporting, according to the researchers.

Because a substantial power differential exists between patients and their physicians, the researchers noted, it follows that patient victims, like other sexual assault victims, may be unwilling or unable to report the incident in question.

Many violations involving physician sexual misconduct of patients never came to the attention of state regulators, according to the Journal-Constitution investigation. Reporting showed that hospitals, clinics, and fellow doctors fail to report sexual misconduct to regulators, despite laws in most states requiring them to do so.
 

Media investigations highlight medical board shortcomings

Public pressure on the California Medical Board increased after the Los Angeles Times investigated what happened to doctors who surrendered or had their licenses revoked after being reported for sexual abuse with patients. The Times revealed in 2021 that the board reinstated 10 of 17 doctors who petitioned for reinstatement.

They include Esmail Nadjmabadi, MD, of Bakersfield, Calif., who had sexually abused six female patients, including one in her mid-teens. The Times reported that, in 2009, he pleaded no contest to a criminal charge that he sexually exploited two or more women and surrendered his medical license the following year.

Five years later, Dr. Nadjmabadi petitioned the medical board to be reinstated and the board approved his request.

The California board has also reinstated several doctors who underwent sex offender rehabilitation. Board members rely heavily on a doctor’s evidence of rehabilitation, usually with the testimony of therapists hired by the doctor, and no input from the patients who were harmed, according to the Times’ investigation.

High-profile sexual misconduct or abuse cases involving Larry Nassar, MD, and Robert Anderson, MD, in Michigan; Richard Strauss, MD, in Ohio; and Ricardo Cruciani, MD, in New York, added to the mounting criticism that medical boards were too lenient in their handling of complaints of sexual misconduct.
 

Another state tackles sexual misconduct

Ohio’s medical board created an administrative rule stating that licensed physicians have a legal and ethical duty to report colleagues for sexual misconduct with patients and to complete a 1-hour CME training. Failure to report sexual misconduct complaints can lead to a doctor being permanently stripped of his license.

This happened to Robert S. Geiger, MD, in 2016 after not reporting his colleague James Bressi, MD, to the medical board after receiving complaints that Dr. Bressi was sexually abusing female patients at their pain clinic.

Dr. Bressi was convicted of sexual misconduct with a patient, stripped of his medical license, and sentenced to 59 days in prison. 

“I think all of these reforms are a step in the right direction and will help to deter doctors from committing sexual misconduct to some extent,” said California activist Marian Hollingsworth, cofounder of the Patient Safety League.

But there’s room for improvement, she said, since “most states fall short in not requiring medical boards to notify law enforcement when they get a complaint of doctor sexual misconduct so the public can be aware of it.”

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

A new California law ensures that doctors found to have engaged in sexual misconduct with patients will never again practice medicine in the state.

It’s the latest example of states taking doctor sexual misconduct more seriously after longstanding criticism that medical boards have been too lenient.

The law, which takes effect in January 2023, requires the state’s medical board to permanently revoke these doctors’ licenses instead of allowing them to petition the board for reinstatement after 3 years.

“Physician licenses should not be reinstated after egregious sexual misconduct with patients. The doctor-patient relationship has to remain sacrosanct and trusted,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis.

Although the vast majority of the nation’s estimated 1 million doctors don’t sexually abuse patients, the problem is a national one.

The Federation of State Medical Boards defines sexual misconduct as the exploitation of the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way. The exploitation may be verbal or physical and can occur in person or virtually.

The FSMB conducted a 2-year review of how medical boards handled cases of sexual misconduct, issuing a report in 2020 that contained 38 recommended actions.

Four states in addition to California have enacted laws that incorporate some FSMB recommendations. These include revoking doctors’ licenses after a single egregious act of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), regardless of whether the physician was charged or convicted; increased reporting by hospitals and doctors of sexual misconduct; and training of physicians to recognize and report sexual misconduct.

The four state laws are:

• Georgia’s HB 458. It was signed into law in May 2021, and it authorizes the medical board to revoke or suspend a license if a physician is found guilty of sexually assaulting a patient in a criminal case. Doctors are required to report other doctors who have sexually abused patients and to take continuing medical education (CME) units on sexual misconduct.
• Florida’s SB 1934. This legislation was signed into law in June 2021, and it bars physicians charged with serious crimes such as sexual assault, sexual misconduct against patients, or possession of child pornography from seeing patients until those charges are resolved by the legal system.
• West Virginia’s SB 603. Signed into law in March 2022 it prohibits the medical board from issuing a license to a physician who engaged in sexual activity or misconduct with a patient whose license was revoked in another state or was involved in other violations.
• Tennessee HB 1045. It was signed into law in May 2021, and authorizes the medical board, upon learning of an indictment against a physician for a controlled substance violation or sexual offense, to immediately suspend the doctor’s ability to prescribe controlled substances until the doctor’s case is resolved.

A published study identified a total of 1,721 reports of physician sexual misconduct that were submitted to the National Practitioner Data Bank between 2000 and 2019. The annual incidence of sexual misconduct reports averaged 10.8 per 100,000 U.S. physician licensees, said the researchers.

In a groundbreaking 2016 investigation, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewed thousands of documents and found more than 2,400 doctors whose sexual misconduct cases clearly involved patients since 1999.
 

Physician sexual misconduct is likely underreported

The actual incidence of physician-patient sexual misconduct is likely higher as a result of underreporting, according to the researchers.

Because a substantial power differential exists between patients and their physicians, the researchers noted, it follows that patient victims, like other sexual assault victims, may be unwilling or unable to report the incident in question.

Many violations involving physician sexual misconduct of patients never came to the attention of state regulators, according to the Journal-Constitution investigation. Reporting showed that hospitals, clinics, and fellow doctors fail to report sexual misconduct to regulators, despite laws in most states requiring them to do so.
 

Media investigations highlight medical board shortcomings

Public pressure on the California Medical Board increased after the Los Angeles Times investigated what happened to doctors who surrendered or had their licenses revoked after being reported for sexual abuse with patients. The Times revealed in 2021 that the board reinstated 10 of 17 doctors who petitioned for reinstatement.

They include Esmail Nadjmabadi, MD, of Bakersfield, Calif., who had sexually abused six female patients, including one in her mid-teens. The Times reported that, in 2009, he pleaded no contest to a criminal charge that he sexually exploited two or more women and surrendered his medical license the following year.

Five years later, Dr. Nadjmabadi petitioned the medical board to be reinstated and the board approved his request.

The California board has also reinstated several doctors who underwent sex offender rehabilitation. Board members rely heavily on a doctor’s evidence of rehabilitation, usually with the testimony of therapists hired by the doctor, and no input from the patients who were harmed, according to the Times’ investigation.

High-profile sexual misconduct or abuse cases involving Larry Nassar, MD, and Robert Anderson, MD, in Michigan; Richard Strauss, MD, in Ohio; and Ricardo Cruciani, MD, in New York, added to the mounting criticism that medical boards were too lenient in their handling of complaints of sexual misconduct.
 

Another state tackles sexual misconduct

Ohio’s medical board created an administrative rule stating that licensed physicians have a legal and ethical duty to report colleagues for sexual misconduct with patients and to complete a 1-hour CME training. Failure to report sexual misconduct complaints can lead to a doctor being permanently stripped of his license.

This happened to Robert S. Geiger, MD, in 2016 after not reporting his colleague James Bressi, MD, to the medical board after receiving complaints that Dr. Bressi was sexually abusing female patients at their pain clinic.

Dr. Bressi was convicted of sexual misconduct with a patient, stripped of his medical license, and sentenced to 59 days in prison. 

“I think all of these reforms are a step in the right direction and will help to deter doctors from committing sexual misconduct to some extent,” said California activist Marian Hollingsworth, cofounder of the Patient Safety League.

But there’s room for improvement, she said, since “most states fall short in not requiring medical boards to notify law enforcement when they get a complaint of doctor sexual misconduct so the public can be aware of it.”

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

Amanda wanted to warn someone. In June 2021, her daughter – the one she and her husband had tried for 3 years to conceive – had died after only 28 hours. With an underdeveloped nose, she had battled for every breath.

Nobody knew why. Later, an autopsy report revealed their daughter had an extra 13th chromosome. The condition is nearly always fatal.

“But didn’t we test for that?” Amanda recalled asking herself. “That was kind of where the light bulb clicked.”

Through her doctor, Amanda had gotten a popular prenatal screening from a lab company. It had come back “negative.”

For three major conditions, including the one her baby had, the report gave the impression of near certainty. The likelihood that she would be born without them was “greater than 99%.”

As she recovered from a cesarean section, Amanda found herself facing a long maternity leave without a child. She shut the door to the empty nursery and began spending what seemed like endless hours of that hazy summer learning about the test.

It’s a simple blood draw designed to check for an array of genetic anomalies. But Amanda, a science researcher, read academic articles showing there was a higher risk of inaccurate results than she had realized. (She asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her privacy.)

On Reddit, she found other women reporting problems with the tests, too. She thought Labcorp, the company that made her test, would want to know about the screening that failed her. Maybe by alerting them, she could help other families. Maybe it would help her understand what happened.

“I was trying to gain answers,” said Amanda, now 32. She tried calling Labcorp’s customer service line, but she said she was passed along from one person to another. “It was just a circle,” she remembered.

She phoned Labcorp a second time. The call ended when an employee hung up on her.

Amanda was baffled. Why didn’t the company seem interested in her experience? Why, she wondered, wouldn’t it want to collect this data? Why wasn’t there someone who could answer her questions about how often this happens, and why?

If she had taken any number of other common commercial tests – including certain tests for COVID-19 or, say, pregnancy – the company would have been required to inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about reports of so-called adverse events.

But the test Amanda had falls into a regulatory void. No federal agency checks to make sure these prenatal screenings work the way they claim before they’re sold to health care providers. The FDA doesn’t ensure that marketing claims are backed up by evidence before screenings reach patients. And companies aren’t required to publicly report instances of when the tests get it wrong – sometimes catastrophically.

The broader lab testing industry and its lobbyists have successfully fought for years to keep it this way, cowing regulators into staying on the sidelines.

Worried about a growing variety of tests escaping scrutiny, the FDA was on the cusp of stepping in 6 years ago. But then it backed down.

Peter Lurie, then a top agency official, was at the meetings where the FDA tabled its plans. Not pushing harder, he told ProPublica, “remains one of my greatest regrets.”

The risk of false positives from prenatal screenings, in particular, has been known for years.

In 2014, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting detailed how some companies gave a misleading impression of the precision of the prenatal screenings. Women often didn’t understand they needed diagnostic testing to confirm the results. Some had gotten abortions based on false positive results, the story said. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported how companies sell optional extra screenings that are “usually wrong” when they predict a disorder.

Despite these stories and calls for reform by patient advocates, the government has done little to improve oversight of prenatal screenings. ProPublica set out to examine the forces that led to this inertia and left patients like Amanda feeling misled. Interviews with more than three dozen women revealed ongoing confusion about the screenings – and anger when their reliability proved to be overblown.

“This is a Wild West scenario where everybody is on their own,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University, Washington, law professor specializing in bioethics.

The stakes for families are increasing. Upward of half of all pregnant people now receive one of these prenatal screenings. And with many states banning abortions or limiting them to early in pregnancies, the need for fast, accurate information has become more urgent.

The FDA itself acknowledges the problem. In correspondence with ProPublica, a spokesperson cited an “outdated policy” regarding the lack of vetting of many lab tests that the agency has “spent the better part of the last 2 decades trying to address.”

The screening industry, meanwhile, continues to expand, proving lucrative for those who lead it. The chief executive of Natera, which claims about 40% of the market share of prenatal screenings, received a $23 million compensation package last year, the highest of any executive at a publicly traded lab company.

Testing companies told ProPublica that, even without the FDA, there is significant oversight. Labs must abide by state regulations, and another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is charged with monitoring quality standards. It does not, however, check whether the tests the labs perform are clinically valid.

Companies also said the screenings offer important guidance to expectant families. Echoing others in the field, Labcorp said in a statement that the screenings, when used properly, “provide vital information about the presence of increased risk, but do not provide a definitive diagnosis.” (It declined to discuss the specifics of Amanda’s experience.)

Natera pointed out that its materials tell patients that “this test does not make a final diagnosis.” It reports results as “high-risk” or “low-risk,” not positive or negative.

Companies have stressed that, ultimately, it’s the responsibility of health care providers, who order the tests, to inform patients about the limits of screenings.

For all that, the statistical nuances of the test aren’t easy to parse for patients and even some doctors and nurses. For example, the test for trisomy 13, which doomed Amanda’s baby, is actually less likely to correctly predict the condition than other tests in the standard bundle of screenings offered to every patient.

When ProPublica asked readers to share their experiences with noninvasive prenatal screening tests, often referred to as NIPTs or NIPS, more than a thousand responded. Many said the tests had given them peace of mind. Some said they had provided an early warning about problems.

But others had more questions than answers. None more so than Amanda.

“What are these tests?” she wondered. “And how did mine end up in the margin of error?”
 

‘They started using it on humans, and then they went back and said: “Was our test accurate?” ’

Scientists have long tried to find ways to help parents and doctors understand what’s happening inside the womb. Amniocentesis was first used to reveal genetic anomalies in the late 1960s. But it didn’t become more popular until it began to be paired with ultrasound to precisely guide the procedure.

In the 1980s, doctors started using chorionic villus sampling, or CVS, an analysis of placental tissue that offers a diagnosis earlier in pregnancy. But, like amniocentesis, it is an invasive test that involves some risk to the fetus, though experts say it’s exceptionally low.

A breakthrough came in the late 1990s, when a scientist recognized that free-floating placental DNA could be detected in the mother’s blood. This meant that the fetus’s chromosomes could be examined by collecting a blood sample as soon as 9 weeks into pregnancy. This also provides an early opportunity to learn the likely fetal sex – a particularly popular feature.

Champions of the new science celebrated the arrival of a simple technique for patients that was particularly precise, at least for some conditions. Many favored it over other noninvasive options. But the industry that developed around NIPT has been marred by controversy from the beginning.

Dr. Ronald Wapner, director of reproductive genetics at Columbia University, described that time as “very chaotic.”

The tests had not been appropriately evaluated in clinical practice, said Dr. Wapner, whose research has sometimes been funded by testing companies. Because of this, he said, the industry “had very incomplete data on how well it worked.”

That didn’t stop the excitement. The chief executive of Sequenom, a biotechnology company that planned to release the first NIPT for Down syndrome, championed the company as the “Google of Molecular Diagnostics.” Its stock price soared.

Then, about 2 months before an expected launch in 2009, Sequenom killed the plan. The company’s research director, it turned out, had manipulated testing data and made misleading claims about how well the screening worked.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Bureau of Investigation opened investigations. Top executives were fired, and the research director pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Sequenom still managed to commercialize the test in 2011. (Labcorp, which later acquired Sequenom, said it uses a different kind of test.)

Other companies soon debuted their own tests. Still, there was little data on their clinical performance, researchers said.

As Megan Allyse, a bioethicist at the Mayo Clinic, put it, the companies “launched the test, they started using it on humans, and then they went back and said, ‘Was our test accurate?’ ” She also questioned the lack of attention to the ethics of how tests are presented to patients.

Despite missteps by the industry, the FDA didn’t scrutinize the screenings because they were considered lab-developed tests, which means they are created by the same laboratory that conducts them.

In 1976, Congress revamped oversight over medical devices. Since then, the FDA has effectively exempted such “home-brew” tests from key regulatory requirements. The idea was that when, say, a hospital lab wanted to create a simple test for its own patients, it was spared the time, money, and hassle of getting approval from Washington bureaucrats.

Today, lab-developed tests are vastly more numerous and complex. Because they aren’t registered with the federal government, nobody knows how many exist.

The distinction between tests the FDA actively regulates and those they don’t can seem nonsensical. It isn’t based on the complexity of the tests, or how people use them. It’s simply a matter of where the test is made.

The prenatal genetic screening industry took off almost immediately, powered by an army of aggressive sales representatives.

“At the very beginning, obstetricians in practice were being just completely inundated with visits from the sales reps,” said Dr. John Williams, director of reproductive health at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The push left many ob.gyns. and patients thinking the screenings were accurate enough to substitute for diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis or CVS.

In some cases, sales tactics escalated into lawbreaking.

Former Sequenom executives who exited during the fraud scandal created a new company that became Progenity, which also offered prenatal screening. Shortly after the company went public in 2020, it finalized a $49 million settlement with federal and state governments, where it admitted to falsifying insurance claims and giving kickbacks to physicians and their staff. According to a legal filing, one sales rep spent $65,658 on meals and alcohol for physicians in 1 year.

Now called Biora Therapeutics, the company said in a statement it no longer does any laboratory testing, including prenatal screenings.

Industry revenue continues to grow, but some testing companies are still fighting to make a profit, and competition to survive is fierce. “There’s a multibillion-dollar market, and they all want a piece of it,” said a former Progenity sales rep who quit in disgust after 5 months in 2016.

The rep, who requested anonymity because she continues to work in the field, said she still sees competitors from NIPT companies visiting medical practices “every week, buying breakfast or dinner, or taking them out for happy hour.”

Over time, companies pointed to new peer-reviewed studies, research the industry itself funded, to earn the confidence of doctors and other stakeholders. They showed that two tests – for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 – often performed better than other screening methods.

This research was valid, said Dr. Mary Norton, a perinatologist and clinical geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center’s prenatal diagnostic center. Considered a leading researcher in the field, she was an author of many of these key industry-funded studies.

But, she said, when research findings were presented publicly, the companies sometimes downplayed “inconvenient truths,” such as the exclusion of inconclusive results from accuracy estimates. Crucial caveats were also glossed over by some companies when they translated research into promotional copy aimed at health care providers and patients. Those materials didn’t always mention the many factors that can limit the performance of the screenings, including high body weight, the rarity of the condition tested, and younger maternal age.

Testing companies said they try to help patients understand the screenings through online resources and other materials. Some offer genetic counseling services.

The younger a person is, the lower the test’s positive predictive value – that is, the probability that a positive screening result will turn out to be correct – will be for some conditions. For instance, because Down syndrome is less prevalent in younger people’s pregnancies, a positive screening test is more likely to be a false positive for them.

Kristina was 30 years old in 2016, when her Progenity test came back positive for Down syndrome. She and her husband, who asked not to be fully named to protect their privacy, said they didn’t plan to carry a pregnancy with this condition to term.

But waiting to get an amniocentesis, and then waiting for the results, took 5 agonizing weeks, she said. It showed her son did not have Down syndrome.

Kristina, who lives in Texas, is still troubled by what she describes as a traumatic experience.

“I researched both late-term abortion providers and cemeteries,” she said. They even picked out a burial place, near their house.

She bought a blue baby blanket she intended to bury the baby’s tiny body in. She still has it. Her son, now 5, sleeps with it every night.
 

‘I can’t believe I didn’t say more’

As lab-developed tests became a bigger business, moving well past their home-brew origins, regulators looked for a way to assert oversight. In 2014, after years of study and debate, the time seemed right.

The FDA released plans proposing to regulate the tests, prioritizing those used to make major medical decisions. The agency has pointed to NIPTs as 1 of 20 concerning tests.

But, over the next 2 years, a coalition of power players urged the FDA to back off. Professional associations issued statements and hosted webinars devoted to the issue. Some created polished websites featuring sample letters to send to Washington.

Academic medical centers and pathology departments joined the fight, too. Scientists from 23 of them put it bluntly in a letter to the Office of Management and Budget: “FDA regulation of LDTs would be contrary to the public health,” it said, using a common acronym for the tests.

“Critical testing would be unavailable in the ‘lag time’ between development of new tests and FDA authorizing them,” the authors of the letter wrote, “and subsequent improvements on existing tests would slow significantly under the rigid, inflexible, and duplicative FDA regulatory scheme.”

This could delay essential care for patients. What’s more, opponents argued, existing lab reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are sufficiently rigorous. Some have suggested modernizing the CMS review process to improve oversight.

An FDA spokesperson told ProPublica that the agency encountered “continued, negative feedback,” including a 25-page paper written by two legal heavyweights hired by the American Clinical Laboratory Association: Paul Clement, President George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, and Laurence Tribe, law professor at Harvard University.

Mr. Clement has reportedly commanded rates of $1,350 per hour. He and Mr. Tribe did not respond to ProPublica’s queries about their work.

Their brief argued that the FDA “lacked legal authority” to regulate lab-developed tests because they are properly seen as the practice of medicine: a service, rather than a product.

However, as lawyers representing the American Association of Bioanalysts countered, the FDA would vet tests before they reach the market, not control how doctors use them. The government proposal, they wrote, is “similar to imposing requirements to screen blood or label drugs.”

After the election of President Donald Trump, but before he took office, a handful of FDA officials discussed their battered proposal. It had represented a breakthrough in the decades of excruciating back-and-forth with industry. But now, with an incoming administration bent on deregulation, their efforts seemed futile.

The regulators feared anything they enacted would be undone by Congress – and, under the Congressional Review Act, they might not be able to reissue anything “substantially similar” in the future. So the FDA published a white paper instead, summarizing the issue “for further public discussion.”

After the meeting where officials made this call, Mr. Lurie, then the FDA’s associate commissioner, recalled a colleague approaching him: “I can’t believe you didn’t say more.”

“And I was like, ‘Yeah, actually, I can’t believe I didn’t say more either,’ ” Mr. Lurie later told ProPublica. (After leaving the agency, Mr. Lurie went on to lead the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, which has pushed the FDA to finally assert oversight over lab-developed tests.)

Nancy Stade, an attorney and senior policy official who left the FDA in 2015, said the agency often moves slowly as it seeks to get buy-in from industry and professional groups. In her work on regulatory policy, she saw it happen with lab-developed tests.

The agency is “always testing the waters,” she said, “and always coming out with something a little bit softer.”

In 2020, the influential American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, representing doctors who handle pregnancies, gave the screening industry another huge boost.

In a bulletin updating their advice on the tests, the two groups described growing research on the performance of some of the standard tests and said people have the right to information about their pregnancies, so the tests should be offered to all patients. Previously, they recommended this only for those facing higher risk of genetic anomalies.

The bulletin said the coauthors had disclosed no conflicts of interest. But two of the four coauthors, including Mary Norton, had disclosed in prior publications that test-makers had provided funding for their research. A company had provided a third coauthor with laboratory services needed to run tests, according to that researcher, a connection she also disclosed in past papers.

ACOG, in a statement to ProPublica, said the organization “identified no conflicts because research funding is provided to academic institutions with institutional review boards, not to individual investigators.” Two of the three researchers responded to questions from ProPublica and said they maintained independence over their work.

One test-maker, Illumina, celebrated the ACOG guidance in a tweet, saying it “recognizes the superior performance of #NIPT and the benefit it provides expectant families.” Natera’s share prices doubled in 5 months. UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest private insurer and long a target of industry lobbying, told ProPublica it changed its stance to cover screenings for all patients, regardless of risk, because of the recommendation.

In a recent shareholder report, Natera stated that prenatal genetic and carrier screenings “represent the significant majority of our revenues,” which totaled $625.5 million in 2021. The company expects more growth to come.

“The NIPT market is still very underpenetrated, compared to the 4 to 5 million pregnancies in the U.S.,” Natera’s chief executive said on a 2021 earnings call, “so there’s a long way to go.”

But even Dr. Norton, who coauthored the ACOG recommendation and favors NIPTs for patients 40 and over, has concerns about screenings becoming widespread among those who are younger. In most cases, she prefers other screening methods that catch the nongenetic problems younger moms are more likely to face. Negative results from an NIPT, she said, can be “falsely reassuring.”

In the years after the FDA set aside its regulatory proposal, the agency has assisted members of Congress on a proposed legislative solution. That effort, dubbed the VALID Act, aims to end any debate over the agency’s authority over lab-developed tests. An FDA press officer said the legislation would ensure the prenatal screening tests and others are “accurate and reliable.”

But, as in the past, intense lobbying followed the proposal. The VALID Act was a rider to a funding reauthorization bill, but in September the House and Senate agreed to remove it. Advocates now hope to attach it to proposed end-of-year legislation.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, 4 months after the New York Times story on the usefulness of some screenings, the FDA took a step toward more public awareness about prenatal genetic screening. It issued its first safety communication on them, noting the potential for false results.

It cautioned patients about making “critical health care decisions based on results from these screening tests alone.”

Cara Tenenbaum, a former FDA policy advisor, was pleased to see the statement. Still, she said, it was long overdue.

“This has been known – known, or should have been known – for 10 years,” she said.
 

‘It had me so messed up’

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, restrictive and ever-changing abortion laws can pressure people to act quickly with limited information, heightening the stakes of prenatal screening.

Julia, a mom from Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, knows what it’s like to face harrowing consequences while navigating state-imposed time limits – and doing so with little guidance. Last fall, she was pregnant with her fourth child when, she said, a nurse practitioner suggested prenatal genetic screening.

At 33, Julia had no risk factors. Her previous pregnancies hadn’t been screened with an NIPT. But with three sons and 18 nephews, she and her husband were curious about the baby’s sex. And the screening seemed like it had no downside.

Julia figured it would only be offered if it was reliable, so her nurse practitioner ordered her both the basic bundle of screenings and the extra tests. (The medical practice didn’t respond to interview requests. Julia is a family nickname that’s used here to protect her privacy.)

The screenings showed the baby was a girl – but the extra tests also detected trisomy 16, a condition caused by an extra chromosome that is so rare, the nurse didn’t know what it was, Julia recalled.

The nurse borrowed Julia’s phone, using it to search online and read aloud what she found. Julia was stunned to hear trisomy 16 was incompatible with life.

“I was utterly devastated,” she said. “I made it out of my doctor’s office but completely broke down in the car.”

But ACOG does not recommend the trisomy 16 screening, saying “its accuracy with regard to detection and the false-positive rate is not established.” Julia wasn’t informed of this, she said, and she’s not sure if her health care providers knew it either.

The lab report recommended diagnostic testing to confirm the results, but time was short. She had her amniocentesis at 17 weeks. It could take up to 4 more weeks to receive results.

That would be too late for a legal abortion in Mississippi. So she made an appointment for one in Florida, where the cutoff was 24 weeks. (It’s now 15 weeks in Florida, while Mississippi went from 15 weeks for legal procedures to a ban on nearly all abortions.)

The wait was excruciating. Julia was driving twice a week to New Orleans for specialized care. With work and child care, it was too hard. She quit the teaching job she loved.

One winter night, she felt the fetus move for the first time – ordinarily a milestone, but now, facing a fatal prognosis, she didn’t want to get attached. “It had me so messed up,” she said.

On the way to the amniocentesis, Julia and her husband chose a name. Drawing from a language conjured by J.R.R. Tolkien in the fantasy novels they love, it means “hope.”

More than halfway through her pregnancy, the amnio results arrived. The prenatal screening had given a false positive. The baby would be fine. In May, Julia gave birth to a healthy daughter.

Julia and her husband are upset about the needless anguish brought on by the screening. “They like to have it both ways,” said Julia’s husband. “They say they are 99% accurate, but when there’s a false positive, they say, ‘Well, we’re not diagnostic.’ ”

Believing the prenatal screening was likely accurate, they had seriously considered canceling the amniocentesis, saving their limited funds for an abortion in Florida, hundreds of miles away.

Their dilemma points to a longtime concern: ending pregnancies based on false positives. The FDA cited it as a risk as far back as 2015. Now, those with positive results are facing an even tighter time crunch. They must consider whether waiting for a definitive test, and possibly traveling to another state for an abortion later in pregnancy, is worth it.

In their promotional material, some companies not only sidestep the variability of the standard tests, they fail to distinguish them from the least reliable ones – those for exceptionally rare conditions. They tout the extra screenings as “premium,” “plus,” or “advanced” options.

“Going to greater lengths for the answers that matter most,” says a brochure aimed at health care providers from test-maker Illumina. Elsewhere it states that the “expanded” panel of tests provides “confident results” and “the additional insights you need.”

But the companies themselves know the accuracy of some of their tests has yet to be established in the research. Natera acknowledged in a recent shareholder report that many insurers won’t pay for screenings for missing chromosomal fragments, known as microdeletions, in part because there isn’t enough published data behind them.

The company, responding to ProPublica, stressed the quality of the data over the quantity, saying the research so far has been favorable. “Natera’s microdeletion testing was thoroughly validated with results published in peer-reviewed publications,” it said in a statement.

Natera pointed to a recent study that looked at DiGeorge syndrome, one of several chromosomal anomalies it checks for with its microdeletion screenings. Researchers found the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test to be 52.6%, meaning that nearly half of positive results are false positives. (For many patients, PPVs for more common conditions can exceed 90%.)

Natera said the performance of the diGeorge syndrome test “is excellent and not considered a low PPV,” because of the condition being extremely rare.

Companies also play up the danger of diagnostic tests like amnio. They “can cause miscarriages,” warns the marketing from Labcorp, which made Amanda’s screening, while its test “does not cause miscarriages.” But medical experts emphasize that diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis, are more accurate and, in fact, carry little risk to the pregnancy.

Labcorp, in a statement, said the company “acknowledges the well-documented risk associated with amniocentesis and CVS in our literature. It is the patient’s prerogative to decide which risks they are willing or unwilling to take.”

Marketing claims also sometimes skate over the nuances in the guidance from the leading professional societies. On a webpage targeting health care providers, for example, a Labcorp chart said groups such as ACOG “endorse and/or recognize” prenatal screenings as an option for all pregnancies. But the chart listed screenings ACOG does not recommend, including trisomy 16.

When asked about it, Labcorp said in a statement that ACOG “endorses NIPS for all pregnancies.” In fact, the guidance is not so sweeping. It says only that the basic bundle of tests should be offered to all, alongside other screening options. It explicitly advises providers to not offer patients the extra tests.

Soon after ProPublica’s query, the Labcorp webpage was updated to remove any mention of the professional societies.

Patients say they often don’t know where to turn for informed and unbiased information. That’s why the r/NIPT Reddit page became such a robust community. Facing difficult news, Julia turned to it for counsel from other prospective parents. Kristina in Texas found the same community. Amanda, too.
 

‘The margin of error is a human life’

On a warm and cloudy day this past June, on what would have been their daughter’s first birthday, Amanda and her husband visited her grave. They brought a unicorn balloon and vanilla cake, which they ate nearby on the grass. Her husband read a poem.

To them, their baby had been perfect. She had fingers and toes. A thatch of dark hair. While in intensive care, peering up at her parents, she grabbed for her mother’s hand.

Had her condition been known, they would’ve spared her futile medical interventions, as doctors tried to save her life. Their family priest would have been able to baptize her. As it was, they never got to hold their child while she was alive.

These days, when Amanda and her husband say grace before dinner, they give thanks for the 28 hours of their daughter’s life.

They’re also thinking about making comfort boxes the hospital could give to other parents who lose a child. It might include books on grief. Softer tissues. Something that says, as Amanda puts it, “This is to help you get through.”

Amid their grief, they had a prayer answered: Amanda is pregnant again.

It’s frightening to go through this again. She barely sleeps the night before visiting the doctor. It feels like she never stopped being pregnant. It will feel that way, she said, until she brings a baby home – one who lives past the first 2 nights.

Amanda planned to get another genetic screening test. At first she couldn’t bear it, wasn’t sure she could trust it. “The margin of error is a human life,” Amanda said.

The 10-week appointment passed. Then the 12-week appointment. After her 13th week, she took the plunge. The test she was given was from Labcorp.

Around this time, more than a year after Amanda had desperately tried to alert the company about what had happened to her and her first baby, she finally heard back. Labcorp’s vice president of genetic counseling and services reached out – after ProPublica contacted the company and shared Amanda’s story.

The executive would only speak to Amanda without a reporter present.

Amanda said that during the call, the executive told her that prenatal genetic tests are evolving, and doctors should be clear about what the screenings can and cannot do. By the end of the conversation, the executive offered Amanda her cell number.

Amanda said she appreciated the call. “I feel better. I feel like I got something.”

The same day, her screening results came back. They were negative.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Amanda wanted to warn someone. In June 2021, her daughter – the one she and her husband had tried for 3 years to conceive – had died after only 28 hours. With an underdeveloped nose, she had battled for every breath.

Nobody knew why. Later, an autopsy report revealed their daughter had an extra 13th chromosome. The condition is nearly always fatal.

“But didn’t we test for that?” Amanda recalled asking herself. “That was kind of where the light bulb clicked.”

Through her doctor, Amanda had gotten a popular prenatal screening from a lab company. It had come back “negative.”

For three major conditions, including the one her baby had, the report gave the impression of near certainty. The likelihood that she would be born without them was “greater than 99%.”

As she recovered from a cesarean section, Amanda found herself facing a long maternity leave without a child. She shut the door to the empty nursery and began spending what seemed like endless hours of that hazy summer learning about the test.

It’s a simple blood draw designed to check for an array of genetic anomalies. But Amanda, a science researcher, read academic articles showing there was a higher risk of inaccurate results than she had realized. (She asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her privacy.)

On Reddit, she found other women reporting problems with the tests, too. She thought Labcorp, the company that made her test, would want to know about the screening that failed her. Maybe by alerting them, she could help other families. Maybe it would help her understand what happened.

“I was trying to gain answers,” said Amanda, now 32. She tried calling Labcorp’s customer service line, but she said she was passed along from one person to another. “It was just a circle,” she remembered.

She phoned Labcorp a second time. The call ended when an employee hung up on her.

Amanda was baffled. Why didn’t the company seem interested in her experience? Why, she wondered, wouldn’t it want to collect this data? Why wasn’t there someone who could answer her questions about how often this happens, and why?

If she had taken any number of other common commercial tests – including certain tests for COVID-19 or, say, pregnancy – the company would have been required to inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about reports of so-called adverse events.

But the test Amanda had falls into a regulatory void. No federal agency checks to make sure these prenatal screenings work the way they claim before they’re sold to health care providers. The FDA doesn’t ensure that marketing claims are backed up by evidence before screenings reach patients. And companies aren’t required to publicly report instances of when the tests get it wrong – sometimes catastrophically.

The broader lab testing industry and its lobbyists have successfully fought for years to keep it this way, cowing regulators into staying on the sidelines.

Worried about a growing variety of tests escaping scrutiny, the FDA was on the cusp of stepping in 6 years ago. But then it backed down.

Peter Lurie, then a top agency official, was at the meetings where the FDA tabled its plans. Not pushing harder, he told ProPublica, “remains one of my greatest regrets.”

The risk of false positives from prenatal screenings, in particular, has been known for years.

In 2014, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting detailed how some companies gave a misleading impression of the precision of the prenatal screenings. Women often didn’t understand they needed diagnostic testing to confirm the results. Some had gotten abortions based on false positive results, the story said. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported how companies sell optional extra screenings that are “usually wrong” when they predict a disorder.

Despite these stories and calls for reform by patient advocates, the government has done little to improve oversight of prenatal screenings. ProPublica set out to examine the forces that led to this inertia and left patients like Amanda feeling misled. Interviews with more than three dozen women revealed ongoing confusion about the screenings – and anger when their reliability proved to be overblown.

“This is a Wild West scenario where everybody is on their own,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University, Washington, law professor specializing in bioethics.

The stakes for families are increasing. Upward of half of all pregnant people now receive one of these prenatal screenings. And with many states banning abortions or limiting them to early in pregnancies, the need for fast, accurate information has become more urgent.

The FDA itself acknowledges the problem. In correspondence with ProPublica, a spokesperson cited an “outdated policy” regarding the lack of vetting of many lab tests that the agency has “spent the better part of the last 2 decades trying to address.”

The screening industry, meanwhile, continues to expand, proving lucrative for those who lead it. The chief executive of Natera, which claims about 40% of the market share of prenatal screenings, received a $23 million compensation package last year, the highest of any executive at a publicly traded lab company.

Testing companies told ProPublica that, even without the FDA, there is significant oversight. Labs must abide by state regulations, and another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is charged with monitoring quality standards. It does not, however, check whether the tests the labs perform are clinically valid.

Companies also said the screenings offer important guidance to expectant families. Echoing others in the field, Labcorp said in a statement that the screenings, when used properly, “provide vital information about the presence of increased risk, but do not provide a definitive diagnosis.” (It declined to discuss the specifics of Amanda’s experience.)

Natera pointed out that its materials tell patients that “this test does not make a final diagnosis.” It reports results as “high-risk” or “low-risk,” not positive or negative.

Companies have stressed that, ultimately, it’s the responsibility of health care providers, who order the tests, to inform patients about the limits of screenings.

For all that, the statistical nuances of the test aren’t easy to parse for patients and even some doctors and nurses. For example, the test for trisomy 13, which doomed Amanda’s baby, is actually less likely to correctly predict the condition than other tests in the standard bundle of screenings offered to every patient.

When ProPublica asked readers to share their experiences with noninvasive prenatal screening tests, often referred to as NIPTs or NIPS, more than a thousand responded. Many said the tests had given them peace of mind. Some said they had provided an early warning about problems.

But others had more questions than answers. None more so than Amanda.

“What are these tests?” she wondered. “And how did mine end up in the margin of error?”
 

‘They started using it on humans, and then they went back and said: “Was our test accurate?” ’

Scientists have long tried to find ways to help parents and doctors understand what’s happening inside the womb. Amniocentesis was first used to reveal genetic anomalies in the late 1960s. But it didn’t become more popular until it began to be paired with ultrasound to precisely guide the procedure.

In the 1980s, doctors started using chorionic villus sampling, or CVS, an analysis of placental tissue that offers a diagnosis earlier in pregnancy. But, like amniocentesis, it is an invasive test that involves some risk to the fetus, though experts say it’s exceptionally low.

A breakthrough came in the late 1990s, when a scientist recognized that free-floating placental DNA could be detected in the mother’s blood. This meant that the fetus’s chromosomes could be examined by collecting a blood sample as soon as 9 weeks into pregnancy. This also provides an early opportunity to learn the likely fetal sex – a particularly popular feature.

Champions of the new science celebrated the arrival of a simple technique for patients that was particularly precise, at least for some conditions. Many favored it over other noninvasive options. But the industry that developed around NIPT has been marred by controversy from the beginning.

Dr. Ronald Wapner, director of reproductive genetics at Columbia University, described that time as “very chaotic.”

The tests had not been appropriately evaluated in clinical practice, said Dr. Wapner, whose research has sometimes been funded by testing companies. Because of this, he said, the industry “had very incomplete data on how well it worked.”

That didn’t stop the excitement. The chief executive of Sequenom, a biotechnology company that planned to release the first NIPT for Down syndrome, championed the company as the “Google of Molecular Diagnostics.” Its stock price soared.

Then, about 2 months before an expected launch in 2009, Sequenom killed the plan. The company’s research director, it turned out, had manipulated testing data and made misleading claims about how well the screening worked.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Bureau of Investigation opened investigations. Top executives were fired, and the research director pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Sequenom still managed to commercialize the test in 2011. (Labcorp, which later acquired Sequenom, said it uses a different kind of test.)

Other companies soon debuted their own tests. Still, there was little data on their clinical performance, researchers said.

As Megan Allyse, a bioethicist at the Mayo Clinic, put it, the companies “launched the test, they started using it on humans, and then they went back and said, ‘Was our test accurate?’ ” She also questioned the lack of attention to the ethics of how tests are presented to patients.

Despite missteps by the industry, the FDA didn’t scrutinize the screenings because they were considered lab-developed tests, which means they are created by the same laboratory that conducts them.

In 1976, Congress revamped oversight over medical devices. Since then, the FDA has effectively exempted such “home-brew” tests from key regulatory requirements. The idea was that when, say, a hospital lab wanted to create a simple test for its own patients, it was spared the time, money, and hassle of getting approval from Washington bureaucrats.

Today, lab-developed tests are vastly more numerous and complex. Because they aren’t registered with the federal government, nobody knows how many exist.

The distinction between tests the FDA actively regulates and those they don’t can seem nonsensical. It isn’t based on the complexity of the tests, or how people use them. It’s simply a matter of where the test is made.

The prenatal genetic screening industry took off almost immediately, powered by an army of aggressive sales representatives.

“At the very beginning, obstetricians in practice were being just completely inundated with visits from the sales reps,” said Dr. John Williams, director of reproductive health at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The push left many ob.gyns. and patients thinking the screenings were accurate enough to substitute for diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis or CVS.

In some cases, sales tactics escalated into lawbreaking.

Former Sequenom executives who exited during the fraud scandal created a new company that became Progenity, which also offered prenatal screening. Shortly after the company went public in 2020, it finalized a $49 million settlement with federal and state governments, where it admitted to falsifying insurance claims and giving kickbacks to physicians and their staff. According to a legal filing, one sales rep spent $65,658 on meals and alcohol for physicians in 1 year.

Now called Biora Therapeutics, the company said in a statement it no longer does any laboratory testing, including prenatal screenings.

Industry revenue continues to grow, but some testing companies are still fighting to make a profit, and competition to survive is fierce. “There’s a multibillion-dollar market, and they all want a piece of it,” said a former Progenity sales rep who quit in disgust after 5 months in 2016.

The rep, who requested anonymity because she continues to work in the field, said she still sees competitors from NIPT companies visiting medical practices “every week, buying breakfast or dinner, or taking them out for happy hour.”

Over time, companies pointed to new peer-reviewed studies, research the industry itself funded, to earn the confidence of doctors and other stakeholders. They showed that two tests – for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 – often performed better than other screening methods.

This research was valid, said Dr. Mary Norton, a perinatologist and clinical geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center’s prenatal diagnostic center. Considered a leading researcher in the field, she was an author of many of these key industry-funded studies.

But, she said, when research findings were presented publicly, the companies sometimes downplayed “inconvenient truths,” such as the exclusion of inconclusive results from accuracy estimates. Crucial caveats were also glossed over by some companies when they translated research into promotional copy aimed at health care providers and patients. Those materials didn’t always mention the many factors that can limit the performance of the screenings, including high body weight, the rarity of the condition tested, and younger maternal age.

Testing companies said they try to help patients understand the screenings through online resources and other materials. Some offer genetic counseling services.

The younger a person is, the lower the test’s positive predictive value – that is, the probability that a positive screening result will turn out to be correct – will be for some conditions. For instance, because Down syndrome is less prevalent in younger people’s pregnancies, a positive screening test is more likely to be a false positive for them.

Kristina was 30 years old in 2016, when her Progenity test came back positive for Down syndrome. She and her husband, who asked not to be fully named to protect their privacy, said they didn’t plan to carry a pregnancy with this condition to term.

But waiting to get an amniocentesis, and then waiting for the results, took 5 agonizing weeks, she said. It showed her son did not have Down syndrome.

Kristina, who lives in Texas, is still troubled by what she describes as a traumatic experience.

“I researched both late-term abortion providers and cemeteries,” she said. They even picked out a burial place, near their house.

She bought a blue baby blanket she intended to bury the baby’s tiny body in. She still has it. Her son, now 5, sleeps with it every night.
 

‘I can’t believe I didn’t say more’

As lab-developed tests became a bigger business, moving well past their home-brew origins, regulators looked for a way to assert oversight. In 2014, after years of study and debate, the time seemed right.

The FDA released plans proposing to regulate the tests, prioritizing those used to make major medical decisions. The agency has pointed to NIPTs as 1 of 20 concerning tests.

But, over the next 2 years, a coalition of power players urged the FDA to back off. Professional associations issued statements and hosted webinars devoted to the issue. Some created polished websites featuring sample letters to send to Washington.

Academic medical centers and pathology departments joined the fight, too. Scientists from 23 of them put it bluntly in a letter to the Office of Management and Budget: “FDA regulation of LDTs would be contrary to the public health,” it said, using a common acronym for the tests.

“Critical testing would be unavailable in the ‘lag time’ between development of new tests and FDA authorizing them,” the authors of the letter wrote, “and subsequent improvements on existing tests would slow significantly under the rigid, inflexible, and duplicative FDA regulatory scheme.”

This could delay essential care for patients. What’s more, opponents argued, existing lab reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are sufficiently rigorous. Some have suggested modernizing the CMS review process to improve oversight.

An FDA spokesperson told ProPublica that the agency encountered “continued, negative feedback,” including a 25-page paper written by two legal heavyweights hired by the American Clinical Laboratory Association: Paul Clement, President George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, and Laurence Tribe, law professor at Harvard University.

Mr. Clement has reportedly commanded rates of $1,350 per hour. He and Mr. Tribe did not respond to ProPublica’s queries about their work.

Their brief argued that the FDA “lacked legal authority” to regulate lab-developed tests because they are properly seen as the practice of medicine: a service, rather than a product.

However, as lawyers representing the American Association of Bioanalysts countered, the FDA would vet tests before they reach the market, not control how doctors use them. The government proposal, they wrote, is “similar to imposing requirements to screen blood or label drugs.”

After the election of President Donald Trump, but before he took office, a handful of FDA officials discussed their battered proposal. It had represented a breakthrough in the decades of excruciating back-and-forth with industry. But now, with an incoming administration bent on deregulation, their efforts seemed futile.

The regulators feared anything they enacted would be undone by Congress – and, under the Congressional Review Act, they might not be able to reissue anything “substantially similar” in the future. So the FDA published a white paper instead, summarizing the issue “for further public discussion.”

After the meeting where officials made this call, Mr. Lurie, then the FDA’s associate commissioner, recalled a colleague approaching him: “I can’t believe you didn’t say more.”

“And I was like, ‘Yeah, actually, I can’t believe I didn’t say more either,’ ” Mr. Lurie later told ProPublica. (After leaving the agency, Mr. Lurie went on to lead the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, which has pushed the FDA to finally assert oversight over lab-developed tests.)

Nancy Stade, an attorney and senior policy official who left the FDA in 2015, said the agency often moves slowly as it seeks to get buy-in from industry and professional groups. In her work on regulatory policy, she saw it happen with lab-developed tests.

The agency is “always testing the waters,” she said, “and always coming out with something a little bit softer.”

In 2020, the influential American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, representing doctors who handle pregnancies, gave the screening industry another huge boost.

In a bulletin updating their advice on the tests, the two groups described growing research on the performance of some of the standard tests and said people have the right to information about their pregnancies, so the tests should be offered to all patients. Previously, they recommended this only for those facing higher risk of genetic anomalies.

The bulletin said the coauthors had disclosed no conflicts of interest. But two of the four coauthors, including Mary Norton, had disclosed in prior publications that test-makers had provided funding for their research. A company had provided a third coauthor with laboratory services needed to run tests, according to that researcher, a connection she also disclosed in past papers.

ACOG, in a statement to ProPublica, said the organization “identified no conflicts because research funding is provided to academic institutions with institutional review boards, not to individual investigators.” Two of the three researchers responded to questions from ProPublica and said they maintained independence over their work.

One test-maker, Illumina, celebrated the ACOG guidance in a tweet, saying it “recognizes the superior performance of #NIPT and the benefit it provides expectant families.” Natera’s share prices doubled in 5 months. UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest private insurer and long a target of industry lobbying, told ProPublica it changed its stance to cover screenings for all patients, regardless of risk, because of the recommendation.

In a recent shareholder report, Natera stated that prenatal genetic and carrier screenings “represent the significant majority of our revenues,” which totaled $625.5 million in 2021. The company expects more growth to come.

“The NIPT market is still very underpenetrated, compared to the 4 to 5 million pregnancies in the U.S.,” Natera’s chief executive said on a 2021 earnings call, “so there’s a long way to go.”

But even Dr. Norton, who coauthored the ACOG recommendation and favors NIPTs for patients 40 and over, has concerns about screenings becoming widespread among those who are younger. In most cases, she prefers other screening methods that catch the nongenetic problems younger moms are more likely to face. Negative results from an NIPT, she said, can be “falsely reassuring.”

In the years after the FDA set aside its regulatory proposal, the agency has assisted members of Congress on a proposed legislative solution. That effort, dubbed the VALID Act, aims to end any debate over the agency’s authority over lab-developed tests. An FDA press officer said the legislation would ensure the prenatal screening tests and others are “accurate and reliable.”

But, as in the past, intense lobbying followed the proposal. The VALID Act was a rider to a funding reauthorization bill, but in September the House and Senate agreed to remove it. Advocates now hope to attach it to proposed end-of-year legislation.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, 4 months after the New York Times story on the usefulness of some screenings, the FDA took a step toward more public awareness about prenatal genetic screening. It issued its first safety communication on them, noting the potential for false results.

It cautioned patients about making “critical health care decisions based on results from these screening tests alone.”

Cara Tenenbaum, a former FDA policy advisor, was pleased to see the statement. Still, she said, it was long overdue.

“This has been known – known, or should have been known – for 10 years,” she said.
 

‘It had me so messed up’

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, restrictive and ever-changing abortion laws can pressure people to act quickly with limited information, heightening the stakes of prenatal screening.

Julia, a mom from Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, knows what it’s like to face harrowing consequences while navigating state-imposed time limits – and doing so with little guidance. Last fall, she was pregnant with her fourth child when, she said, a nurse practitioner suggested prenatal genetic screening.

At 33, Julia had no risk factors. Her previous pregnancies hadn’t been screened with an NIPT. But with three sons and 18 nephews, she and her husband were curious about the baby’s sex. And the screening seemed like it had no downside.

Julia figured it would only be offered if it was reliable, so her nurse practitioner ordered her both the basic bundle of screenings and the extra tests. (The medical practice didn’t respond to interview requests. Julia is a family nickname that’s used here to protect her privacy.)

The screenings showed the baby was a girl – but the extra tests also detected trisomy 16, a condition caused by an extra chromosome that is so rare, the nurse didn’t know what it was, Julia recalled.

The nurse borrowed Julia’s phone, using it to search online and read aloud what she found. Julia was stunned to hear trisomy 16 was incompatible with life.

“I was utterly devastated,” she said. “I made it out of my doctor’s office but completely broke down in the car.”

But ACOG does not recommend the trisomy 16 screening, saying “its accuracy with regard to detection and the false-positive rate is not established.” Julia wasn’t informed of this, she said, and she’s not sure if her health care providers knew it either.

The lab report recommended diagnostic testing to confirm the results, but time was short. She had her amniocentesis at 17 weeks. It could take up to 4 more weeks to receive results.

That would be too late for a legal abortion in Mississippi. So she made an appointment for one in Florida, where the cutoff was 24 weeks. (It’s now 15 weeks in Florida, while Mississippi went from 15 weeks for legal procedures to a ban on nearly all abortions.)

The wait was excruciating. Julia was driving twice a week to New Orleans for specialized care. With work and child care, it was too hard. She quit the teaching job she loved.

One winter night, she felt the fetus move for the first time – ordinarily a milestone, but now, facing a fatal prognosis, she didn’t want to get attached. “It had me so messed up,” she said.

On the way to the amniocentesis, Julia and her husband chose a name. Drawing from a language conjured by J.R.R. Tolkien in the fantasy novels they love, it means “hope.”

More than halfway through her pregnancy, the amnio results arrived. The prenatal screening had given a false positive. The baby would be fine. In May, Julia gave birth to a healthy daughter.

Julia and her husband are upset about the needless anguish brought on by the screening. “They like to have it both ways,” said Julia’s husband. “They say they are 99% accurate, but when there’s a false positive, they say, ‘Well, we’re not diagnostic.’ ”

Believing the prenatal screening was likely accurate, they had seriously considered canceling the amniocentesis, saving their limited funds for an abortion in Florida, hundreds of miles away.

Their dilemma points to a longtime concern: ending pregnancies based on false positives. The FDA cited it as a risk as far back as 2015. Now, those with positive results are facing an even tighter time crunch. They must consider whether waiting for a definitive test, and possibly traveling to another state for an abortion later in pregnancy, is worth it.

In their promotional material, some companies not only sidestep the variability of the standard tests, they fail to distinguish them from the least reliable ones – those for exceptionally rare conditions. They tout the extra screenings as “premium,” “plus,” or “advanced” options.

“Going to greater lengths for the answers that matter most,” says a brochure aimed at health care providers from test-maker Illumina. Elsewhere it states that the “expanded” panel of tests provides “confident results” and “the additional insights you need.”

But the companies themselves know the accuracy of some of their tests has yet to be established in the research. Natera acknowledged in a recent shareholder report that many insurers won’t pay for screenings for missing chromosomal fragments, known as microdeletions, in part because there isn’t enough published data behind them.

The company, responding to ProPublica, stressed the quality of the data over the quantity, saying the research so far has been favorable. “Natera’s microdeletion testing was thoroughly validated with results published in peer-reviewed publications,” it said in a statement.

Natera pointed to a recent study that looked at DiGeorge syndrome, one of several chromosomal anomalies it checks for with its microdeletion screenings. Researchers found the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test to be 52.6%, meaning that nearly half of positive results are false positives. (For many patients, PPVs for more common conditions can exceed 90%.)

Natera said the performance of the diGeorge syndrome test “is excellent and not considered a low PPV,” because of the condition being extremely rare.

Companies also play up the danger of diagnostic tests like amnio. They “can cause miscarriages,” warns the marketing from Labcorp, which made Amanda’s screening, while its test “does not cause miscarriages.” But medical experts emphasize that diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis, are more accurate and, in fact, carry little risk to the pregnancy.

Labcorp, in a statement, said the company “acknowledges the well-documented risk associated with amniocentesis and CVS in our literature. It is the patient’s prerogative to decide which risks they are willing or unwilling to take.”

Marketing claims also sometimes skate over the nuances in the guidance from the leading professional societies. On a webpage targeting health care providers, for example, a Labcorp chart said groups such as ACOG “endorse and/or recognize” prenatal screenings as an option for all pregnancies. But the chart listed screenings ACOG does not recommend, including trisomy 16.

When asked about it, Labcorp said in a statement that ACOG “endorses NIPS for all pregnancies.” In fact, the guidance is not so sweeping. It says only that the basic bundle of tests should be offered to all, alongside other screening options. It explicitly advises providers to not offer patients the extra tests.

Soon after ProPublica’s query, the Labcorp webpage was updated to remove any mention of the professional societies.

Patients say they often don’t know where to turn for informed and unbiased information. That’s why the r/NIPT Reddit page became such a robust community. Facing difficult news, Julia turned to it for counsel from other prospective parents. Kristina in Texas found the same community. Amanda, too.
 

‘The margin of error is a human life’

On a warm and cloudy day this past June, on what would have been their daughter’s first birthday, Amanda and her husband visited her grave. They brought a unicorn balloon and vanilla cake, which they ate nearby on the grass. Her husband read a poem.

To them, their baby had been perfect. She had fingers and toes. A thatch of dark hair. While in intensive care, peering up at her parents, she grabbed for her mother’s hand.

Had her condition been known, they would’ve spared her futile medical interventions, as doctors tried to save her life. Their family priest would have been able to baptize her. As it was, they never got to hold their child while she was alive.

These days, when Amanda and her husband say grace before dinner, they give thanks for the 28 hours of their daughter’s life.

They’re also thinking about making comfort boxes the hospital could give to other parents who lose a child. It might include books on grief. Softer tissues. Something that says, as Amanda puts it, “This is to help you get through.”

Amid their grief, they had a prayer answered: Amanda is pregnant again.

It’s frightening to go through this again. She barely sleeps the night before visiting the doctor. It feels like she never stopped being pregnant. It will feel that way, she said, until she brings a baby home – one who lives past the first 2 nights.

Amanda planned to get another genetic screening test. At first she couldn’t bear it, wasn’t sure she could trust it. “The margin of error is a human life,” Amanda said.

The 10-week appointment passed. Then the 12-week appointment. After her 13th week, she took the plunge. The test she was given was from Labcorp.

Around this time, more than a year after Amanda had desperately tried to alert the company about what had happened to her and her first baby, she finally heard back. Labcorp’s vice president of genetic counseling and services reached out – after ProPublica contacted the company and shared Amanda’s story.

The executive would only speak to Amanda without a reporter present.

Amanda said that during the call, the executive told her that prenatal genetic tests are evolving, and doctors should be clear about what the screenings can and cannot do. By the end of the conversation, the executive offered Amanda her cell number.

Amanda said she appreciated the call. “I feel better. I feel like I got something.”

The same day, her screening results came back. They were negative.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Amanda wanted to warn someone. In June 2021, her daughter – the one she and her husband had tried for 3 years to conceive – had died after only 28 hours. With an underdeveloped nose, she had battled for every breath.

Nobody knew why. Later, an autopsy report revealed their daughter had an extra 13th chromosome. The condition is nearly always fatal.

“But didn’t we test for that?” Amanda recalled asking herself. “That was kind of where the light bulb clicked.”

Through her doctor, Amanda had gotten a popular prenatal screening from a lab company. It had come back “negative.”

For three major conditions, including the one her baby had, the report gave the impression of near certainty. The likelihood that she would be born without them was “greater than 99%.”

As she recovered from a cesarean section, Amanda found herself facing a long maternity leave without a child. She shut the door to the empty nursery and began spending what seemed like endless hours of that hazy summer learning about the test.

It’s a simple blood draw designed to check for an array of genetic anomalies. But Amanda, a science researcher, read academic articles showing there was a higher risk of inaccurate results than she had realized. (She asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her privacy.)

On Reddit, she found other women reporting problems with the tests, too. She thought Labcorp, the company that made her test, would want to know about the screening that failed her. Maybe by alerting them, she could help other families. Maybe it would help her understand what happened.

“I was trying to gain answers,” said Amanda, now 32. She tried calling Labcorp’s customer service line, but she said she was passed along from one person to another. “It was just a circle,” she remembered.

She phoned Labcorp a second time. The call ended when an employee hung up on her.

Amanda was baffled. Why didn’t the company seem interested in her experience? Why, she wondered, wouldn’t it want to collect this data? Why wasn’t there someone who could answer her questions about how often this happens, and why?

If she had taken any number of other common commercial tests – including certain tests for COVID-19 or, say, pregnancy – the company would have been required to inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about reports of so-called adverse events.

But the test Amanda had falls into a regulatory void. No federal agency checks to make sure these prenatal screenings work the way they claim before they’re sold to health care providers. The FDA doesn’t ensure that marketing claims are backed up by evidence before screenings reach patients. And companies aren’t required to publicly report instances of when the tests get it wrong – sometimes catastrophically.

The broader lab testing industry and its lobbyists have successfully fought for years to keep it this way, cowing regulators into staying on the sidelines.

Worried about a growing variety of tests escaping scrutiny, the FDA was on the cusp of stepping in 6 years ago. But then it backed down.

Peter Lurie, then a top agency official, was at the meetings where the FDA tabled its plans. Not pushing harder, he told ProPublica, “remains one of my greatest regrets.”

The risk of false positives from prenatal screenings, in particular, has been known for years.

In 2014, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting detailed how some companies gave a misleading impression of the precision of the prenatal screenings. Women often didn’t understand they needed diagnostic testing to confirm the results. Some had gotten abortions based on false positive results, the story said. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported how companies sell optional extra screenings that are “usually wrong” when they predict a disorder.

Despite these stories and calls for reform by patient advocates, the government has done little to improve oversight of prenatal screenings. ProPublica set out to examine the forces that led to this inertia and left patients like Amanda feeling misled. Interviews with more than three dozen women revealed ongoing confusion about the screenings – and anger when their reliability proved to be overblown.

“This is a Wild West scenario where everybody is on their own,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University, Washington, law professor specializing in bioethics.

The stakes for families are increasing. Upward of half of all pregnant people now receive one of these prenatal screenings. And with many states banning abortions or limiting them to early in pregnancies, the need for fast, accurate information has become more urgent.

The FDA itself acknowledges the problem. In correspondence with ProPublica, a spokesperson cited an “outdated policy” regarding the lack of vetting of many lab tests that the agency has “spent the better part of the last 2 decades trying to address.”

The screening industry, meanwhile, continues to expand, proving lucrative for those who lead it. The chief executive of Natera, which claims about 40% of the market share of prenatal screenings, received a $23 million compensation package last year, the highest of any executive at a publicly traded lab company.

Testing companies told ProPublica that, even without the FDA, there is significant oversight. Labs must abide by state regulations, and another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is charged with monitoring quality standards. It does not, however, check whether the tests the labs perform are clinically valid.

Companies also said the screenings offer important guidance to expectant families. Echoing others in the field, Labcorp said in a statement that the screenings, when used properly, “provide vital information about the presence of increased risk, but do not provide a definitive diagnosis.” (It declined to discuss the specifics of Amanda’s experience.)

Natera pointed out that its materials tell patients that “this test does not make a final diagnosis.” It reports results as “high-risk” or “low-risk,” not positive or negative.

Companies have stressed that, ultimately, it’s the responsibility of health care providers, who order the tests, to inform patients about the limits of screenings.

For all that, the statistical nuances of the test aren’t easy to parse for patients and even some doctors and nurses. For example, the test for trisomy 13, which doomed Amanda’s baby, is actually less likely to correctly predict the condition than other tests in the standard bundle of screenings offered to every patient.

When ProPublica asked readers to share their experiences with noninvasive prenatal screening tests, often referred to as NIPTs or NIPS, more than a thousand responded. Many said the tests had given them peace of mind. Some said they had provided an early warning about problems.

But others had more questions than answers. None more so than Amanda.

“What are these tests?” she wondered. “And how did mine end up in the margin of error?”
 

‘They started using it on humans, and then they went back and said: “Was our test accurate?” ’

Scientists have long tried to find ways to help parents and doctors understand what’s happening inside the womb. Amniocentesis was first used to reveal genetic anomalies in the late 1960s. But it didn’t become more popular until it began to be paired with ultrasound to precisely guide the procedure.

In the 1980s, doctors started using chorionic villus sampling, or CVS, an analysis of placental tissue that offers a diagnosis earlier in pregnancy. But, like amniocentesis, it is an invasive test that involves some risk to the fetus, though experts say it’s exceptionally low.

A breakthrough came in the late 1990s, when a scientist recognized that free-floating placental DNA could be detected in the mother’s blood. This meant that the fetus’s chromosomes could be examined by collecting a blood sample as soon as 9 weeks into pregnancy. This also provides an early opportunity to learn the likely fetal sex – a particularly popular feature.

Champions of the new science celebrated the arrival of a simple technique for patients that was particularly precise, at least for some conditions. Many favored it over other noninvasive options. But the industry that developed around NIPT has been marred by controversy from the beginning.

Dr. Ronald Wapner, director of reproductive genetics at Columbia University, described that time as “very chaotic.”

The tests had not been appropriately evaluated in clinical practice, said Dr. Wapner, whose research has sometimes been funded by testing companies. Because of this, he said, the industry “had very incomplete data on how well it worked.”

That didn’t stop the excitement. The chief executive of Sequenom, a biotechnology company that planned to release the first NIPT for Down syndrome, championed the company as the “Google of Molecular Diagnostics.” Its stock price soared.

Then, about 2 months before an expected launch in 2009, Sequenom killed the plan. The company’s research director, it turned out, had manipulated testing data and made misleading claims about how well the screening worked.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Bureau of Investigation opened investigations. Top executives were fired, and the research director pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Sequenom still managed to commercialize the test in 2011. (Labcorp, which later acquired Sequenom, said it uses a different kind of test.)

Other companies soon debuted their own tests. Still, there was little data on their clinical performance, researchers said.

As Megan Allyse, a bioethicist at the Mayo Clinic, put it, the companies “launched the test, they started using it on humans, and then they went back and said, ‘Was our test accurate?’ ” She also questioned the lack of attention to the ethics of how tests are presented to patients.

Despite missteps by the industry, the FDA didn’t scrutinize the screenings because they were considered lab-developed tests, which means they are created by the same laboratory that conducts them.

In 1976, Congress revamped oversight over medical devices. Since then, the FDA has effectively exempted such “home-brew” tests from key regulatory requirements. The idea was that when, say, a hospital lab wanted to create a simple test for its own patients, it was spared the time, money, and hassle of getting approval from Washington bureaucrats.

Today, lab-developed tests are vastly more numerous and complex. Because they aren’t registered with the federal government, nobody knows how many exist.

The distinction between tests the FDA actively regulates and those they don’t can seem nonsensical. It isn’t based on the complexity of the tests, or how people use them. It’s simply a matter of where the test is made.

The prenatal genetic screening industry took off almost immediately, powered by an army of aggressive sales representatives.

“At the very beginning, obstetricians in practice were being just completely inundated with visits from the sales reps,” said Dr. John Williams, director of reproductive health at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The push left many ob.gyns. and patients thinking the screenings were accurate enough to substitute for diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis or CVS.

In some cases, sales tactics escalated into lawbreaking.

Former Sequenom executives who exited during the fraud scandal created a new company that became Progenity, which also offered prenatal screening. Shortly after the company went public in 2020, it finalized a $49 million settlement with federal and state governments, where it admitted to falsifying insurance claims and giving kickbacks to physicians and their staff. According to a legal filing, one sales rep spent $65,658 on meals and alcohol for physicians in 1 year.

Now called Biora Therapeutics, the company said in a statement it no longer does any laboratory testing, including prenatal screenings.

Industry revenue continues to grow, but some testing companies are still fighting to make a profit, and competition to survive is fierce. “There’s a multibillion-dollar market, and they all want a piece of it,” said a former Progenity sales rep who quit in disgust after 5 months in 2016.

The rep, who requested anonymity because she continues to work in the field, said she still sees competitors from NIPT companies visiting medical practices “every week, buying breakfast or dinner, or taking them out for happy hour.”

Over time, companies pointed to new peer-reviewed studies, research the industry itself funded, to earn the confidence of doctors and other stakeholders. They showed that two tests – for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 – often performed better than other screening methods.

This research was valid, said Dr. Mary Norton, a perinatologist and clinical geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center’s prenatal diagnostic center. Considered a leading researcher in the field, she was an author of many of these key industry-funded studies.

But, she said, when research findings were presented publicly, the companies sometimes downplayed “inconvenient truths,” such as the exclusion of inconclusive results from accuracy estimates. Crucial caveats were also glossed over by some companies when they translated research into promotional copy aimed at health care providers and patients. Those materials didn’t always mention the many factors that can limit the performance of the screenings, including high body weight, the rarity of the condition tested, and younger maternal age.

Testing companies said they try to help patients understand the screenings through online resources and other materials. Some offer genetic counseling services.

The younger a person is, the lower the test’s positive predictive value – that is, the probability that a positive screening result will turn out to be correct – will be for some conditions. For instance, because Down syndrome is less prevalent in younger people’s pregnancies, a positive screening test is more likely to be a false positive for them.

Kristina was 30 years old in 2016, when her Progenity test came back positive for Down syndrome. She and her husband, who asked not to be fully named to protect their privacy, said they didn’t plan to carry a pregnancy with this condition to term.

But waiting to get an amniocentesis, and then waiting for the results, took 5 agonizing weeks, she said. It showed her son did not have Down syndrome.

Kristina, who lives in Texas, is still troubled by what she describes as a traumatic experience.

“I researched both late-term abortion providers and cemeteries,” she said. They even picked out a burial place, near their house.

She bought a blue baby blanket she intended to bury the baby’s tiny body in. She still has it. Her son, now 5, sleeps with it every night.
 

‘I can’t believe I didn’t say more’

As lab-developed tests became a bigger business, moving well past their home-brew origins, regulators looked for a way to assert oversight. In 2014, after years of study and debate, the time seemed right.

The FDA released plans proposing to regulate the tests, prioritizing those used to make major medical decisions. The agency has pointed to NIPTs as 1 of 20 concerning tests.

But, over the next 2 years, a coalition of power players urged the FDA to back off. Professional associations issued statements and hosted webinars devoted to the issue. Some created polished websites featuring sample letters to send to Washington.

Academic medical centers and pathology departments joined the fight, too. Scientists from 23 of them put it bluntly in a letter to the Office of Management and Budget: “FDA regulation of LDTs would be contrary to the public health,” it said, using a common acronym for the tests.

“Critical testing would be unavailable in the ‘lag time’ between development of new tests and FDA authorizing them,” the authors of the letter wrote, “and subsequent improvements on existing tests would slow significantly under the rigid, inflexible, and duplicative FDA regulatory scheme.”

This could delay essential care for patients. What’s more, opponents argued, existing lab reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are sufficiently rigorous. Some have suggested modernizing the CMS review process to improve oversight.

An FDA spokesperson told ProPublica that the agency encountered “continued, negative feedback,” including a 25-page paper written by two legal heavyweights hired by the American Clinical Laboratory Association: Paul Clement, President George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, and Laurence Tribe, law professor at Harvard University.

Mr. Clement has reportedly commanded rates of $1,350 per hour. He and Mr. Tribe did not respond to ProPublica’s queries about their work.

Their brief argued that the FDA “lacked legal authority” to regulate lab-developed tests because they are properly seen as the practice of medicine: a service, rather than a product.

However, as lawyers representing the American Association of Bioanalysts countered, the FDA would vet tests before they reach the market, not control how doctors use them. The government proposal, they wrote, is “similar to imposing requirements to screen blood or label drugs.”

After the election of President Donald Trump, but before he took office, a handful of FDA officials discussed their battered proposal. It had represented a breakthrough in the decades of excruciating back-and-forth with industry. But now, with an incoming administration bent on deregulation, their efforts seemed futile.

The regulators feared anything they enacted would be undone by Congress – and, under the Congressional Review Act, they might not be able to reissue anything “substantially similar” in the future. So the FDA published a white paper instead, summarizing the issue “for further public discussion.”

After the meeting where officials made this call, Mr. Lurie, then the FDA’s associate commissioner, recalled a colleague approaching him: “I can’t believe you didn’t say more.”

“And I was like, ‘Yeah, actually, I can’t believe I didn’t say more either,’ ” Mr. Lurie later told ProPublica. (After leaving the agency, Mr. Lurie went on to lead the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, which has pushed the FDA to finally assert oversight over lab-developed tests.)

Nancy Stade, an attorney and senior policy official who left the FDA in 2015, said the agency often moves slowly as it seeks to get buy-in from industry and professional groups. In her work on regulatory policy, she saw it happen with lab-developed tests.

The agency is “always testing the waters,” she said, “and always coming out with something a little bit softer.”

In 2020, the influential American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, representing doctors who handle pregnancies, gave the screening industry another huge boost.

In a bulletin updating their advice on the tests, the two groups described growing research on the performance of some of the standard tests and said people have the right to information about their pregnancies, so the tests should be offered to all patients. Previously, they recommended this only for those facing higher risk of genetic anomalies.

The bulletin said the coauthors had disclosed no conflicts of interest. But two of the four coauthors, including Mary Norton, had disclosed in prior publications that test-makers had provided funding for their research. A company had provided a third coauthor with laboratory services needed to run tests, according to that researcher, a connection she also disclosed in past papers.

ACOG, in a statement to ProPublica, said the organization “identified no conflicts because research funding is provided to academic institutions with institutional review boards, not to individual investigators.” Two of the three researchers responded to questions from ProPublica and said they maintained independence over their work.

One test-maker, Illumina, celebrated the ACOG guidance in a tweet, saying it “recognizes the superior performance of #NIPT and the benefit it provides expectant families.” Natera’s share prices doubled in 5 months. UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest private insurer and long a target of industry lobbying, told ProPublica it changed its stance to cover screenings for all patients, regardless of risk, because of the recommendation.

In a recent shareholder report, Natera stated that prenatal genetic and carrier screenings “represent the significant majority of our revenues,” which totaled $625.5 million in 2021. The company expects more growth to come.

“The NIPT market is still very underpenetrated, compared to the 4 to 5 million pregnancies in the U.S.,” Natera’s chief executive said on a 2021 earnings call, “so there’s a long way to go.”

But even Dr. Norton, who coauthored the ACOG recommendation and favors NIPTs for patients 40 and over, has concerns about screenings becoming widespread among those who are younger. In most cases, she prefers other screening methods that catch the nongenetic problems younger moms are more likely to face. Negative results from an NIPT, she said, can be “falsely reassuring.”

In the years after the FDA set aside its regulatory proposal, the agency has assisted members of Congress on a proposed legislative solution. That effort, dubbed the VALID Act, aims to end any debate over the agency’s authority over lab-developed tests. An FDA press officer said the legislation would ensure the prenatal screening tests and others are “accurate and reliable.”

But, as in the past, intense lobbying followed the proposal. The VALID Act was a rider to a funding reauthorization bill, but in September the House and Senate agreed to remove it. Advocates now hope to attach it to proposed end-of-year legislation.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, 4 months after the New York Times story on the usefulness of some screenings, the FDA took a step toward more public awareness about prenatal genetic screening. It issued its first safety communication on them, noting the potential for false results.

It cautioned patients about making “critical health care decisions based on results from these screening tests alone.”

Cara Tenenbaum, a former FDA policy advisor, was pleased to see the statement. Still, she said, it was long overdue.

“This has been known – known, or should have been known – for 10 years,” she said.
 

‘It had me so messed up’

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, restrictive and ever-changing abortion laws can pressure people to act quickly with limited information, heightening the stakes of prenatal screening.

Julia, a mom from Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, knows what it’s like to face harrowing consequences while navigating state-imposed time limits – and doing so with little guidance. Last fall, she was pregnant with her fourth child when, she said, a nurse practitioner suggested prenatal genetic screening.

At 33, Julia had no risk factors. Her previous pregnancies hadn’t been screened with an NIPT. But with three sons and 18 nephews, she and her husband were curious about the baby’s sex. And the screening seemed like it had no downside.

Julia figured it would only be offered if it was reliable, so her nurse practitioner ordered her both the basic bundle of screenings and the extra tests. (The medical practice didn’t respond to interview requests. Julia is a family nickname that’s used here to protect her privacy.)

The screenings showed the baby was a girl – but the extra tests also detected trisomy 16, a condition caused by an extra chromosome that is so rare, the nurse didn’t know what it was, Julia recalled.

The nurse borrowed Julia’s phone, using it to search online and read aloud what she found. Julia was stunned to hear trisomy 16 was incompatible with life.

“I was utterly devastated,” she said. “I made it out of my doctor’s office but completely broke down in the car.”

But ACOG does not recommend the trisomy 16 screening, saying “its accuracy with regard to detection and the false-positive rate is not established.” Julia wasn’t informed of this, she said, and she’s not sure if her health care providers knew it either.

The lab report recommended diagnostic testing to confirm the results, but time was short. She had her amniocentesis at 17 weeks. It could take up to 4 more weeks to receive results.

That would be too late for a legal abortion in Mississippi. So she made an appointment for one in Florida, where the cutoff was 24 weeks. (It’s now 15 weeks in Florida, while Mississippi went from 15 weeks for legal procedures to a ban on nearly all abortions.)

The wait was excruciating. Julia was driving twice a week to New Orleans for specialized care. With work and child care, it was too hard. She quit the teaching job she loved.

One winter night, she felt the fetus move for the first time – ordinarily a milestone, but now, facing a fatal prognosis, she didn’t want to get attached. “It had me so messed up,” she said.

On the way to the amniocentesis, Julia and her husband chose a name. Drawing from a language conjured by J.R.R. Tolkien in the fantasy novels they love, it means “hope.”

More than halfway through her pregnancy, the amnio results arrived. The prenatal screening had given a false positive. The baby would be fine. In May, Julia gave birth to a healthy daughter.

Julia and her husband are upset about the needless anguish brought on by the screening. “They like to have it both ways,” said Julia’s husband. “They say they are 99% accurate, but when there’s a false positive, they say, ‘Well, we’re not diagnostic.’ ”

Believing the prenatal screening was likely accurate, they had seriously considered canceling the amniocentesis, saving their limited funds for an abortion in Florida, hundreds of miles away.

Their dilemma points to a longtime concern: ending pregnancies based on false positives. The FDA cited it as a risk as far back as 2015. Now, those with positive results are facing an even tighter time crunch. They must consider whether waiting for a definitive test, and possibly traveling to another state for an abortion later in pregnancy, is worth it.

In their promotional material, some companies not only sidestep the variability of the standard tests, they fail to distinguish them from the least reliable ones – those for exceptionally rare conditions. They tout the extra screenings as “premium,” “plus,” or “advanced” options.

“Going to greater lengths for the answers that matter most,” says a brochure aimed at health care providers from test-maker Illumina. Elsewhere it states that the “expanded” panel of tests provides “confident results” and “the additional insights you need.”

But the companies themselves know the accuracy of some of their tests has yet to be established in the research. Natera acknowledged in a recent shareholder report that many insurers won’t pay for screenings for missing chromosomal fragments, known as microdeletions, in part because there isn’t enough published data behind them.

The company, responding to ProPublica, stressed the quality of the data over the quantity, saying the research so far has been favorable. “Natera’s microdeletion testing was thoroughly validated with results published in peer-reviewed publications,” it said in a statement.

Natera pointed to a recent study that looked at DiGeorge syndrome, one of several chromosomal anomalies it checks for with its microdeletion screenings. Researchers found the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test to be 52.6%, meaning that nearly half of positive results are false positives. (For many patients, PPVs for more common conditions can exceed 90%.)

Natera said the performance of the diGeorge syndrome test “is excellent and not considered a low PPV,” because of the condition being extremely rare.

Companies also play up the danger of diagnostic tests like amnio. They “can cause miscarriages,” warns the marketing from Labcorp, which made Amanda’s screening, while its test “does not cause miscarriages.” But medical experts emphasize that diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis, are more accurate and, in fact, carry little risk to the pregnancy.

Labcorp, in a statement, said the company “acknowledges the well-documented risk associated with amniocentesis and CVS in our literature. It is the patient’s prerogative to decide which risks they are willing or unwilling to take.”

Marketing claims also sometimes skate over the nuances in the guidance from the leading professional societies. On a webpage targeting health care providers, for example, a Labcorp chart said groups such as ACOG “endorse and/or recognize” prenatal screenings as an option for all pregnancies. But the chart listed screenings ACOG does not recommend, including trisomy 16.

When asked about it, Labcorp said in a statement that ACOG “endorses NIPS for all pregnancies.” In fact, the guidance is not so sweeping. It says only that the basic bundle of tests should be offered to all, alongside other screening options. It explicitly advises providers to not offer patients the extra tests.

Soon after ProPublica’s query, the Labcorp webpage was updated to remove any mention of the professional societies.

Patients say they often don’t know where to turn for informed and unbiased information. That’s why the r/NIPT Reddit page became such a robust community. Facing difficult news, Julia turned to it for counsel from other prospective parents. Kristina in Texas found the same community. Amanda, too.
 

‘The margin of error is a human life’

On a warm and cloudy day this past June, on what would have been their daughter’s first birthday, Amanda and her husband visited her grave. They brought a unicorn balloon and vanilla cake, which they ate nearby on the grass. Her husband read a poem.

To them, their baby had been perfect. She had fingers and toes. A thatch of dark hair. While in intensive care, peering up at her parents, she grabbed for her mother’s hand.

Had her condition been known, they would’ve spared her futile medical interventions, as doctors tried to save her life. Their family priest would have been able to baptize her. As it was, they never got to hold their child while she was alive.

These days, when Amanda and her husband say grace before dinner, they give thanks for the 28 hours of their daughter’s life.

They’re also thinking about making comfort boxes the hospital could give to other parents who lose a child. It might include books on grief. Softer tissues. Something that says, as Amanda puts it, “This is to help you get through.”

Amid their grief, they had a prayer answered: Amanda is pregnant again.

It’s frightening to go through this again. She barely sleeps the night before visiting the doctor. It feels like she never stopped being pregnant. It will feel that way, she said, until she brings a baby home – one who lives past the first 2 nights.

Amanda planned to get another genetic screening test. At first she couldn’t bear it, wasn’t sure she could trust it. “The margin of error is a human life,” Amanda said.

The 10-week appointment passed. Then the 12-week appointment. After her 13th week, she took the plunge. The test she was given was from Labcorp.

Around this time, more than a year after Amanda had desperately tried to alert the company about what had happened to her and her first baby, she finally heard back. Labcorp’s vice president of genetic counseling and services reached out – after ProPublica contacted the company and shared Amanda’s story.

The executive would only speak to Amanda without a reporter present.

Amanda said that during the call, the executive told her that prenatal genetic tests are evolving, and doctors should be clear about what the screenings can and cannot do. By the end of the conversation, the executive offered Amanda her cell number.

Amanda said she appreciated the call. “I feel better. I feel like I got something.”

The same day, her screening results came back. They were negative.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

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

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID. But the government plans to stop footing the bill within months, and millions of people who are at the highest risk of severe illness and are least able to afford the drug – the uninsured and seniors – may have to pay the full price.

And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.

“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.

In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.

But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”

Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.

Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.

Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.

“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.

In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.

Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.

People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.

About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.

States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.

“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.

People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.

Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.

And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.

Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.

HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.

The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.

Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.

“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”

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.

Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID. But the government plans to stop footing the bill within months, and millions of people who are at the highest risk of severe illness and are least able to afford the drug – the uninsured and seniors – may have to pay the full price.

And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.

“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.

In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.

But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”

Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.

Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.

Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.

“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.

In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.

Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.

People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.

About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.

States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.

“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.

People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.

Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.

And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.

Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.

HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.

The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.

Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.

“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”

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.

Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID. But the government plans to stop footing the bill within months, and millions of people who are at the highest risk of severe illness and are least able to afford the drug – the uninsured and seniors – may have to pay the full price.

And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.

“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.

In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.

But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”

Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.

Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.

Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.

“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.

In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.

Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.

People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.

About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.

States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.

“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.

People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.

Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.

And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.

Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.

HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.

The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.

Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.

“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”

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.

These should be the best of times for geriatric medicine.

The baby boom has become a senior surge, bringing in a rapidly growing pool of aging patients for geriatricians to treat. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 56 million adults aged 65 and older live in the United States. They account for about 17% of the nation’s population. That number is expected to hit 73 million by 2030 and 86 million by 2050.

The American Geriatrics Society estimates that 30% of older people require the attention of geriatricians. These clinicians excel in managing complex cases – patients with multiple comorbidities, such as coronary artery disease, dementia, and osteoporosis, who are taking a half dozen, and often more, medications.

But instead of thriving, geriatrics as a medical specialty appears to be hobbling. In the 2010s, geriatricians called for “25,000 [such specialists] by 2025.” As of 2021, 7123 certified geriatricians were practicing in the United States, according to the American Board of Medical Specialties.

The Health Resources and Services Administration, a federal agency that addresses medical workforce shortages, estimates that there will be 6,230 geriatricians by 2025, or approximately 1 for every 3,000 older adults requiring geriatric care. HRSA projects a shortage of 27,000 geriatricians by 2025.

The specialty has faced an uphill battle to attract fellows. This year, only 43% of the nation’s 177 geriatrics fellowship slots were filled, according to November’s National Resident Match Program report. Family medicine–based geriatrics achieved only a 32% fill rate, while internal medicine–based programs saw a rate of 45%.

“Our numbers are shrinking so we need another approach to make sure older adults get the care they need and deserve,” said G. Michael Harper, MD, president of the 6,000-member AGS.

But Dr. Harper, who practices at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco VA Medical Center, added a positive note: “We may be struggling to increase the number of board-certified geriatricians, but the field itself has made a lot of progress in terms of improving clinical care through advancements in science and in the ways we deliver care.”

Dr. Harper cited the Hospital Elder Life Program, a hospital model developed at the Harvard-affiliated Marcus Institute for Aging Research, which uses an interprofessional team and trained volunteers to prevent delirium and functional decline. HELP has been adopted by more than 200 hospitals worldwide and has been successful at returning older adults to their homes or previous living situations with maintained or improved ability to function, he said.

Mark Supiano, MD, professor and chief of geriatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said the specialty has been in shortage mode since ABMS recognized it in 1988. He was in the initial cohort of fellowship-trained geriatricians, sitting for the first certifying exam in geriatrics offered that year.

“Back then, the demographic imperative of the aging of our society was on the horizon. We’re living it now. I knew enough to recognize it was coming and saw an opportunity,” Dr. Supiano said in an interview. “There was so much then that we didn’t know about how to understand aging or how to care for older adults that there really was such a knowledge gap.”

Dr. Supiano is an associate editor of Hazzard’s Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology (McGraw-Hill Education), which has more than doubled in pages and word count during his career.
 

Unfavorable finances

Katherine Thompson, MD, director of the geriatrics fellowship program at the University of Chicago and codirector of UChicago’s Successful Aging and Frailty Evaluation Clinic, said money is a major reason for the struggle. “I think probably the biggest driver is financial,” she said. “A lot of people are graduating medical school with really astronomical amounts of medical school loans.”

Geriatricians, like other doctors, carry a large debt – $200,000, on average, not counting undergraduate debt, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

But the typical geriatrician earns less than an internist or family medicine doctor who doesn’t undergo the additional year of training, Dr. Thompson said. “There’s not a lot of financial motivation to do this fellowship,” she said.

The jobs website Zippia reports that geriatricians earned roughly $165,000 per year on average in 2022. The average annual incomes in 2022 were $191,000 for pediatricians, $215,000 for family physicians, and $223,000 for internists, according to the site.

In other words, Dr. Harper said, “geriatrics is one of the few professions where you can actually do additional training and make less money.”

The reason for the pay issue is simple: Geriatricians treat patients covered by Medicare, whose reimbursement schedules lag behind those of commercial insurers. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2020 that private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates on average for physician services.

Dr. Harper said overall compensation for geriatricians has “not gained a lot of traction,” but they can earn comfortable livings.

Still, representation of the specialty on the American Medical Association’s Relative Value Scale Update Committee has led to approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of billing codes that pay geriatricians “for what they do. Examples include chronic care management, advance care planning, and dementia evaluation,” he said.

But the geriatrician gap goes beyond money.

Ageism, too, may play a role in residents not choosing geriatrics.

“Our culture is ageist. It definitely focuses on youth and looks at aging as being loss rather than just a change in what works well and what doesn’t work well,” said Mary Tinetti, MD, a geriatrician and researcher at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Ageism happens among physicians, just because they’re part of the broader society.”
 

Time for a new goal?

Dr. Tinetti said she’s optimistic that new ideas about geriatricians teaching other primary care clinicians about the tenets of geriatric medicine, which offer a wholistic approach to comorbidities, such as diabetes, atrial fibrillation, dementia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and polypharmacy problems faced by this population, especially those 85 and older.

She has called on her profession to abandon the goal of increasing the numbers of board-certified geriatricians – whom she refers to as big “G” geriatricians. She instead wants to develop a “small, elite workforce” that discovers and tests geriatrics principles through research, teaches these principles to all healthcare professions and to the public, and disseminates and implements the policies.

“We need a cadre of geriatricians who train all other clinicians in the care of older adults,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The goal is not more geriatricians but rather the preparation of all clinicians in the care of older adults.”

Dr. Thompson said geriatricians are teaching primary care specialists, nurses, social workers, and other health care providers the principles of age-friendly care. AGS has for the past 20 years led a program called the Geriatrics for Specialists Initiative to increase geriatrics knowledge and expertise of surgical and medical specialists.

Some specialties have taken the cue and have added geriatrics-related hyphens through additional training: geriatric-emergency, geriatric-general surgery, geriatric-hospitalists, and more.

HRSA runs programs to encourage physicians to train as geriatricians and geriatrics faculty, and it encourages the geriatrics interdisciplinary team approach.

Richard Olague, director of public affairs for HRSA, said his agency has invested over $160 million over the past 4 years in the education and training of geriatricians and other health care professionals who care for the elderly through its Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program and Geriatrics Academic Career Awards Program. In the academic year 2020-2021, the two programs trained 109 geriatricians; 456 other geriatric/gerontology providers and students; 44,450 other healthcare workforce professionals and students; and served 17,666 patients and 5,409 caregivers.

Dr. Harper, like his fellow geriatricians, tells young doctors that geriatrics is a fulfilling specialty.

“I get to care for the whole person and sometimes their families, too, and in the process form rich and meaningful relationships. And while I’m rarely in the position to cure, I always have the ability to care,” he said. “Sometimes that can mean being an advocate trying to make sure my patients receive the care they need, and other times it might mean protecting them from burdensome care that is unlikely to lead to any meaningful benefit. There is great reward in all of that.”

Dr. Supiano said geriatric patients are being helped by the Age-Friendly Health System initiative of the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in partnership with the American Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States. This is sort of a seal of approval for facilities committed to age-friendly care.

“When you go to your hospital, if they don’t have this age-friendly health system banner on the front door ... you either ask why that is not there, or you vote with your feet and go to another health system that is age friendly,” he said. “Geriatricians are eternal optimists.”

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

These should be the best of times for geriatric medicine.

The baby boom has become a senior surge, bringing in a rapidly growing pool of aging patients for geriatricians to treat. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 56 million adults aged 65 and older live in the United States. They account for about 17% of the nation’s population. That number is expected to hit 73 million by 2030 and 86 million by 2050.

The American Geriatrics Society estimates that 30% of older people require the attention of geriatricians. These clinicians excel in managing complex cases – patients with multiple comorbidities, such as coronary artery disease, dementia, and osteoporosis, who are taking a half dozen, and often more, medications.

But instead of thriving, geriatrics as a medical specialty appears to be hobbling. In the 2010s, geriatricians called for “25,000 [such specialists] by 2025.” As of 2021, 7123 certified geriatricians were practicing in the United States, according to the American Board of Medical Specialties.

The Health Resources and Services Administration, a federal agency that addresses medical workforce shortages, estimates that there will be 6,230 geriatricians by 2025, or approximately 1 for every 3,000 older adults requiring geriatric care. HRSA projects a shortage of 27,000 geriatricians by 2025.

The specialty has faced an uphill battle to attract fellows. This year, only 43% of the nation’s 177 geriatrics fellowship slots were filled, according to November’s National Resident Match Program report. Family medicine–based geriatrics achieved only a 32% fill rate, while internal medicine–based programs saw a rate of 45%.

“Our numbers are shrinking so we need another approach to make sure older adults get the care they need and deserve,” said G. Michael Harper, MD, president of the 6,000-member AGS.

But Dr. Harper, who practices at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco VA Medical Center, added a positive note: “We may be struggling to increase the number of board-certified geriatricians, but the field itself has made a lot of progress in terms of improving clinical care through advancements in science and in the ways we deliver care.”

Dr. Harper cited the Hospital Elder Life Program, a hospital model developed at the Harvard-affiliated Marcus Institute for Aging Research, which uses an interprofessional team and trained volunteers to prevent delirium and functional decline. HELP has been adopted by more than 200 hospitals worldwide and has been successful at returning older adults to their homes or previous living situations with maintained or improved ability to function, he said.

Mark Supiano, MD, professor and chief of geriatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said the specialty has been in shortage mode since ABMS recognized it in 1988. He was in the initial cohort of fellowship-trained geriatricians, sitting for the first certifying exam in geriatrics offered that year.

“Back then, the demographic imperative of the aging of our society was on the horizon. We’re living it now. I knew enough to recognize it was coming and saw an opportunity,” Dr. Supiano said in an interview. “There was so much then that we didn’t know about how to understand aging or how to care for older adults that there really was such a knowledge gap.”

Dr. Supiano is an associate editor of Hazzard’s Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology (McGraw-Hill Education), which has more than doubled in pages and word count during his career.
 

Unfavorable finances

Katherine Thompson, MD, director of the geriatrics fellowship program at the University of Chicago and codirector of UChicago’s Successful Aging and Frailty Evaluation Clinic, said money is a major reason for the struggle. “I think probably the biggest driver is financial,” she said. “A lot of people are graduating medical school with really astronomical amounts of medical school loans.”

Geriatricians, like other doctors, carry a large debt – $200,000, on average, not counting undergraduate debt, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

But the typical geriatrician earns less than an internist or family medicine doctor who doesn’t undergo the additional year of training, Dr. Thompson said. “There’s not a lot of financial motivation to do this fellowship,” she said.

The jobs website Zippia reports that geriatricians earned roughly $165,000 per year on average in 2022. The average annual incomes in 2022 were $191,000 for pediatricians, $215,000 for family physicians, and $223,000 for internists, according to the site.

In other words, Dr. Harper said, “geriatrics is one of the few professions where you can actually do additional training and make less money.”

The reason for the pay issue is simple: Geriatricians treat patients covered by Medicare, whose reimbursement schedules lag behind those of commercial insurers. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2020 that private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates on average for physician services.

Dr. Harper said overall compensation for geriatricians has “not gained a lot of traction,” but they can earn comfortable livings.

Still, representation of the specialty on the American Medical Association’s Relative Value Scale Update Committee has led to approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of billing codes that pay geriatricians “for what they do. Examples include chronic care management, advance care planning, and dementia evaluation,” he said.

But the geriatrician gap goes beyond money.

Ageism, too, may play a role in residents not choosing geriatrics.

“Our culture is ageist. It definitely focuses on youth and looks at aging as being loss rather than just a change in what works well and what doesn’t work well,” said Mary Tinetti, MD, a geriatrician and researcher at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Ageism happens among physicians, just because they’re part of the broader society.”
 

Time for a new goal?

Dr. Tinetti said she’s optimistic that new ideas about geriatricians teaching other primary care clinicians about the tenets of geriatric medicine, which offer a wholistic approach to comorbidities, such as diabetes, atrial fibrillation, dementia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and polypharmacy problems faced by this population, especially those 85 and older.

She has called on her profession to abandon the goal of increasing the numbers of board-certified geriatricians – whom she refers to as big “G” geriatricians. She instead wants to develop a “small, elite workforce” that discovers and tests geriatrics principles through research, teaches these principles to all healthcare professions and to the public, and disseminates and implements the policies.

“We need a cadre of geriatricians who train all other clinicians in the care of older adults,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The goal is not more geriatricians but rather the preparation of all clinicians in the care of older adults.”

Dr. Thompson said geriatricians are teaching primary care specialists, nurses, social workers, and other health care providers the principles of age-friendly care. AGS has for the past 20 years led a program called the Geriatrics for Specialists Initiative to increase geriatrics knowledge and expertise of surgical and medical specialists.

Some specialties have taken the cue and have added geriatrics-related hyphens through additional training: geriatric-emergency, geriatric-general surgery, geriatric-hospitalists, and more.

HRSA runs programs to encourage physicians to train as geriatricians and geriatrics faculty, and it encourages the geriatrics interdisciplinary team approach.

Richard Olague, director of public affairs for HRSA, said his agency has invested over $160 million over the past 4 years in the education and training of geriatricians and other health care professionals who care for the elderly through its Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program and Geriatrics Academic Career Awards Program. In the academic year 2020-2021, the two programs trained 109 geriatricians; 456 other geriatric/gerontology providers and students; 44,450 other healthcare workforce professionals and students; and served 17,666 patients and 5,409 caregivers.

Dr. Harper, like his fellow geriatricians, tells young doctors that geriatrics is a fulfilling specialty.

“I get to care for the whole person and sometimes their families, too, and in the process form rich and meaningful relationships. And while I’m rarely in the position to cure, I always have the ability to care,” he said. “Sometimes that can mean being an advocate trying to make sure my patients receive the care they need, and other times it might mean protecting them from burdensome care that is unlikely to lead to any meaningful benefit. There is great reward in all of that.”

Dr. Supiano said geriatric patients are being helped by the Age-Friendly Health System initiative of the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in partnership with the American Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States. This is sort of a seal of approval for facilities committed to age-friendly care.

“When you go to your hospital, if they don’t have this age-friendly health system banner on the front door ... you either ask why that is not there, or you vote with your feet and go to another health system that is age friendly,” he said. “Geriatricians are eternal optimists.”

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

These should be the best of times for geriatric medicine.

The baby boom has become a senior surge, bringing in a rapidly growing pool of aging patients for geriatricians to treat. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 56 million adults aged 65 and older live in the United States. They account for about 17% of the nation’s population. That number is expected to hit 73 million by 2030 and 86 million by 2050.

The American Geriatrics Society estimates that 30% of older people require the attention of geriatricians. These clinicians excel in managing complex cases – patients with multiple comorbidities, such as coronary artery disease, dementia, and osteoporosis, who are taking a half dozen, and often more, medications.

But instead of thriving, geriatrics as a medical specialty appears to be hobbling. In the 2010s, geriatricians called for “25,000 [such specialists] by 2025.” As of 2021, 7123 certified geriatricians were practicing in the United States, according to the American Board of Medical Specialties.

The Health Resources and Services Administration, a federal agency that addresses medical workforce shortages, estimates that there will be 6,230 geriatricians by 2025, or approximately 1 for every 3,000 older adults requiring geriatric care. HRSA projects a shortage of 27,000 geriatricians by 2025.

The specialty has faced an uphill battle to attract fellows. This year, only 43% of the nation’s 177 geriatrics fellowship slots were filled, according to November’s National Resident Match Program report. Family medicine–based geriatrics achieved only a 32% fill rate, while internal medicine–based programs saw a rate of 45%.

“Our numbers are shrinking so we need another approach to make sure older adults get the care they need and deserve,” said G. Michael Harper, MD, president of the 6,000-member AGS.

But Dr. Harper, who practices at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco VA Medical Center, added a positive note: “We may be struggling to increase the number of board-certified geriatricians, but the field itself has made a lot of progress in terms of improving clinical care through advancements in science and in the ways we deliver care.”

Dr. Harper cited the Hospital Elder Life Program, a hospital model developed at the Harvard-affiliated Marcus Institute for Aging Research, which uses an interprofessional team and trained volunteers to prevent delirium and functional decline. HELP has been adopted by more than 200 hospitals worldwide and has been successful at returning older adults to their homes or previous living situations with maintained or improved ability to function, he said.

Mark Supiano, MD, professor and chief of geriatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said the specialty has been in shortage mode since ABMS recognized it in 1988. He was in the initial cohort of fellowship-trained geriatricians, sitting for the first certifying exam in geriatrics offered that year.

“Back then, the demographic imperative of the aging of our society was on the horizon. We’re living it now. I knew enough to recognize it was coming and saw an opportunity,” Dr. Supiano said in an interview. “There was so much then that we didn’t know about how to understand aging or how to care for older adults that there really was such a knowledge gap.”

Dr. Supiano is an associate editor of Hazzard’s Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology (McGraw-Hill Education), which has more than doubled in pages and word count during his career.
 

Unfavorable finances

Katherine Thompson, MD, director of the geriatrics fellowship program at the University of Chicago and codirector of UChicago’s Successful Aging and Frailty Evaluation Clinic, said money is a major reason for the struggle. “I think probably the biggest driver is financial,” she said. “A lot of people are graduating medical school with really astronomical amounts of medical school loans.”

Geriatricians, like other doctors, carry a large debt – $200,000, on average, not counting undergraduate debt, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

But the typical geriatrician earns less than an internist or family medicine doctor who doesn’t undergo the additional year of training, Dr. Thompson said. “There’s not a lot of financial motivation to do this fellowship,” she said.

The jobs website Zippia reports that geriatricians earned roughly $165,000 per year on average in 2022. The average annual incomes in 2022 were $191,000 for pediatricians, $215,000 for family physicians, and $223,000 for internists, according to the site.

In other words, Dr. Harper said, “geriatrics is one of the few professions where you can actually do additional training and make less money.”

The reason for the pay issue is simple: Geriatricians treat patients covered by Medicare, whose reimbursement schedules lag behind those of commercial insurers. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2020 that private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates on average for physician services.

Dr. Harper said overall compensation for geriatricians has “not gained a lot of traction,” but they can earn comfortable livings.

Still, representation of the specialty on the American Medical Association’s Relative Value Scale Update Committee has led to approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of billing codes that pay geriatricians “for what they do. Examples include chronic care management, advance care planning, and dementia evaluation,” he said.

But the geriatrician gap goes beyond money.

Ageism, too, may play a role in residents not choosing geriatrics.

“Our culture is ageist. It definitely focuses on youth and looks at aging as being loss rather than just a change in what works well and what doesn’t work well,” said Mary Tinetti, MD, a geriatrician and researcher at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Ageism happens among physicians, just because they’re part of the broader society.”
 

Time for a new goal?

Dr. Tinetti said she’s optimistic that new ideas about geriatricians teaching other primary care clinicians about the tenets of geriatric medicine, which offer a wholistic approach to comorbidities, such as diabetes, atrial fibrillation, dementia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and polypharmacy problems faced by this population, especially those 85 and older.

She has called on her profession to abandon the goal of increasing the numbers of board-certified geriatricians – whom she refers to as big “G” geriatricians. She instead wants to develop a “small, elite workforce” that discovers and tests geriatrics principles through research, teaches these principles to all healthcare professions and to the public, and disseminates and implements the policies.

“We need a cadre of geriatricians who train all other clinicians in the care of older adults,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The goal is not more geriatricians but rather the preparation of all clinicians in the care of older adults.”

Dr. Thompson said geriatricians are teaching primary care specialists, nurses, social workers, and other health care providers the principles of age-friendly care. AGS has for the past 20 years led a program called the Geriatrics for Specialists Initiative to increase geriatrics knowledge and expertise of surgical and medical specialists.

Some specialties have taken the cue and have added geriatrics-related hyphens through additional training: geriatric-emergency, geriatric-general surgery, geriatric-hospitalists, and more.

HRSA runs programs to encourage physicians to train as geriatricians and geriatrics faculty, and it encourages the geriatrics interdisciplinary team approach.

Richard Olague, director of public affairs for HRSA, said his agency has invested over $160 million over the past 4 years in the education and training of geriatricians and other health care professionals who care for the elderly through its Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program and Geriatrics Academic Career Awards Program. In the academic year 2020-2021, the two programs trained 109 geriatricians; 456 other geriatric/gerontology providers and students; 44,450 other healthcare workforce professionals and students; and served 17,666 patients and 5,409 caregivers.

Dr. Harper, like his fellow geriatricians, tells young doctors that geriatrics is a fulfilling specialty.

“I get to care for the whole person and sometimes their families, too, and in the process form rich and meaningful relationships. And while I’m rarely in the position to cure, I always have the ability to care,” he said. “Sometimes that can mean being an advocate trying to make sure my patients receive the care they need, and other times it might mean protecting them from burdensome care that is unlikely to lead to any meaningful benefit. There is great reward in all of that.”

Dr. Supiano said geriatric patients are being helped by the Age-Friendly Health System initiative of the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in partnership with the American Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States. This is sort of a seal of approval for facilities committed to age-friendly care.

“When you go to your hospital, if they don’t have this age-friendly health system banner on the front door ... you either ask why that is not there, or you vote with your feet and go to another health system that is age friendly,” he said. “Geriatricians are eternal optimists.”

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

Nurses are the most trusted profession for one reason. They care.

Nurses are passionate about patient interactions, quality, and giving optimal support, often to the detriment of self-care. Many do not hesitate to voice concerns in an atmosphere that produces anxiety, whether it be regarding supplies, documentation, or staffing. As a result, post-pandemic hospitals saw a wave of retaliatory action against nurses, to the dismay of individual clinicians as well as professional nursing organizations.

In October, three nurses at Ascension Saint Joseph in Joliet, Ill., were escorted off the premises of a hospital emergency room when they began an understaffed shift. They were removed from work by hospital security and then suspended for 1 week. It was a decision that was incomprehensible, because the emergency room faced an overwhelming influx of patients – 46 that evening alone – and only four nurses instead of the more than 10 approved staffing were on duty. Why were they suspended?

Hospital officials have been quiet in responding to their alarmed community as well as in answering the Illinois Nurses Association, who criticized the hospital’s response. It has been suggested that the nurses had been intensely vocal about staffing for several weeks and the hospital might have wanted to silence their voices.

In my opinion, this could be considered a professional repercussion of the post-pandemic work environment. Though the nurses were reinstated after the week expired, nursing organizations believed that the actions of their employer were too harsh. 

There was a similar response by employers after a string of large strikes of California nurses earlier this year. For example, a walkout by nurses at Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital resulted in the hospitals withholding wages during the strike period and stating they might withhold health coverage from striking workers.

“Our sincere hope is that an agreement can be reached promptly so that nurses don’t lose additional pay, don’t risk losing the subsidy for employer-paid health benefits, and can return to patient care,” the hospital newsletter StanfordPackardVoice.com reported before the strike began in April. “Nurses who choose to go out on strike will not paid for missed shifts and cannot use PTO, ESL, or Education Hours.”

Nurse: Could a similar repercussion be in my work future?

Nurses may take to picket lines or contact administrators (for example, Human Resources) for multiple reasons, but the most common issues are related to staffing, scheduling, mandatory overtime, or equipment required to do their job: safety or lifting equipment and broken or missing tools for monitoring patients. The lack of hospital security services to assist with violent or threatening patients has also become a concern.

Goodman: The inability to provide safe care is a common fear of all nurses, one that was exacerbated by health care workers leaving during the pandemic, primarily from nursing homes. Although overall safety has improved, that may not be the case in smaller, rural institutions. Staffing for all shifts may also be erratic as the country faces an uphill winter battle with influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and newer COVID variants.

Report to your supervisor: First, be familiar with your institution’s policy regarding chain of command. Know where to take a complaint when staffing seems unsafe. Contact your immediate supervisor as soon as the situation has been assessed. They might be able to shift resources to your area or find coverage to help. In addition, keep accurate notes related to your actions.

I covered a night shift where I was directly responsible for the care of 13 subacute medical-surgical patients (new admissions and postoperative patients). Patients kept arriving with no regard for the load that was present. One of the patients was completely unhappy with her pain regimen and kept calling for assistance, as is often the case.

While I was doing my best to assess arrivals, another nurse contacted a supervisor. The next thing that happened was an on-site visit by hospital administrators (unusual!) who asked to see my assignment sheet. I had been hesitant to share the list, fearing recrimination from intermediate leadership (this was not my home unit). But it led to an immediate change in staffing. The ordeal ended amicably, but not all do. Thereafter, no nurse was expected to care for more than eight patients on the night shift.

Notify proper authorities: Nurses may believe contacting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) might be helpful; however, OSHA may not have jurisdiction over the hospital, as the Saint Joseph nurses discovered. Working without safety equipment or with reduced supplies (for example, automatic blood pressure cuffs, oxygen saturation monitors, isolation gear) may appear to be a federal complaint, but it depends where the nurse is employed. The hospital in Joliet was covered by the Illinois Department of Public Health.

Federal law entitles you to work in a safe place. Contacting OSHA for direction should not lead to recrimination for nurses. Although OSHA has been overwhelmed with complaints since the onset of the pandemic, their website directs nurses. For example, a whistleblower complaint can be filed up to 30 days after an incident of worker retaliation.

If you are a member of a nursing union, follow union guidelines related to your actions. Thousands of nurses went on strike in the past 2 years. Most remained employed and returned to work with negotiations complete. As far as the nurses in Massachusetts, the state does not have mandatory staffing ratios – most do not – which complicated contract negotiations. At this time, California is the only state that has mandatory nurse-patient ratios written into law.

It is also important to know state law and to be cognizant of nursing organizations within your geographic area. Staying connected means staying informed and having nursing resources.

Respond rationally: An additional reminder for nurses is not to react to a tense situation impulsively. Leaving an assignment unfinished or walking off the job is never a good idea. (A scheduled strike organized by union leaders is different). Leaving work is viewed by institutions as job abandonment and can be grounds for dismissal. Most states are currently “at will” employers, meaning hospitals can terminate nurses without due process.

Above all, know that nurses worry about providing safe practice and avoiding recrimination. Only one of these should be in your future.

Ms. Goodman has no disclosures.

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

Nurses are the most trusted profession for one reason. They care.

Nurses are passionate about patient interactions, quality, and giving optimal support, often to the detriment of self-care. Many do not hesitate to voice concerns in an atmosphere that produces anxiety, whether it be regarding supplies, documentation, or staffing. As a result, post-pandemic hospitals saw a wave of retaliatory action against nurses, to the dismay of individual clinicians as well as professional nursing organizations.

In October, three nurses at Ascension Saint Joseph in Joliet, Ill., were escorted off the premises of a hospital emergency room when they began an understaffed shift. They were removed from work by hospital security and then suspended for 1 week. It was a decision that was incomprehensible, because the emergency room faced an overwhelming influx of patients – 46 that evening alone – and only four nurses instead of the more than 10 approved staffing were on duty. Why were they suspended?

Hospital officials have been quiet in responding to their alarmed community as well as in answering the Illinois Nurses Association, who criticized the hospital’s response. It has been suggested that the nurses had been intensely vocal about staffing for several weeks and the hospital might have wanted to silence their voices.

In my opinion, this could be considered a professional repercussion of the post-pandemic work environment. Though the nurses were reinstated after the week expired, nursing organizations believed that the actions of their employer were too harsh. 

There was a similar response by employers after a string of large strikes of California nurses earlier this year. For example, a walkout by nurses at Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital resulted in the hospitals withholding wages during the strike period and stating they might withhold health coverage from striking workers.

“Our sincere hope is that an agreement can be reached promptly so that nurses don’t lose additional pay, don’t risk losing the subsidy for employer-paid health benefits, and can return to patient care,” the hospital newsletter StanfordPackardVoice.com reported before the strike began in April. “Nurses who choose to go out on strike will not paid for missed shifts and cannot use PTO, ESL, or Education Hours.”

Nurse: Could a similar repercussion be in my work future?

Nurses may take to picket lines or contact administrators (for example, Human Resources) for multiple reasons, but the most common issues are related to staffing, scheduling, mandatory overtime, or equipment required to do their job: safety or lifting equipment and broken or missing tools for monitoring patients. The lack of hospital security services to assist with violent or threatening patients has also become a concern.

Goodman: The inability to provide safe care is a common fear of all nurses, one that was exacerbated by health care workers leaving during the pandemic, primarily from nursing homes. Although overall safety has improved, that may not be the case in smaller, rural institutions. Staffing for all shifts may also be erratic as the country faces an uphill winter battle with influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and newer COVID variants.

Report to your supervisor: First, be familiar with your institution’s policy regarding chain of command. Know where to take a complaint when staffing seems unsafe. Contact your immediate supervisor as soon as the situation has been assessed. They might be able to shift resources to your area or find coverage to help. In addition, keep accurate notes related to your actions.

I covered a night shift where I was directly responsible for the care of 13 subacute medical-surgical patients (new admissions and postoperative patients). Patients kept arriving with no regard for the load that was present. One of the patients was completely unhappy with her pain regimen and kept calling for assistance, as is often the case.

While I was doing my best to assess arrivals, another nurse contacted a supervisor. The next thing that happened was an on-site visit by hospital administrators (unusual!) who asked to see my assignment sheet. I had been hesitant to share the list, fearing recrimination from intermediate leadership (this was not my home unit). But it led to an immediate change in staffing. The ordeal ended amicably, but not all do. Thereafter, no nurse was expected to care for more than eight patients on the night shift.

Notify proper authorities: Nurses may believe contacting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) might be helpful; however, OSHA may not have jurisdiction over the hospital, as the Saint Joseph nurses discovered. Working without safety equipment or with reduced supplies (for example, automatic blood pressure cuffs, oxygen saturation monitors, isolation gear) may appear to be a federal complaint, but it depends where the nurse is employed. The hospital in Joliet was covered by the Illinois Department of Public Health.

Federal law entitles you to work in a safe place. Contacting OSHA for direction should not lead to recrimination for nurses. Although OSHA has been overwhelmed with complaints since the onset of the pandemic, their website directs nurses. For example, a whistleblower complaint can be filed up to 30 days after an incident of worker retaliation.

If you are a member of a nursing union, follow union guidelines related to your actions. Thousands of nurses went on strike in the past 2 years. Most remained employed and returned to work with negotiations complete. As far as the nurses in Massachusetts, the state does not have mandatory staffing ratios – most do not – which complicated contract negotiations. At this time, California is the only state that has mandatory nurse-patient ratios written into law.

It is also important to know state law and to be cognizant of nursing organizations within your geographic area. Staying connected means staying informed and having nursing resources.

Respond rationally: An additional reminder for nurses is not to react to a tense situation impulsively. Leaving an assignment unfinished or walking off the job is never a good idea. (A scheduled strike organized by union leaders is different). Leaving work is viewed by institutions as job abandonment and can be grounds for dismissal. Most states are currently “at will” employers, meaning hospitals can terminate nurses without due process.

Above all, know that nurses worry about providing safe practice and avoiding recrimination. Only one of these should be in your future.

Ms. Goodman has no disclosures.

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

Nurses are the most trusted profession for one reason. They care.

Nurses are passionate about patient interactions, quality, and giving optimal support, often to the detriment of self-care. Many do not hesitate to voice concerns in an atmosphere that produces anxiety, whether it be regarding supplies, documentation, or staffing. As a result, post-pandemic hospitals saw a wave of retaliatory action against nurses, to the dismay of individual clinicians as well as professional nursing organizations.

In October, three nurses at Ascension Saint Joseph in Joliet, Ill., were escorted off the premises of a hospital emergency room when they began an understaffed shift. They were removed from work by hospital security and then suspended for 1 week. It was a decision that was incomprehensible, because the emergency room faced an overwhelming influx of patients – 46 that evening alone – and only four nurses instead of the more than 10 approved staffing were on duty. Why were they suspended?

Hospital officials have been quiet in responding to their alarmed community as well as in answering the Illinois Nurses Association, who criticized the hospital’s response. It has been suggested that the nurses had been intensely vocal about staffing for several weeks and the hospital might have wanted to silence their voices.

In my opinion, this could be considered a professional repercussion of the post-pandemic work environment. Though the nurses were reinstated after the week expired, nursing organizations believed that the actions of their employer were too harsh. 

There was a similar response by employers after a string of large strikes of California nurses earlier this year. For example, a walkout by nurses at Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital resulted in the hospitals withholding wages during the strike period and stating they might withhold health coverage from striking workers.

“Our sincere hope is that an agreement can be reached promptly so that nurses don’t lose additional pay, don’t risk losing the subsidy for employer-paid health benefits, and can return to patient care,” the hospital newsletter StanfordPackardVoice.com reported before the strike began in April. “Nurses who choose to go out on strike will not paid for missed shifts and cannot use PTO, ESL, or Education Hours.”

Nurse: Could a similar repercussion be in my work future?

Nurses may take to picket lines or contact administrators (for example, Human Resources) for multiple reasons, but the most common issues are related to staffing, scheduling, mandatory overtime, or equipment required to do their job: safety or lifting equipment and broken or missing tools for monitoring patients. The lack of hospital security services to assist with violent or threatening patients has also become a concern.

Goodman: The inability to provide safe care is a common fear of all nurses, one that was exacerbated by health care workers leaving during the pandemic, primarily from nursing homes. Although overall safety has improved, that may not be the case in smaller, rural institutions. Staffing for all shifts may also be erratic as the country faces an uphill winter battle with influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and newer COVID variants.

Report to your supervisor: First, be familiar with your institution’s policy regarding chain of command. Know where to take a complaint when staffing seems unsafe. Contact your immediate supervisor as soon as the situation has been assessed. They might be able to shift resources to your area or find coverage to help. In addition, keep accurate notes related to your actions.

I covered a night shift where I was directly responsible for the care of 13 subacute medical-surgical patients (new admissions and postoperative patients). Patients kept arriving with no regard for the load that was present. One of the patients was completely unhappy with her pain regimen and kept calling for assistance, as is often the case.

While I was doing my best to assess arrivals, another nurse contacted a supervisor. The next thing that happened was an on-site visit by hospital administrators (unusual!) who asked to see my assignment sheet. I had been hesitant to share the list, fearing recrimination from intermediate leadership (this was not my home unit). But it led to an immediate change in staffing. The ordeal ended amicably, but not all do. Thereafter, no nurse was expected to care for more than eight patients on the night shift.

Notify proper authorities: Nurses may believe contacting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) might be helpful; however, OSHA may not have jurisdiction over the hospital, as the Saint Joseph nurses discovered. Working without safety equipment or with reduced supplies (for example, automatic blood pressure cuffs, oxygen saturation monitors, isolation gear) may appear to be a federal complaint, but it depends where the nurse is employed. The hospital in Joliet was covered by the Illinois Department of Public Health.

Federal law entitles you to work in a safe place. Contacting OSHA for direction should not lead to recrimination for nurses. Although OSHA has been overwhelmed with complaints since the onset of the pandemic, their website directs nurses. For example, a whistleblower complaint can be filed up to 30 days after an incident of worker retaliation.

If you are a member of a nursing union, follow union guidelines related to your actions. Thousands of nurses went on strike in the past 2 years. Most remained employed and returned to work with negotiations complete. As far as the nurses in Massachusetts, the state does not have mandatory staffing ratios – most do not – which complicated contract negotiations. At this time, California is the only state that has mandatory nurse-patient ratios written into law.

It is also important to know state law and to be cognizant of nursing organizations within your geographic area. Staying connected means staying informed and having nursing resources.

Respond rationally: An additional reminder for nurses is not to react to a tense situation impulsively. Leaving an assignment unfinished or walking off the job is never a good idea. (A scheduled strike organized by union leaders is different). Leaving work is viewed by institutions as job abandonment and can be grounds for dismissal. Most states are currently “at will” employers, meaning hospitals can terminate nurses without due process.

Above all, know that nurses worry about providing safe practice and avoiding recrimination. Only one of these should be in your future.

Ms. Goodman has no disclosures.

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

It’s time for my once-a-decade (more or less) list of resolutions. As long as you are pledging to turn over a new leaf at home, why not do it at the office as well?

I can’t presume to know what issues need addressing in your practice, but I do know the ones I get asked about most often, so I can offer some suggestions that might provide inspiration:

1. Keep your website up to date. Check it now, then make a note to check it regularly. Most people find their physicians online these days, and you don’t want them finding a year-old presentation with outdated photos, personnel, services, and rates. Keep your site current, or hire someone to do it for you.

2. Be an authoritative presence on social media. Like it or not, you should be on Facebook, Twitter (at least for now), Instagram, TikTok – wherever your patients congregate. Medical topics are popular search categories, and they are searching for expert advice. You are the expert. There is a ton of medical misinformation online, and it needs to be countered with accurate, factual data from bona fide experts.

8. Back up your data. Now is an excellent time to verify that the information on your office and personal computers is being backed up – locally and online – on a regular schedule. Don’t wait until something crashes.

9. Keep a closer eye on your office finances. Most physicians delegate the bookkeeping, and that’s fine. But ignoring the financial side completely creates an atmosphere that facilitates embezzlement. Set aside a couple of hours each month to review the books personally. And make sure your employees know you’re doing it.

10. Make sure your long-range financial planning is on track. I’ve said this before, but it can’t be repeated too often. Economic conditions change all the time. Once a year, you should sit down with your accountant and lawyer and make sure your investments are well-diversified and all other aspects of your finances – budgets, credit ratings, insurance coverage, tax situations, college savings, estate plans, retirement accounts – are in the best shape possible.

11. Pay down your debt. Another oldie but goodie. Debt can destroy the best laid retirement plans. If you carry significant debt, set up a plan to pay it off as soon as you can.

12. Take more vacations. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.” If you’ve been working too much, this is the year to start spending more time enjoying your life, your friends and family, and the world. As John Lennon said, “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

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

It’s time for my once-a-decade (more or less) list of resolutions. As long as you are pledging to turn over a new leaf at home, why not do it at the office as well?

I can’t presume to know what issues need addressing in your practice, but I do know the ones I get asked about most often, so I can offer some suggestions that might provide inspiration:

1. Keep your website up to date. Check it now, then make a note to check it regularly. Most people find their physicians online these days, and you don’t want them finding a year-old presentation with outdated photos, personnel, services, and rates. Keep your site current, or hire someone to do it for you.

2. Be an authoritative presence on social media. Like it or not, you should be on Facebook, Twitter (at least for now), Instagram, TikTok – wherever your patients congregate. Medical topics are popular search categories, and they are searching for expert advice. You are the expert. There is a ton of medical misinformation online, and it needs to be countered with accurate, factual data from bona fide experts.

8. Back up your data. Now is an excellent time to verify that the information on your office and personal computers is being backed up – locally and online – on a regular schedule. Don’t wait until something crashes.

9. Keep a closer eye on your office finances. Most physicians delegate the bookkeeping, and that’s fine. But ignoring the financial side completely creates an atmosphere that facilitates embezzlement. Set aside a couple of hours each month to review the books personally. And make sure your employees know you’re doing it.

10. Make sure your long-range financial planning is on track. I’ve said this before, but it can’t be repeated too often. Economic conditions change all the time. Once a year, you should sit down with your accountant and lawyer and make sure your investments are well-diversified and all other aspects of your finances – budgets, credit ratings, insurance coverage, tax situations, college savings, estate plans, retirement accounts – are in the best shape possible.

11. Pay down your debt. Another oldie but goodie. Debt can destroy the best laid retirement plans. If you carry significant debt, set up a plan to pay it off as soon as you can.

12. Take more vacations. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.” If you’ve been working too much, this is the year to start spending more time enjoying your life, your friends and family, and the world. As John Lennon said, “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

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

It’s time for my once-a-decade (more or less) list of resolutions. As long as you are pledging to turn over a new leaf at home, why not do it at the office as well?

I can’t presume to know what issues need addressing in your practice, but I do know the ones I get asked about most often, so I can offer some suggestions that might provide inspiration:

1. Keep your website up to date. Check it now, then make a note to check it regularly. Most people find their physicians online these days, and you don’t want them finding a year-old presentation with outdated photos, personnel, services, and rates. Keep your site current, or hire someone to do it for you.

2. Be an authoritative presence on social media. Like it or not, you should be on Facebook, Twitter (at least for now), Instagram, TikTok – wherever your patients congregate. Medical topics are popular search categories, and they are searching for expert advice. You are the expert. There is a ton of medical misinformation online, and it needs to be countered with accurate, factual data from bona fide experts.

8. Back up your data. Now is an excellent time to verify that the information on your office and personal computers is being backed up – locally and online – on a regular schedule. Don’t wait until something crashes.

9. Keep a closer eye on your office finances. Most physicians delegate the bookkeeping, and that’s fine. But ignoring the financial side completely creates an atmosphere that facilitates embezzlement. Set aside a couple of hours each month to review the books personally. And make sure your employees know you’re doing it.

10. Make sure your long-range financial planning is on track. I’ve said this before, but it can’t be repeated too often. Economic conditions change all the time. Once a year, you should sit down with your accountant and lawyer and make sure your investments are well-diversified and all other aspects of your finances – budgets, credit ratings, insurance coverage, tax situations, college savings, estate plans, retirement accounts – are in the best shape possible.

11. Pay down your debt. Another oldie but goodie. Debt can destroy the best laid retirement plans. If you carry significant debt, set up a plan to pay it off as soon as you can.

12. Take more vacations. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.” If you’ve been working too much, this is the year to start spending more time enjoying your life, your friends and family, and the world. As John Lennon said, “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

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

U.S. News & World Report has released its Best Hospitals for Maternity Care rankings for 2022. The rankings are intended to assist expectant mothers in making informed decisions about maternal health care for uncomplicated pregnancies.

The ratings assess eight aspects of care. Three categories are new – rates of episiotomy; transparency for racial and ethnic disparities; and adherence to federal guidelines for birthing friendly practices, which include efforts by staff to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality.

Of the 649 hospitals reviewed, 297 received a mark of “high performing.” Hospitals included in the high-performing category were Thomas Hospital, Fairhope, Ala.; Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Over 300 hospitals received a ranking of “not high performing.”

Min Hee Seo, a senior health data analyst at U.S. News & World Report, said the new additions to the ranking system will help parents make more informed decisions about their maternal care. The information on racial and ethnic disparities could help patients make decisions about the equity of their care, Dr. Seo also said.

“By validating hospitals solely on their objective data and performance, we are providing more information to patients or families who are in need,” she said.

To produce the maternity care rankings – which first appeared in 2021 – the magazine focused on data from 2020 for each hospital it evaluated. The data were derived from government sources and through surveys of hospitals that provide maternity care.

In addition to the three new measures, the five indicators in the rankings are rates of cesarean delivery in lower-risk pregnancies, newborn complications, exclusive breast milk feeding, early elective delivery, and options for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

The U.S. News & World Report rankings for education have come under scrutiny recently, and some schools are no longer participating in the popular feature. However, Dr. Seo said the controversy does not affect the hospital rankings. She said expectant mothers and doctors frequently use the data in hospital rankings to improve quality of care and to have conversations about care with patients.

“Providers can use these rankings to make references and transfer patients to where they will receive the best care,” she said.

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

U.S. News & World Report has released its Best Hospitals for Maternity Care rankings for 2022. The rankings are intended to assist expectant mothers in making informed decisions about maternal health care for uncomplicated pregnancies.

The ratings assess eight aspects of care. Three categories are new – rates of episiotomy; transparency for racial and ethnic disparities; and adherence to federal guidelines for birthing friendly practices, which include efforts by staff to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality.

Of the 649 hospitals reviewed, 297 received a mark of “high performing.” Hospitals included in the high-performing category were Thomas Hospital, Fairhope, Ala.; Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Over 300 hospitals received a ranking of “not high performing.”

Min Hee Seo, a senior health data analyst at U.S. News & World Report, said the new additions to the ranking system will help parents make more informed decisions about their maternal care. The information on racial and ethnic disparities could help patients make decisions about the equity of their care, Dr. Seo also said.

“By validating hospitals solely on their objective data and performance, we are providing more information to patients or families who are in need,” she said.

To produce the maternity care rankings – which first appeared in 2021 – the magazine focused on data from 2020 for each hospital it evaluated. The data were derived from government sources and through surveys of hospitals that provide maternity care.

In addition to the three new measures, the five indicators in the rankings are rates of cesarean delivery in lower-risk pregnancies, newborn complications, exclusive breast milk feeding, early elective delivery, and options for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

The U.S. News & World Report rankings for education have come under scrutiny recently, and some schools are no longer participating in the popular feature. However, Dr. Seo said the controversy does not affect the hospital rankings. She said expectant mothers and doctors frequently use the data in hospital rankings to improve quality of care and to have conversations about care with patients.

“Providers can use these rankings to make references and transfer patients to where they will receive the best care,” she said.

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

U.S. News & World Report has released its Best Hospitals for Maternity Care rankings for 2022. The rankings are intended to assist expectant mothers in making informed decisions about maternal health care for uncomplicated pregnancies.

The ratings assess eight aspects of care. Three categories are new – rates of episiotomy; transparency for racial and ethnic disparities; and adherence to federal guidelines for birthing friendly practices, which include efforts by staff to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality.

Of the 649 hospitals reviewed, 297 received a mark of “high performing.” Hospitals included in the high-performing category were Thomas Hospital, Fairhope, Ala.; Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Over 300 hospitals received a ranking of “not high performing.”

Min Hee Seo, a senior health data analyst at U.S. News & World Report, said the new additions to the ranking system will help parents make more informed decisions about their maternal care. The information on racial and ethnic disparities could help patients make decisions about the equity of their care, Dr. Seo also said.

“By validating hospitals solely on their objective data and performance, we are providing more information to patients or families who are in need,” she said.

To produce the maternity care rankings – which first appeared in 2021 – the magazine focused on data from 2020 for each hospital it evaluated. The data were derived from government sources and through surveys of hospitals that provide maternity care.

In addition to the three new measures, the five indicators in the rankings are rates of cesarean delivery in lower-risk pregnancies, newborn complications, exclusive breast milk feeding, early elective delivery, and options for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.

The U.S. News & World Report rankings for education have come under scrutiny recently, and some schools are no longer participating in the popular feature. However, Dr. Seo said the controversy does not affect the hospital rankings. She said expectant mothers and doctors frequently use the data in hospital rankings to improve quality of care and to have conversations about care with patients.

“Providers can use these rankings to make references and transfer patients to where they will receive the best care,” she said.

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

Tooth decay can be easy to overlook – particularly for pediatricians and family physicians, who may be neglecting a crucial aspect of childhood health.

Left untreated, it can lead to serious and even fatal medical problems. The incorporation of preventive oral health care services like the application of fluoride varnish into primary care may be helping protect kids’ smiles and improving their overall physical well-being, according to doctors and a recent government report.
 

‘We don’t deal with that in pediatrics’

Physicians historically were not trained to examine teeth. That was the dentist’s job.

But dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases in children, and many children do not regularly see a dentist.

“I stumbled across the statistic that oral health problems in children are five times as common as asthma,” said Susan A. Fisher-Owens, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “And I said to myself, ‘Well, that can’t be. We don’t deal with that in pediatrics.’ And then I realized, ‘Oh my goodness, we don’t deal with that in pediatrics!’ ”

Children should see a dentist, of course. Physicians should refer families to a dentist by age 1 for routine care, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. The sooner kids are seen, the more likely they are to stay healthy and avoid the need for costlier care, she said.

But the receipt of dental care has gaps.

“About half of all American children do not receive regular dental care because of social, economic, and geographic obstacles,” according to a 2021 fact sheet from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings is improving children’s oral health.”

Many children do not start to see a dentist when they are supposed to, acknowledged Kami Hoss, DDS, MS, founder of a large dental practice in California and the author of a new book, “If Your Mouth Could Talk,” that examines links between oral health and physical disease.

Although the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry says every child should see a pediatric dentist by the time their first baby teeth come in, usually at around 6 months or no later than age 1 year, that does not always happen.

Indeed, only about 16% of children adhere to that guidance, Dr. Hoss said, “which means 84% of parents rely on their pediatricians for oral health advice.”

At older ages, oral health problems like gum disease are linked to almost every chronic disease, Dr. Hoss said.

“We love to bridge the gap, to build bridges between medicine and dentistry,” he said. “After all, your mouth is part of your body.”

A 2021 NIDCR report similarly describes the stakes: “Although caries is largely preventable, if untreated it can lead to pain, inflammation, and the spread of infection to bone and soft tissue. Children may suffer from difficulty eating, poor nutrition, delayed physical development, and poor self-image and socialization. Even academic performance can be affected.”

In November, the World Health Organization published a report showing that about 45% of the world’s population – 3.5 billion people – have oral diseases, including 2.5 billion people with untreated dental caries.

Oral health care is often neglected in public health research, and often entails high out-of-pocket costs for families, the organization notes.
 

‘Strep tooth’

Dental cavities are caused by bacteria – mainly Streptococcus mutans – that eat sugars or carbohydrates in the mouth. That process causes acid, which can erode teeth. In that way, the development of caries is a fully preventable infectious disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

“I think if people looked at this disease as ‘strep tooth,’ it would get a lot more people interested,” she said.

Bacteria that cause caries can spread from caregiver to child, such as when a parent tries to clean a dropped pacifier in their own mouth, or from child to child.

Caries can be prevented with proper diet and oral hygiene: toothbrushing and then applying fluoride to strengthen teeth or restrengthen teeth that have been weakened by the disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

The biggest risk factor for having cavities in adult teeth is having them in primary teeth, she said. “There is a common misconception that it doesn’t matter what happens with baby teeth. They’ll fall out,” she said. “But actually it does because it puts you on a trajectory of having cavities in the adult teeth and worse outcomes with other adult conditions, such as diabetes.”

At the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Anaheim in October, Dr. Fisher-Owens and Jean Calvo, DDS, MPH, also with the University of California, San Francisco, trained colleagues to apply fluoride varnish to primary teeth – so-called baby teeth – in the doctor’s office. This session is a regular feature at these conferences.

Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that primary care clinicians apply fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children.

Many pediatricians may not do this regularly, however.

Researchers recently reported that, despite insurance coverage, less than 5% of well-child visits for privately insured young children between 2016 and 2018 included the service.

Nevertheless, the practice may be helping, according to the NIDCR report.

Since 2000, untreated tooth decay in primary teeth among children younger than 12 years has fallen from 23% to 15%, according to the report. For children aged 2-5 years, untreated tooth decay decreased from at least 19% to 10%. For children aged 6-11 years, the prevalence of dental cavities in permanent teeth fell from 25% to 18%, the report states.

“Fluoridated water, toothpastes, and varnish – as well as dental sealants – can work together to dramatically reduce the incidence of caries,” according to the NIDCR. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings has been another important advancement. The delivery of preventive oral health services, such as fluoride varnish, during well-child visits in medical offices is showing promise in reducing dental caries among preschool-age children.”

Integrating oral health care with medical primary care has met challenges, however, including “resistance by providers, lack of training, and the need for insurance reimbursement for services,” the report notes.

Clinicians can already bill for the application of fluoride varnish using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99188, and additional oral health care procedures may be on the horizon.

The American Medical Association this fall established a new Category III CPT code for the application of silver diamine fluoride to dental cavities.

Silver diamine fluoride is a newer product that was approved as a desensitizing agent by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014. It has antimicrobial and remineralizing properties, and researchers have found that it can stop the progression of early tooth decay and is more effective than fluoride varnish in preventing cavities.

Several dental groups supported the creation of this new code, which is expected to be made available by electronic health records vendors in July.

Some dentists have reservations, however. The Academy of General Dentistry in October expressed concerns that allowing “nondental health care workers to administer silver diamine fluoride is a temporary solution to a growing oral health crisis.”

Silver diamine fluoride may stop about 80% of cavities. Although the CPT code for silver diamine fluoride has been established, whether insurers will reimburse health care professionals for the service is another matter, said Richard Niederman, DMD, professor and chair of epidemiology and health promotion at New York University College of Dentistry.
 

Fatal consequences

Disparities in oral health in children may be greater than with almost any other disease process. The rate of caries in children who are poor is about twice that for children who are not poor, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. Disparities by race or ethnicity compound these differences.

In 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver died after bacteria from a dental abscess spread to his brain. He had needed a tooth extraction, but his family lacked insurance and had had trouble finding dentists that accepted Medicaid near where they lived in Maryland.

After two emergency brain surgeries, 2 weeks in a hospital, and another 6 weeks in a hospital for rehabilitation, Deamonte died from the infection. The case sparked calls to fix the dental health system.

Physicians may notice more oral health problems in their patients, including dental abscesses, once they start looking for them, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

She recalled one instance where a child with an underlying seizure disorder was hospitalized at an academic center because they appeared to be having more seizures.

“They eventually discharged the kid because they looked at all of the things related to seizures. None of them were there,” she said.

When Dr. Fisher-Owens saw the child for a discharge exam, she looked in the mouth and saw a whopping dental abscess.

“I realized that this kid wasn’t seizing but was actually rigoring in pain,” she said. No one else on the medical team had seen the true problem despite multiple examinations. The child started antibiotics, was referred to a dentist to have the abscess drained, and had a good outcome.

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct clinical professor of pediatrics and community health at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., had noticed that many of her poorer patients had oral health problems, but many pediatric dentists were not able or willing to see them to provide treatment.

“Taking it one step further, you really want to prevent early childhood caries,” Dr. Boulter said. She started speaking up about oral health at pediatric meetings and became an early adopter of preventive interventions, including the use of fluoride varnish.

“Fluoride varnish is a sticky substance that has a very high concentration of fluoride in it,and it’s a very powerful reducer of oral childhood caries, by maybe 35%,” Dr. Boulter said.

Applying the varnish is fairly simple, but it had never been part of the well-child exam. Dr. Boulter started using it around 2005.

Initially, convincing other pediatricians to adopt this procedure – when visits are already time-constrained – was not always easy, she said.

Now that fluoride varnish is recommended for all children and is part of Bright Futures recommendations and is covered in the Affordable Care Act, “it became more the norm,” Dr. Boulter said. But there is room for improvement.

“There is still not a high enough percentage of pediatricians and family physicians who actually have incorporated application of fluoride varnish into their practice,” she said.
 

Brush, book, bed

Clinicians can take other steps to counsel parents about protecting their child’s teeth, like making sure that their teeth get brushed before bed, encouraging kids to drink tap water, especially if it’s fluoridated, and avoiding juice. The AAP has a program called Brush, Book, Bed to promote oral health, along with reading and good sleep habits.

Dr. Hoss noted that parents, and even dentists, may have misconceptions about optimal oral hygiene. “For example, you’re supposed to brush your teeth before breakfast, not after breakfast. But I’ve seen dentists even tell their patients, brush after breakfast,” he said.

In addition, people should brush gently but thoroughly using high-quality toothbrushes with soft bristles – “not scrubbing the teeth away with a coarse toothbrush,” he said.

Dr. Niederman has studied ways to prevent caries in underserved communities and is co-CEO of CariedAway, an organization that brings free cavity-prevention programs to schools.

In an average classroom of 24 students, about 6 children would be expected to have untreated tooth decay, Dr. Niederman said. And about 10% of the children with untreated tooth decay experience a toothache. So in two classrooms, at least one child would be expected to be experiencing pain, while the other students with caries might feel a lesser degree of discomfort. “That reduces presenteeism in the classroom and certainly presenteeism for the kid with a toothache,” Dr. Niederman said.

In communities with less access to dental care, including rural areas, the number of students with tooth decay might be double.

The new WHO report shows that the prevalence of caries in permanent teeth in various countries has remained at roughly 30%, regardless of a country’s income level, and despite efforts to bolster the dental workforce, said Dr. Niederman.

“The dental system is similar globally and focused on drilling and filling rather than prevention,” he said.

A 2019 Lancet series on oral health called for radical change in dental care, Dr. Niederman noted. “One of those radical changes would be primary care physicians or their offices participating in outreach programs to deliver care in schools,” he said.

Dr. Fisher-Owens is on a data and safety monitoring board for research by Colgate. Dr. Boulter serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Hoss is the author of “If Your Mouth Could Talk” and the founder and CEO of SuperMouth, which markets children’s oral care products. Dr. Niederman’s research has used toothbrushes, toothpaste, and fluoride varnish donated by Colgate; silver diamine fluoride provided by Elevate Oral Health; and glass ionomer provided by GC America.

Tooth decay can be easy to overlook – particularly for pediatricians and family physicians, who may be neglecting a crucial aspect of childhood health.

Left untreated, it can lead to serious and even fatal medical problems. The incorporation of preventive oral health care services like the application of fluoride varnish into primary care may be helping protect kids’ smiles and improving their overall physical well-being, according to doctors and a recent government report.
 

‘We don’t deal with that in pediatrics’

Physicians historically were not trained to examine teeth. That was the dentist’s job.

But dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases in children, and many children do not regularly see a dentist.

“I stumbled across the statistic that oral health problems in children are five times as common as asthma,” said Susan A. Fisher-Owens, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “And I said to myself, ‘Well, that can’t be. We don’t deal with that in pediatrics.’ And then I realized, ‘Oh my goodness, we don’t deal with that in pediatrics!’ ”

Children should see a dentist, of course. Physicians should refer families to a dentist by age 1 for routine care, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. The sooner kids are seen, the more likely they are to stay healthy and avoid the need for costlier care, she said.

But the receipt of dental care has gaps.

“About half of all American children do not receive regular dental care because of social, economic, and geographic obstacles,” according to a 2021 fact sheet from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings is improving children’s oral health.”

Many children do not start to see a dentist when they are supposed to, acknowledged Kami Hoss, DDS, MS, founder of a large dental practice in California and the author of a new book, “If Your Mouth Could Talk,” that examines links between oral health and physical disease.

Although the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry says every child should see a pediatric dentist by the time their first baby teeth come in, usually at around 6 months or no later than age 1 year, that does not always happen.

Indeed, only about 16% of children adhere to that guidance, Dr. Hoss said, “which means 84% of parents rely on their pediatricians for oral health advice.”

At older ages, oral health problems like gum disease are linked to almost every chronic disease, Dr. Hoss said.

“We love to bridge the gap, to build bridges between medicine and dentistry,” he said. “After all, your mouth is part of your body.”

A 2021 NIDCR report similarly describes the stakes: “Although caries is largely preventable, if untreated it can lead to pain, inflammation, and the spread of infection to bone and soft tissue. Children may suffer from difficulty eating, poor nutrition, delayed physical development, and poor self-image and socialization. Even academic performance can be affected.”

In November, the World Health Organization published a report showing that about 45% of the world’s population – 3.5 billion people – have oral diseases, including 2.5 billion people with untreated dental caries.

Oral health care is often neglected in public health research, and often entails high out-of-pocket costs for families, the organization notes.
 

‘Strep tooth’

Dental cavities are caused by bacteria – mainly Streptococcus mutans – that eat sugars or carbohydrates in the mouth. That process causes acid, which can erode teeth. In that way, the development of caries is a fully preventable infectious disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

“I think if people looked at this disease as ‘strep tooth,’ it would get a lot more people interested,” she said.

Bacteria that cause caries can spread from caregiver to child, such as when a parent tries to clean a dropped pacifier in their own mouth, or from child to child.

Caries can be prevented with proper diet and oral hygiene: toothbrushing and then applying fluoride to strengthen teeth or restrengthen teeth that have been weakened by the disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

The biggest risk factor for having cavities in adult teeth is having them in primary teeth, she said. “There is a common misconception that it doesn’t matter what happens with baby teeth. They’ll fall out,” she said. “But actually it does because it puts you on a trajectory of having cavities in the adult teeth and worse outcomes with other adult conditions, such as diabetes.”

At the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Anaheim in October, Dr. Fisher-Owens and Jean Calvo, DDS, MPH, also with the University of California, San Francisco, trained colleagues to apply fluoride varnish to primary teeth – so-called baby teeth – in the doctor’s office. This session is a regular feature at these conferences.

Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that primary care clinicians apply fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children.

Many pediatricians may not do this regularly, however.

Researchers recently reported that, despite insurance coverage, less than 5% of well-child visits for privately insured young children between 2016 and 2018 included the service.

Nevertheless, the practice may be helping, according to the NIDCR report.

Since 2000, untreated tooth decay in primary teeth among children younger than 12 years has fallen from 23% to 15%, according to the report. For children aged 2-5 years, untreated tooth decay decreased from at least 19% to 10%. For children aged 6-11 years, the prevalence of dental cavities in permanent teeth fell from 25% to 18%, the report states.

“Fluoridated water, toothpastes, and varnish – as well as dental sealants – can work together to dramatically reduce the incidence of caries,” according to the NIDCR. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings has been another important advancement. The delivery of preventive oral health services, such as fluoride varnish, during well-child visits in medical offices is showing promise in reducing dental caries among preschool-age children.”

Integrating oral health care with medical primary care has met challenges, however, including “resistance by providers, lack of training, and the need for insurance reimbursement for services,” the report notes.

Clinicians can already bill for the application of fluoride varnish using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99188, and additional oral health care procedures may be on the horizon.

The American Medical Association this fall established a new Category III CPT code for the application of silver diamine fluoride to dental cavities.

Silver diamine fluoride is a newer product that was approved as a desensitizing agent by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014. It has antimicrobial and remineralizing properties, and researchers have found that it can stop the progression of early tooth decay and is more effective than fluoride varnish in preventing cavities.

Several dental groups supported the creation of this new code, which is expected to be made available by electronic health records vendors in July.

Some dentists have reservations, however. The Academy of General Dentistry in October expressed concerns that allowing “nondental health care workers to administer silver diamine fluoride is a temporary solution to a growing oral health crisis.”

Silver diamine fluoride may stop about 80% of cavities. Although the CPT code for silver diamine fluoride has been established, whether insurers will reimburse health care professionals for the service is another matter, said Richard Niederman, DMD, professor and chair of epidemiology and health promotion at New York University College of Dentistry.
 

Fatal consequences

Disparities in oral health in children may be greater than with almost any other disease process. The rate of caries in children who are poor is about twice that for children who are not poor, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. Disparities by race or ethnicity compound these differences.

In 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver died after bacteria from a dental abscess spread to his brain. He had needed a tooth extraction, but his family lacked insurance and had had trouble finding dentists that accepted Medicaid near where they lived in Maryland.

After two emergency brain surgeries, 2 weeks in a hospital, and another 6 weeks in a hospital for rehabilitation, Deamonte died from the infection. The case sparked calls to fix the dental health system.

Physicians may notice more oral health problems in their patients, including dental abscesses, once they start looking for them, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

She recalled one instance where a child with an underlying seizure disorder was hospitalized at an academic center because they appeared to be having more seizures.

“They eventually discharged the kid because they looked at all of the things related to seizures. None of them were there,” she said.

When Dr. Fisher-Owens saw the child for a discharge exam, she looked in the mouth and saw a whopping dental abscess.

“I realized that this kid wasn’t seizing but was actually rigoring in pain,” she said. No one else on the medical team had seen the true problem despite multiple examinations. The child started antibiotics, was referred to a dentist to have the abscess drained, and had a good outcome.

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct clinical professor of pediatrics and community health at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., had noticed that many of her poorer patients had oral health problems, but many pediatric dentists were not able or willing to see them to provide treatment.

“Taking it one step further, you really want to prevent early childhood caries,” Dr. Boulter said. She started speaking up about oral health at pediatric meetings and became an early adopter of preventive interventions, including the use of fluoride varnish.

“Fluoride varnish is a sticky substance that has a very high concentration of fluoride in it,and it’s a very powerful reducer of oral childhood caries, by maybe 35%,” Dr. Boulter said.

Applying the varnish is fairly simple, but it had never been part of the well-child exam. Dr. Boulter started using it around 2005.

Initially, convincing other pediatricians to adopt this procedure – when visits are already time-constrained – was not always easy, she said.

Now that fluoride varnish is recommended for all children and is part of Bright Futures recommendations and is covered in the Affordable Care Act, “it became more the norm,” Dr. Boulter said. But there is room for improvement.

“There is still not a high enough percentage of pediatricians and family physicians who actually have incorporated application of fluoride varnish into their practice,” she said.
 

Brush, book, bed

Clinicians can take other steps to counsel parents about protecting their child’s teeth, like making sure that their teeth get brushed before bed, encouraging kids to drink tap water, especially if it’s fluoridated, and avoiding juice. The AAP has a program called Brush, Book, Bed to promote oral health, along with reading and good sleep habits.

Dr. Hoss noted that parents, and even dentists, may have misconceptions about optimal oral hygiene. “For example, you’re supposed to brush your teeth before breakfast, not after breakfast. But I’ve seen dentists even tell their patients, brush after breakfast,” he said.

In addition, people should brush gently but thoroughly using high-quality toothbrushes with soft bristles – “not scrubbing the teeth away with a coarse toothbrush,” he said.

Dr. Niederman has studied ways to prevent caries in underserved communities and is co-CEO of CariedAway, an organization that brings free cavity-prevention programs to schools.

In an average classroom of 24 students, about 6 children would be expected to have untreated tooth decay, Dr. Niederman said. And about 10% of the children with untreated tooth decay experience a toothache. So in two classrooms, at least one child would be expected to be experiencing pain, while the other students with caries might feel a lesser degree of discomfort. “That reduces presenteeism in the classroom and certainly presenteeism for the kid with a toothache,” Dr. Niederman said.

In communities with less access to dental care, including rural areas, the number of students with tooth decay might be double.

The new WHO report shows that the prevalence of caries in permanent teeth in various countries has remained at roughly 30%, regardless of a country’s income level, and despite efforts to bolster the dental workforce, said Dr. Niederman.

“The dental system is similar globally and focused on drilling and filling rather than prevention,” he said.

A 2019 Lancet series on oral health called for radical change in dental care, Dr. Niederman noted. “One of those radical changes would be primary care physicians or their offices participating in outreach programs to deliver care in schools,” he said.

Dr. Fisher-Owens is on a data and safety monitoring board for research by Colgate. Dr. Boulter serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Hoss is the author of “If Your Mouth Could Talk” and the founder and CEO of SuperMouth, which markets children’s oral care products. Dr. Niederman’s research has used toothbrushes, toothpaste, and fluoride varnish donated by Colgate; silver diamine fluoride provided by Elevate Oral Health; and glass ionomer provided by GC America.

Tooth decay can be easy to overlook – particularly for pediatricians and family physicians, who may be neglecting a crucial aspect of childhood health.

Left untreated, it can lead to serious and even fatal medical problems. The incorporation of preventive oral health care services like the application of fluoride varnish into primary care may be helping protect kids’ smiles and improving their overall physical well-being, according to doctors and a recent government report.
 

‘We don’t deal with that in pediatrics’

Physicians historically were not trained to examine teeth. That was the dentist’s job.

But dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases in children, and many children do not regularly see a dentist.

“I stumbled across the statistic that oral health problems in children are five times as common as asthma,” said Susan A. Fisher-Owens, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “And I said to myself, ‘Well, that can’t be. We don’t deal with that in pediatrics.’ And then I realized, ‘Oh my goodness, we don’t deal with that in pediatrics!’ ”

Children should see a dentist, of course. Physicians should refer families to a dentist by age 1 for routine care, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. The sooner kids are seen, the more likely they are to stay healthy and avoid the need for costlier care, she said.

But the receipt of dental care has gaps.

“About half of all American children do not receive regular dental care because of social, economic, and geographic obstacles,” according to a 2021 fact sheet from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings is improving children’s oral health.”

Many children do not start to see a dentist when they are supposed to, acknowledged Kami Hoss, DDS, MS, founder of a large dental practice in California and the author of a new book, “If Your Mouth Could Talk,” that examines links between oral health and physical disease.

Although the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry says every child should see a pediatric dentist by the time their first baby teeth come in, usually at around 6 months or no later than age 1 year, that does not always happen.

Indeed, only about 16% of children adhere to that guidance, Dr. Hoss said, “which means 84% of parents rely on their pediatricians for oral health advice.”

At older ages, oral health problems like gum disease are linked to almost every chronic disease, Dr. Hoss said.

“We love to bridge the gap, to build bridges between medicine and dentistry,” he said. “After all, your mouth is part of your body.”

A 2021 NIDCR report similarly describes the stakes: “Although caries is largely preventable, if untreated it can lead to pain, inflammation, and the spread of infection to bone and soft tissue. Children may suffer from difficulty eating, poor nutrition, delayed physical development, and poor self-image and socialization. Even academic performance can be affected.”

In November, the World Health Organization published a report showing that about 45% of the world’s population – 3.5 billion people – have oral diseases, including 2.5 billion people with untreated dental caries.

Oral health care is often neglected in public health research, and often entails high out-of-pocket costs for families, the organization notes.
 

‘Strep tooth’

Dental cavities are caused by bacteria – mainly Streptococcus mutans – that eat sugars or carbohydrates in the mouth. That process causes acid, which can erode teeth. In that way, the development of caries is a fully preventable infectious disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

“I think if people looked at this disease as ‘strep tooth,’ it would get a lot more people interested,” she said.

Bacteria that cause caries can spread from caregiver to child, such as when a parent tries to clean a dropped pacifier in their own mouth, or from child to child.

Caries can be prevented with proper diet and oral hygiene: toothbrushing and then applying fluoride to strengthen teeth or restrengthen teeth that have been weakened by the disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

The biggest risk factor for having cavities in adult teeth is having them in primary teeth, she said. “There is a common misconception that it doesn’t matter what happens with baby teeth. They’ll fall out,” she said. “But actually it does because it puts you on a trajectory of having cavities in the adult teeth and worse outcomes with other adult conditions, such as diabetes.”

At the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Anaheim in October, Dr. Fisher-Owens and Jean Calvo, DDS, MPH, also with the University of California, San Francisco, trained colleagues to apply fluoride varnish to primary teeth – so-called baby teeth – in the doctor’s office. This session is a regular feature at these conferences.

Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that primary care clinicians apply fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children.

Many pediatricians may not do this regularly, however.

Researchers recently reported that, despite insurance coverage, less than 5% of well-child visits for privately insured young children between 2016 and 2018 included the service.

Nevertheless, the practice may be helping, according to the NIDCR report.

Since 2000, untreated tooth decay in primary teeth among children younger than 12 years has fallen from 23% to 15%, according to the report. For children aged 2-5 years, untreated tooth decay decreased from at least 19% to 10%. For children aged 6-11 years, the prevalence of dental cavities in permanent teeth fell from 25% to 18%, the report states.

“Fluoridated water, toothpastes, and varnish – as well as dental sealants – can work together to dramatically reduce the incidence of caries,” according to the NIDCR. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings has been another important advancement. The delivery of preventive oral health services, such as fluoride varnish, during well-child visits in medical offices is showing promise in reducing dental caries among preschool-age children.”

Integrating oral health care with medical primary care has met challenges, however, including “resistance by providers, lack of training, and the need for insurance reimbursement for services,” the report notes.

Clinicians can already bill for the application of fluoride varnish using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99188, and additional oral health care procedures may be on the horizon.

The American Medical Association this fall established a new Category III CPT code for the application of silver diamine fluoride to dental cavities.

Silver diamine fluoride is a newer product that was approved as a desensitizing agent by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014. It has antimicrobial and remineralizing properties, and researchers have found that it can stop the progression of early tooth decay and is more effective than fluoride varnish in preventing cavities.

Several dental groups supported the creation of this new code, which is expected to be made available by electronic health records vendors in July.

Some dentists have reservations, however. The Academy of General Dentistry in October expressed concerns that allowing “nondental health care workers to administer silver diamine fluoride is a temporary solution to a growing oral health crisis.”

Silver diamine fluoride may stop about 80% of cavities. Although the CPT code for silver diamine fluoride has been established, whether insurers will reimburse health care professionals for the service is another matter, said Richard Niederman, DMD, professor and chair of epidemiology and health promotion at New York University College of Dentistry.
 

Fatal consequences

Disparities in oral health in children may be greater than with almost any other disease process. The rate of caries in children who are poor is about twice that for children who are not poor, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. Disparities by race or ethnicity compound these differences.

In 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver died after bacteria from a dental abscess spread to his brain. He had needed a tooth extraction, but his family lacked insurance and had had trouble finding dentists that accepted Medicaid near where they lived in Maryland.

After two emergency brain surgeries, 2 weeks in a hospital, and another 6 weeks in a hospital for rehabilitation, Deamonte died from the infection. The case sparked calls to fix the dental health system.

Physicians may notice more oral health problems in their patients, including dental abscesses, once they start looking for them, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

She recalled one instance where a child with an underlying seizure disorder was hospitalized at an academic center because they appeared to be having more seizures.

“They eventually discharged the kid because they looked at all of the things related to seizures. None of them were there,” she said.

When Dr. Fisher-Owens saw the child for a discharge exam, she looked in the mouth and saw a whopping dental abscess.

“I realized that this kid wasn’t seizing but was actually rigoring in pain,” she said. No one else on the medical team had seen the true problem despite multiple examinations. The child started antibiotics, was referred to a dentist to have the abscess drained, and had a good outcome.

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct clinical professor of pediatrics and community health at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., had noticed that many of her poorer patients had oral health problems, but many pediatric dentists were not able or willing to see them to provide treatment.

“Taking it one step further, you really want to prevent early childhood caries,” Dr. Boulter said. She started speaking up about oral health at pediatric meetings and became an early adopter of preventive interventions, including the use of fluoride varnish.

“Fluoride varnish is a sticky substance that has a very high concentration of fluoride in it,and it’s a very powerful reducer of oral childhood caries, by maybe 35%,” Dr. Boulter said.

Applying the varnish is fairly simple, but it had never been part of the well-child exam. Dr. Boulter started using it around 2005.

Initially, convincing other pediatricians to adopt this procedure – when visits are already time-constrained – was not always easy, she said.

Now that fluoride varnish is recommended for all children and is part of Bright Futures recommendations and is covered in the Affordable Care Act, “it became more the norm,” Dr. Boulter said. But there is room for improvement.

“There is still not a high enough percentage of pediatricians and family physicians who actually have incorporated application of fluoride varnish into their practice,” she said.
 

Brush, book, bed

Clinicians can take other steps to counsel parents about protecting their child’s teeth, like making sure that their teeth get brushed before bed, encouraging kids to drink tap water, especially if it’s fluoridated, and avoiding juice. The AAP has a program called Brush, Book, Bed to promote oral health, along with reading and good sleep habits.

Dr. Hoss noted that parents, and even dentists, may have misconceptions about optimal oral hygiene. “For example, you’re supposed to brush your teeth before breakfast, not after breakfast. But I’ve seen dentists even tell their patients, brush after breakfast,” he said.

In addition, people should brush gently but thoroughly using high-quality toothbrushes with soft bristles – “not scrubbing the teeth away with a coarse toothbrush,” he said.

Dr. Niederman has studied ways to prevent caries in underserved communities and is co-CEO of CariedAway, an organization that brings free cavity-prevention programs to schools.

In an average classroom of 24 students, about 6 children would be expected to have untreated tooth decay, Dr. Niederman said. And about 10% of the children with untreated tooth decay experience a toothache. So in two classrooms, at least one child would be expected to be experiencing pain, while the other students with caries might feel a lesser degree of discomfort. “That reduces presenteeism in the classroom and certainly presenteeism for the kid with a toothache,” Dr. Niederman said.

In communities with less access to dental care, including rural areas, the number of students with tooth decay might be double.

The new WHO report shows that the prevalence of caries in permanent teeth in various countries has remained at roughly 30%, regardless of a country’s income level, and despite efforts to bolster the dental workforce, said Dr. Niederman.

“The dental system is similar globally and focused on drilling and filling rather than prevention,” he said.

A 2019 Lancet series on oral health called for radical change in dental care, Dr. Niederman noted. “One of those radical changes would be primary care physicians or their offices participating in outreach programs to deliver care in schools,” he said.

Dr. Fisher-Owens is on a data and safety monitoring board for research by Colgate. Dr. Boulter serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Hoss is the author of “If Your Mouth Could Talk” and the founder and CEO of SuperMouth, which markets children’s oral care products. Dr. Niederman’s research has used toothbrushes, toothpaste, and fluoride varnish donated by Colgate; silver diamine fluoride provided by Elevate Oral Health; and glass ionomer provided by GC America.