Business of Medicine

Study 1 Overview (Bretthauer et al) 

Objective: To evaluate the impact of screening colonoscopy on colon cancer–related death. 

Design: Randomized trial conducted in 4 European countries.

Setting and participants: Presumptively healthy men and women between the ages of 55 and 64 years were selected from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Eligible participants had not previously undergone screening. Patients with a diagnosis of colon cancer before trial entry were excluded.

Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to undergo colonoscopy screening by invitation or to no invitation and no screening. Participants were randomized using a computer-generated allocation algorithm. Patients were stratified by age, sex, and municipality.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was risk of colorectal cancer and related death after a median follow-up of 10 to 15 years. The main secondary endpoint was death from any cause.

Main results: The study reported follow-up data from 84,585 participants (89.1% of all participants originally included in the trial). The remaining participants were either excluded or data could not be included due to lack of follow-up data from the usual-care group. Men (50.1%) and women (49.9%) were equally represented. The median age at entry was 59 years. The median follow-up was 10 years. Characteristics were otherwise balanced. Good bowel preparation was reported in 91% of all participants. Cecal intubation was achieved in 96.8% of all participants. The percentage of patients who underwent screening was 42% for the group, but screening rates varied by country (33%-60%). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed at screening in 62 participants (0.5% of screening group). Adenomas were detected in 30.7% of participants; 15 patients had polypectomy-related major bleeding. There were no perforations.

The risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited-to-screen group and 1.2% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.7-0.93). The reported number needed to invite to prevent 1 case of colon cancer in a 10-year period was 455. The risk of colorectal cancer–related death at 10 years was 0.28% in the invited-to-screen group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). An adjusted per-protocol analysis was performed to account for the estimated effect of screening if all participants assigned to the screening group underwent screening. In this analysis, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was decreased from 1.22% to 0.84% (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83).

Conclusion: Based on the results of this European randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among those who were invited to undergo screening.

Study 2 Overview (Forsberg et al) 

Objective: To investigate the effect of colorectal cancer screening with once-only colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) on colorectal cancer mortality and incidence.

Design: Randomized controlled trial in Sweden utilizing a population registry. 

Setting and participants: Patients aged 60 years at the time of entry were identified from a population-based registry from the Swedish Tax Agency.

Intervention: Individuals were assigned by an independent statistician to once-only colonoscopy, 2 rounds of FIT 2 years apart, or a control group in which no intervention was performed. Patients were assigned in a 1:6 ratio for colonoscopy vs control and a 1:2 ratio for FIT vs control.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the trial was colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Main results: A total of 278,280 participants were included in the study from March 1, 2014, through December 31, 2020 (31,140 in the colonoscopy group, 60,300 in the FIT group, and 186,840 in the control group). Of those in the colonoscopy group, 35% underwent colonoscopy, and 55% of those in the FIT group participated in testing. Colorectal cancer was detected in 0.16% (49) of people in the colonoscopy group and 0.2% (121) of people in the FIT test group (relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09). The advanced adenoma detection rate was 2.05% in the colonoscopy group and 1.61% in the FIT group (relative risk, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41). There were 2 perforations noted in the colonoscopy group and 15 major bleeding events. More right-sided adenomas were detected in the colonoscopy group.

Conclusion: The results of the current study highlight similar detection rates in the colonoscopy and FIT group. Should further follow-up show a benefit in disease-specific mortality, such screening strategies could be translated into population-based screening programs.

Commentary 

The first colonoscopy screening recommendations were established in the mid 1990s in the United States, and over the subsequent 2 decades colonoscopy has been the recommended method and main modality for colorectal cancer screening in this country. The advantage of colonoscopy over other screening modalities (sigmoidoscopy and fecal-based testing) is that it can examine the entire large bowel and allow for removal of potential precancerous lesions. However, data to support colonoscopy as a screening modality for colorectal cancer are largely based on cohort studies.^1,2 These studies have reported a significant reduction in the incidence of colon cancer. Additionally, colorectal cancer mortality was notably lower in the screened populations. For example, one study among health professionals found a nearly 70% reduction in colorectal cancer mortality in those who underwent at least 1 screening colonoscopy.³

There has been a lack of randomized clinical data to validate the efficacy of colonoscopy screening for reducing colorectal cancer–related deaths. The current study by Bretthauer et al addresses an important need and enhances our understanding of the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy. In this randomized trial involving more than 84,000 participants from Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, there was a noted 18% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer over a 10-year period in the intention-to-screen population. The reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer was not statistically significant (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). These results are surprising and certainly raise the question as to whether previous studies overestimated the effectiveness of colonoscopy in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer–related deaths. There are several limitations to the Bretthauer et al study, however.

Perhaps the most important limitation is the fact that only 42% of participants in the invited-to-screen cohort underwent screening colonoscopy. Therefore, this raises the question of whether the efficacy noted is simply due to a lack of participation in the screening protocol. In the adjusted per-protocol analysis, colonoscopy was estimated to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death by around 50%. These findings are more in line with prior published studies regarding the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening. The authors plan to repeat this analysis at 15 years, and it is possible that the risk of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death can be reduced on subsequent follow-up.

While the results of the Bretthauer et al trial are important, randomized trials that directly compare the effectiveness of different colorectal cancer screening strategies are lacking. The Forsberg et al trial, also an ongoing study, seeks to address this vitally important gap in our current data. The SCREESCO trial is a study that compares the efficacy of colonoscopy with FIT every 2 years or no screening. The currently reported data are preliminary but show a similarly low rate of colonoscopy screening in those invited to do so (35%). This is a similar limitation to that noted in the Bretthauer et al study. Furthermore, there is some question regarding colonoscopy quality in this study, which had a very low reported adenoma detection rate.

While the current studies are important and provide quality randomized data on the effect of colorectal cancer screening, there remain many unanswered questions. Should the results presented by Bretthauer et al represent the current real-world scenario, then colonoscopy screening may not be viewed as an effective screening tool compared to simpler, less-invasive modalities (ie, FIT). Further follow-up from the SCREESCO trial will help shed light on this question. However, there are concerns with this study, including a very low participation rate, which could greatly underestimate the effectiveness of screening. Additional analysis and longer follow-up will be vital to fully understand the benefits of screening colonoscopy. In the meantime, screening remains an important tool for early detection of colorectal cancer and remains a category A recommendation by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.⁴ 

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Current guidelines continue to strongly recommend screening for colorectal cancer for persons between 45 and 75 years of age (category B recommendation for those aged 45 to 49 years per the United States Preventive Services Task Force). Stool-based tests and direct visualization tests are both endorsed as screening options. Further follow-up from the presented studies is needed to help shed light on the magnitude of benefit of these modalities.

Practice Points

• Current guidelines continue to strongly recommend screening for colon cancer in those aged 45 to 75 years.
• The optimal modality for screening and the impact of screening on cancer-related mortality requires longer- term follow-up from these ongoing studies.

–Daniel Isaac, DO, MS 

Study 1 Overview (Bretthauer et al) 

Objective: To evaluate the impact of screening colonoscopy on colon cancer–related death. 

Design: Randomized trial conducted in 4 European countries.

Setting and participants: Presumptively healthy men and women between the ages of 55 and 64 years were selected from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Eligible participants had not previously undergone screening. Patients with a diagnosis of colon cancer before trial entry were excluded.

Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to undergo colonoscopy screening by invitation or to no invitation and no screening. Participants were randomized using a computer-generated allocation algorithm. Patients were stratified by age, sex, and municipality.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was risk of colorectal cancer and related death after a median follow-up of 10 to 15 years. The main secondary endpoint was death from any cause.

Main results: The study reported follow-up data from 84,585 participants (89.1% of all participants originally included in the trial). The remaining participants were either excluded or data could not be included due to lack of follow-up data from the usual-care group. Men (50.1%) and women (49.9%) were equally represented. The median age at entry was 59 years. The median follow-up was 10 years. Characteristics were otherwise balanced. Good bowel preparation was reported in 91% of all participants. Cecal intubation was achieved in 96.8% of all participants. The percentage of patients who underwent screening was 42% for the group, but screening rates varied by country (33%-60%). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed at screening in 62 participants (0.5% of screening group). Adenomas were detected in 30.7% of participants; 15 patients had polypectomy-related major bleeding. There were no perforations.

The risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited-to-screen group and 1.2% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.7-0.93). The reported number needed to invite to prevent 1 case of colon cancer in a 10-year period was 455. The risk of colorectal cancer–related death at 10 years was 0.28% in the invited-to-screen group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). An adjusted per-protocol analysis was performed to account for the estimated effect of screening if all participants assigned to the screening group underwent screening. In this analysis, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was decreased from 1.22% to 0.84% (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83).

Conclusion: Based on the results of this European randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among those who were invited to undergo screening.

Study 2 Overview (Forsberg et al) 

Objective: To investigate the effect of colorectal cancer screening with once-only colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) on colorectal cancer mortality and incidence.

Design: Randomized controlled trial in Sweden utilizing a population registry. 

Setting and participants: Patients aged 60 years at the time of entry were identified from a population-based registry from the Swedish Tax Agency.

Intervention: Individuals were assigned by an independent statistician to once-only colonoscopy, 2 rounds of FIT 2 years apart, or a control group in which no intervention was performed. Patients were assigned in a 1:6 ratio for colonoscopy vs control and a 1:2 ratio for FIT vs control.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the trial was colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Main results: A total of 278,280 participants were included in the study from March 1, 2014, through December 31, 2020 (31,140 in the colonoscopy group, 60,300 in the FIT group, and 186,840 in the control group). Of those in the colonoscopy group, 35% underwent colonoscopy, and 55% of those in the FIT group participated in testing. Colorectal cancer was detected in 0.16% (49) of people in the colonoscopy group and 0.2% (121) of people in the FIT test group (relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09). The advanced adenoma detection rate was 2.05% in the colonoscopy group and 1.61% in the FIT group (relative risk, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41). There were 2 perforations noted in the colonoscopy group and 15 major bleeding events. More right-sided adenomas were detected in the colonoscopy group.

Conclusion: The results of the current study highlight similar detection rates in the colonoscopy and FIT group. Should further follow-up show a benefit in disease-specific mortality, such screening strategies could be translated into population-based screening programs.

Commentary 

The first colonoscopy screening recommendations were established in the mid 1990s in the United States, and over the subsequent 2 decades colonoscopy has been the recommended method and main modality for colorectal cancer screening in this country. The advantage of colonoscopy over other screening modalities (sigmoidoscopy and fecal-based testing) is that it can examine the entire large bowel and allow for removal of potential precancerous lesions. However, data to support colonoscopy as a screening modality for colorectal cancer are largely based on cohort studies.^1,2 These studies have reported a significant reduction in the incidence of colon cancer. Additionally, colorectal cancer mortality was notably lower in the screened populations. For example, one study among health professionals found a nearly 70% reduction in colorectal cancer mortality in those who underwent at least 1 screening colonoscopy.³

There has been a lack of randomized clinical data to validate the efficacy of colonoscopy screening for reducing colorectal cancer–related deaths. The current study by Bretthauer et al addresses an important need and enhances our understanding of the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy. In this randomized trial involving more than 84,000 participants from Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, there was a noted 18% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer over a 10-year period in the intention-to-screen population. The reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer was not statistically significant (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). These results are surprising and certainly raise the question as to whether previous studies overestimated the effectiveness of colonoscopy in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer–related deaths. There are several limitations to the Bretthauer et al study, however.

Perhaps the most important limitation is the fact that only 42% of participants in the invited-to-screen cohort underwent screening colonoscopy. Therefore, this raises the question of whether the efficacy noted is simply due to a lack of participation in the screening protocol. In the adjusted per-protocol analysis, colonoscopy was estimated to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death by around 50%. These findings are more in line with prior published studies regarding the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening. The authors plan to repeat this analysis at 15 years, and it is possible that the risk of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death can be reduced on subsequent follow-up.

While the results of the Bretthauer et al trial are important, randomized trials that directly compare the effectiveness of different colorectal cancer screening strategies are lacking. The Forsberg et al trial, also an ongoing study, seeks to address this vitally important gap in our current data. The SCREESCO trial is a study that compares the efficacy of colonoscopy with FIT every 2 years or no screening. The currently reported data are preliminary but show a similarly low rate of colonoscopy screening in those invited to do so (35%). This is a similar limitation to that noted in the Bretthauer et al study. Furthermore, there is some question regarding colonoscopy quality in this study, which had a very low reported adenoma detection rate.

While the current studies are important and provide quality randomized data on the effect of colorectal cancer screening, there remain many unanswered questions. Should the results presented by Bretthauer et al represent the current real-world scenario, then colonoscopy screening may not be viewed as an effective screening tool compared to simpler, less-invasive modalities (ie, FIT). Further follow-up from the SCREESCO trial will help shed light on this question. However, there are concerns with this study, including a very low participation rate, which could greatly underestimate the effectiveness of screening. Additional analysis and longer follow-up will be vital to fully understand the benefits of screening colonoscopy. In the meantime, screening remains an important tool for early detection of colorectal cancer and remains a category A recommendation by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.⁴ 

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Current guidelines continue to strongly recommend screening for colorectal cancer for persons between 45 and 75 years of age (category B recommendation for those aged 45 to 49 years per the United States Preventive Services Task Force). Stool-based tests and direct visualization tests are both endorsed as screening options. Further follow-up from the presented studies is needed to help shed light on the magnitude of benefit of these modalities.

Practice Points

• Current guidelines continue to strongly recommend screening for colon cancer in those aged 45 to 75 years.
• The optimal modality for screening and the impact of screening on cancer-related mortality requires longer- term follow-up from these ongoing studies.

–Daniel Isaac, DO, MS 

Study 1 Overview (Bretthauer et al) 

Objective: To evaluate the impact of screening colonoscopy on colon cancer–related death. 

Design: Randomized trial conducted in 4 European countries.

Setting and participants: Presumptively healthy men and women between the ages of 55 and 64 years were selected from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Eligible participants had not previously undergone screening. Patients with a diagnosis of colon cancer before trial entry were excluded.

Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to undergo colonoscopy screening by invitation or to no invitation and no screening. Participants were randomized using a computer-generated allocation algorithm. Patients were stratified by age, sex, and municipality.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was risk of colorectal cancer and related death after a median follow-up of 10 to 15 years. The main secondary endpoint was death from any cause.

Main results: The study reported follow-up data from 84,585 participants (89.1% of all participants originally included in the trial). The remaining participants were either excluded or data could not be included due to lack of follow-up data from the usual-care group. Men (50.1%) and women (49.9%) were equally represented. The median age at entry was 59 years. The median follow-up was 10 years. Characteristics were otherwise balanced. Good bowel preparation was reported in 91% of all participants. Cecal intubation was achieved in 96.8% of all participants. The percentage of patients who underwent screening was 42% for the group, but screening rates varied by country (33%-60%). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed at screening in 62 participants (0.5% of screening group). Adenomas were detected in 30.7% of participants; 15 patients had polypectomy-related major bleeding. There were no perforations.

The risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited-to-screen group and 1.2% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.7-0.93). The reported number needed to invite to prevent 1 case of colon cancer in a 10-year period was 455. The risk of colorectal cancer–related death at 10 years was 0.28% in the invited-to-screen group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). An adjusted per-protocol analysis was performed to account for the estimated effect of screening if all participants assigned to the screening group underwent screening. In this analysis, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was decreased from 1.22% to 0.84% (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83).

Conclusion: Based on the results of this European randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among those who were invited to undergo screening.

Study 2 Overview (Forsberg et al) 

Objective: To investigate the effect of colorectal cancer screening with once-only colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) on colorectal cancer mortality and incidence.

Design: Randomized controlled trial in Sweden utilizing a population registry. 

Setting and participants: Patients aged 60 years at the time of entry were identified from a population-based registry from the Swedish Tax Agency.

Intervention: Individuals were assigned by an independent statistician to once-only colonoscopy, 2 rounds of FIT 2 years apart, or a control group in which no intervention was performed. Patients were assigned in a 1:6 ratio for colonoscopy vs control and a 1:2 ratio for FIT vs control.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the trial was colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Main results: A total of 278,280 participants were included in the study from March 1, 2014, through December 31, 2020 (31,140 in the colonoscopy group, 60,300 in the FIT group, and 186,840 in the control group). Of those in the colonoscopy group, 35% underwent colonoscopy, and 55% of those in the FIT group participated in testing. Colorectal cancer was detected in 0.16% (49) of people in the colonoscopy group and 0.2% (121) of people in the FIT test group (relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09). The advanced adenoma detection rate was 2.05% in the colonoscopy group and 1.61% in the FIT group (relative risk, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41). There were 2 perforations noted in the colonoscopy group and 15 major bleeding events. More right-sided adenomas were detected in the colonoscopy group.

Conclusion: The results of the current study highlight similar detection rates in the colonoscopy and FIT group. Should further follow-up show a benefit in disease-specific mortality, such screening strategies could be translated into population-based screening programs.

Commentary 

The first colonoscopy screening recommendations were established in the mid 1990s in the United States, and over the subsequent 2 decades colonoscopy has been the recommended method and main modality for colorectal cancer screening in this country. The advantage of colonoscopy over other screening modalities (sigmoidoscopy and fecal-based testing) is that it can examine the entire large bowel and allow for removal of potential precancerous lesions. However, data to support colonoscopy as a screening modality for colorectal cancer are largely based on cohort studies.^1,2 These studies have reported a significant reduction in the incidence of colon cancer. Additionally, colorectal cancer mortality was notably lower in the screened populations. For example, one study among health professionals found a nearly 70% reduction in colorectal cancer mortality in those who underwent at least 1 screening colonoscopy.³

There has been a lack of randomized clinical data to validate the efficacy of colonoscopy screening for reducing colorectal cancer–related deaths. The current study by Bretthauer et al addresses an important need and enhances our understanding of the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy. In this randomized trial involving more than 84,000 participants from Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, there was a noted 18% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer over a 10-year period in the intention-to-screen population. The reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer was not statistically significant (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). These results are surprising and certainly raise the question as to whether previous studies overestimated the effectiveness of colonoscopy in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer–related deaths. There are several limitations to the Bretthauer et al study, however.

Perhaps the most important limitation is the fact that only 42% of participants in the invited-to-screen cohort underwent screening colonoscopy. Therefore, this raises the question of whether the efficacy noted is simply due to a lack of participation in the screening protocol. In the adjusted per-protocol analysis, colonoscopy was estimated to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death by around 50%. These findings are more in line with prior published studies regarding the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening. The authors plan to repeat this analysis at 15 years, and it is possible that the risk of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death can be reduced on subsequent follow-up.

While the results of the Bretthauer et al trial are important, randomized trials that directly compare the effectiveness of different colorectal cancer screening strategies are lacking. The Forsberg et al trial, also an ongoing study, seeks to address this vitally important gap in our current data. The SCREESCO trial is a study that compares the efficacy of colonoscopy with FIT every 2 years or no screening. The currently reported data are preliminary but show a similarly low rate of colonoscopy screening in those invited to do so (35%). This is a similar limitation to that noted in the Bretthauer et al study. Furthermore, there is some question regarding colonoscopy quality in this study, which had a very low reported adenoma detection rate.

While the current studies are important and provide quality randomized data on the effect of colorectal cancer screening, there remain many unanswered questions. Should the results presented by Bretthauer et al represent the current real-world scenario, then colonoscopy screening may not be viewed as an effective screening tool compared to simpler, less-invasive modalities (ie, FIT). Further follow-up from the SCREESCO trial will help shed light on this question. However, there are concerns with this study, including a very low participation rate, which could greatly underestimate the effectiveness of screening. Additional analysis and longer follow-up will be vital to fully understand the benefits of screening colonoscopy. In the meantime, screening remains an important tool for early detection of colorectal cancer and remains a category A recommendation by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.⁴ 

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Current guidelines continue to strongly recommend screening for colorectal cancer for persons between 45 and 75 years of age (category B recommendation for those aged 45 to 49 years per the United States Preventive Services Task Force). Stool-based tests and direct visualization tests are both endorsed as screening options. Further follow-up from the presented studies is needed to help shed light on the magnitude of benefit of these modalities.

Practice Points

• Current guidelines continue to strongly recommend screening for colon cancer in those aged 45 to 75 years.
• The optimal modality for screening and the impact of screening on cancer-related mortality requires longer- term follow-up from these ongoing studies.

–Daniel Isaac, DO, MS 

Medical residents have cleared many hurdles to get where they are, as detailed in Medscape’s Residents Salary and Debt Report 2022 which explains their challenges with compensation and school loans as well as long hours and problematic personal relationships.

Whereas 72% of residents described themselves as “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their professional training experience, only 27% felt that highly about how well they’re paid. Satisfaction levels increased somewhat farther into residency, reaching 35% in year 5.

Respondents to the survey described mixed feelings about residency, with some concluding it is a rite of passage.
 

Do residents have it easier today?

If so, is that rite of passage getting any easier? You’ll get different answers from residents and physicians.

Medscape asked respondents whether their journey to residency was made easier once the Step 1 exam was converted to pass-fail, and interviews brought online, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many residents conceded their journey became easier, less stressful, and less expensive under the new Step 1 formats. One respondent said he was freed up to focus more intently on higher-yield academic goals such as research.

Another respondent called the pass/fail change a “total game-changer,” as it lets applicants apply to all specialties while having other qualifications than test scores considered. A resident who took Step 1 before pass/fail was instituted described the “insurmountable stress associated with studying for Step 1 to get the highest score you possibly could.”

But not all residents liked the difficulty in being able to differentiate themselves, beyond med school pedigrees, in the absence of Step 1 scores.

Meanwhile, some doctors posting comments to the Medscape report strongly disagreed with the idea that residency life is getting harder. They depict residency as a rite of passage under the best of circumstances.

“Whatever issues there may be [today’s residents] are still making eight times what I got and, from what I’ve seen, we had a lot more independent responsibilities,” one physician commenter said.

Other doctors were more sympathetic and worried about the future price to be paid for hardships during residency. “Compensation should not be tied to the willingness to sacrifice the most beautiful years of life,” one commentator wrote.
 

Online interviews: Pros and cons

Many resident respondents celebrated the opportunity to interview for residency programs online. Some who traveled to in-person interviews before the pandemic said they racked up as much as $10,000 in travel costs, adding to their debt loads.

But not everyone was a fan. Other residents sniped that peers can apply to more residencies and “hoard” interviews, making the competition that much harder.

And how useful are online interviews to a prospective resident? “Virtual interviews are terrible for getting a true sense for a program or even the people,” a 1st-year family medicine resident complained. And it’s harder for an applicant “to shine when you’re on Zoom,” a 1st-year internal medicine resident opined.
 

Whether to report harassment

In survey, respondents were asked whether they ever witnessed sexual abuse, harassment, or misconduct; and if so, what they did about it. Among those who did, many opted to take no action, fearing retaliation or retribution. “I saw a resident made out to be a ‘problem resident’ when reporting it and then ultimately fired,” one respondent recounted.

Other residents said they felt unsure about the protocol, whom to report to, or even what constituted harassment or misconduct. “I didn’t realize [an incident] was harassment until later,” one resident said. Others thought “minor” or “subtle” incidents did not warrant action; “they are typically microaggressions and appear accepted within the culture of the institution.”

Residents’ confusion heightened when the perpetrator was a patient. “I’m not sure what to do about that,” a respondent acknowledged. An emergency medicine resident added, “most of the time … it is the patients who are acting inappropriately, saying inappropriate things, etc. There is no way to file a complaint like that.”
 

Rewards and challenges for residents

Among the most rewarding parts of residency that respondents described were developing specific skills such as surgical techniques, job security, and “learning a little day by day” in the words of a 1st-year gastroenterology resident.

Others felt gratified by the chances to help patients and families, their teams, and to advance social justice and health equity.

But challenges abound – chiefly money struggles. A 3rd-year psychiatry resident lamented “being financially strapped in the prime of my life from student loans and low wages.”

Stress and emotional fatigue also came up often as major challenges. “Constantly being told to do more, more presentations, more papers, more research, more studying,” a 5th-year neurosurgery resident bemoaned. “Being expected to be at the top of my game despite being sleep-deprived, depressed, and burned out,” a 3rd-year ob.gyn. resident groused.

But some physician commenters urged residents to look for long-term growth behind the challenges. “Yes, it was hard, but the experience was phenomenal, and I am glad I did it,” one doctor said.

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

Medical residents have cleared many hurdles to get where they are, as detailed in Medscape’s Residents Salary and Debt Report 2022 which explains their challenges with compensation and school loans as well as long hours and problematic personal relationships.

Whereas 72% of residents described themselves as “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their professional training experience, only 27% felt that highly about how well they’re paid. Satisfaction levels increased somewhat farther into residency, reaching 35% in year 5.

Respondents to the survey described mixed feelings about residency, with some concluding it is a rite of passage.
 

Do residents have it easier today?

If so, is that rite of passage getting any easier? You’ll get different answers from residents and physicians.

Medscape asked respondents whether their journey to residency was made easier once the Step 1 exam was converted to pass-fail, and interviews brought online, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many residents conceded their journey became easier, less stressful, and less expensive under the new Step 1 formats. One respondent said he was freed up to focus more intently on higher-yield academic goals such as research.

Another respondent called the pass/fail change a “total game-changer,” as it lets applicants apply to all specialties while having other qualifications than test scores considered. A resident who took Step 1 before pass/fail was instituted described the “insurmountable stress associated with studying for Step 1 to get the highest score you possibly could.”

But not all residents liked the difficulty in being able to differentiate themselves, beyond med school pedigrees, in the absence of Step 1 scores.

Meanwhile, some doctors posting comments to the Medscape report strongly disagreed with the idea that residency life is getting harder. They depict residency as a rite of passage under the best of circumstances.

“Whatever issues there may be [today’s residents] are still making eight times what I got and, from what I’ve seen, we had a lot more independent responsibilities,” one physician commenter said.

Other doctors were more sympathetic and worried about the future price to be paid for hardships during residency. “Compensation should not be tied to the willingness to sacrifice the most beautiful years of life,” one commentator wrote.
 

Online interviews: Pros and cons

Many resident respondents celebrated the opportunity to interview for residency programs online. Some who traveled to in-person interviews before the pandemic said they racked up as much as $10,000 in travel costs, adding to their debt loads.

But not everyone was a fan. Other residents sniped that peers can apply to more residencies and “hoard” interviews, making the competition that much harder.

And how useful are online interviews to a prospective resident? “Virtual interviews are terrible for getting a true sense for a program or even the people,” a 1st-year family medicine resident complained. And it’s harder for an applicant “to shine when you’re on Zoom,” a 1st-year internal medicine resident opined.
 

Whether to report harassment

In survey, respondents were asked whether they ever witnessed sexual abuse, harassment, or misconduct; and if so, what they did about it. Among those who did, many opted to take no action, fearing retaliation or retribution. “I saw a resident made out to be a ‘problem resident’ when reporting it and then ultimately fired,” one respondent recounted.

Other residents said they felt unsure about the protocol, whom to report to, or even what constituted harassment or misconduct. “I didn’t realize [an incident] was harassment until later,” one resident said. Others thought “minor” or “subtle” incidents did not warrant action; “they are typically microaggressions and appear accepted within the culture of the institution.”

Residents’ confusion heightened when the perpetrator was a patient. “I’m not sure what to do about that,” a respondent acknowledged. An emergency medicine resident added, “most of the time … it is the patients who are acting inappropriately, saying inappropriate things, etc. There is no way to file a complaint like that.”
 

Rewards and challenges for residents

Among the most rewarding parts of residency that respondents described were developing specific skills such as surgical techniques, job security, and “learning a little day by day” in the words of a 1st-year gastroenterology resident.

Others felt gratified by the chances to help patients and families, their teams, and to advance social justice and health equity.

But challenges abound – chiefly money struggles. A 3rd-year psychiatry resident lamented “being financially strapped in the prime of my life from student loans and low wages.”

Stress and emotional fatigue also came up often as major challenges. “Constantly being told to do more, more presentations, more papers, more research, more studying,” a 5th-year neurosurgery resident bemoaned. “Being expected to be at the top of my game despite being sleep-deprived, depressed, and burned out,” a 3rd-year ob.gyn. resident groused.

But some physician commenters urged residents to look for long-term growth behind the challenges. “Yes, it was hard, but the experience was phenomenal, and I am glad I did it,” one doctor said.

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

Medical residents have cleared many hurdles to get where they are, as detailed in Medscape’s Residents Salary and Debt Report 2022 which explains their challenges with compensation and school loans as well as long hours and problematic personal relationships.

Whereas 72% of residents described themselves as “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their professional training experience, only 27% felt that highly about how well they’re paid. Satisfaction levels increased somewhat farther into residency, reaching 35% in year 5.

Respondents to the survey described mixed feelings about residency, with some concluding it is a rite of passage.
 

Do residents have it easier today?

If so, is that rite of passage getting any easier? You’ll get different answers from residents and physicians.

Medscape asked respondents whether their journey to residency was made easier once the Step 1 exam was converted to pass-fail, and interviews brought online, because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many residents conceded their journey became easier, less stressful, and less expensive under the new Step 1 formats. One respondent said he was freed up to focus more intently on higher-yield academic goals such as research.

Another respondent called the pass/fail change a “total game-changer,” as it lets applicants apply to all specialties while having other qualifications than test scores considered. A resident who took Step 1 before pass/fail was instituted described the “insurmountable stress associated with studying for Step 1 to get the highest score you possibly could.”

But not all residents liked the difficulty in being able to differentiate themselves, beyond med school pedigrees, in the absence of Step 1 scores.

Meanwhile, some doctors posting comments to the Medscape report strongly disagreed with the idea that residency life is getting harder. They depict residency as a rite of passage under the best of circumstances.

“Whatever issues there may be [today’s residents] are still making eight times what I got and, from what I’ve seen, we had a lot more independent responsibilities,” one physician commenter said.

Other doctors were more sympathetic and worried about the future price to be paid for hardships during residency. “Compensation should not be tied to the willingness to sacrifice the most beautiful years of life,” one commentator wrote.
 

Online interviews: Pros and cons

Many resident respondents celebrated the opportunity to interview for residency programs online. Some who traveled to in-person interviews before the pandemic said they racked up as much as $10,000 in travel costs, adding to their debt loads.

But not everyone was a fan. Other residents sniped that peers can apply to more residencies and “hoard” interviews, making the competition that much harder.

And how useful are online interviews to a prospective resident? “Virtual interviews are terrible for getting a true sense for a program or even the people,” a 1st-year family medicine resident complained. And it’s harder for an applicant “to shine when you’re on Zoom,” a 1st-year internal medicine resident opined.
 

Whether to report harassment

In survey, respondents were asked whether they ever witnessed sexual abuse, harassment, or misconduct; and if so, what they did about it. Among those who did, many opted to take no action, fearing retaliation or retribution. “I saw a resident made out to be a ‘problem resident’ when reporting it and then ultimately fired,” one respondent recounted.

Other residents said they felt unsure about the protocol, whom to report to, or even what constituted harassment or misconduct. “I didn’t realize [an incident] was harassment until later,” one resident said. Others thought “minor” or “subtle” incidents did not warrant action; “they are typically microaggressions and appear accepted within the culture of the institution.”

Residents’ confusion heightened when the perpetrator was a patient. “I’m not sure what to do about that,” a respondent acknowledged. An emergency medicine resident added, “most of the time … it is the patients who are acting inappropriately, saying inappropriate things, etc. There is no way to file a complaint like that.”
 

Rewards and challenges for residents

Among the most rewarding parts of residency that respondents described were developing specific skills such as surgical techniques, job security, and “learning a little day by day” in the words of a 1st-year gastroenterology resident.

Others felt gratified by the chances to help patients and families, their teams, and to advance social justice and health equity.

But challenges abound – chiefly money struggles. A 3rd-year psychiatry resident lamented “being financially strapped in the prime of my life from student loans and low wages.”

Stress and emotional fatigue also came up often as major challenges. “Constantly being told to do more, more presentations, more papers, more research, more studying,” a 5th-year neurosurgery resident bemoaned. “Being expected to be at the top of my game despite being sleep-deprived, depressed, and burned out,” a 3rd-year ob.gyn. resident groused.

But some physician commenters urged residents to look for long-term growth behind the challenges. “Yes, it was hard, but the experience was phenomenal, and I am glad I did it,” one doctor said.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

They call me and I go.

– William Carlos Williams

I never get sick. I’ve never had the flu. When everyone’s got a cold, I’m somehow immune. The last time I threw up was June 29th, 1980. You see, I work out almost daily, eat vegan, and sleep plenty. I drink gallons of pressed juice and throw down a few high-quality supplements. Yes, I’m that guy: The one who never gets sick. Well, I was anyway.

I am no longer that guy since our little girl became a supersocial little toddler. My undefeated welterweight “never-sick” title has been obliterated by multiple knockouts. One was a wicked adenovirus that broke the no-vomit streak. At one point, I lay on the luxury gray tile bathroom floor hoping to go unconscious to make the nausea stop. I actually called out sick that day. Then with a nasty COVID-despite-vaccine infection. I called out again. Later with a hacking lower respiratory – RSV?! – bug. Called out. All of which our 2-year-old blonde, curly-haired vector transmitted to me with remarkable efficiency.

In fact, we reached the high water mark for physicians calling out sick from my department this year. That’s saying a lot. Our docs, like most, don’t call out sick.

We physicians have legendary stamina. Compared with other professionals, we are no less likely to become ill but a whopping 80% less likely to call out sick.

Presenteeism is our physician version of Omerta, a code of honor to never give in even at the expense of our, or our family’s, health and well-being. Every medical student is regaled with stories of physicians getting an IV before rounds or finishing clinic after their water broke. Why? In part it’s an indoctrination into this thing of ours we call Medicine: An elitist club that admits only those able to pass O-chem and hold diarrhea. But it is also because our medical system is so brittle that the slightest bend causes it to shatter. When I cancel a clinic, patients who have waited weeks for their spot have to be sent home. And for critical cases or those patients who don’t get the message, my already slammed colleagues have to cram the unlucky ones in between already-scheduled appointments. The guilt induced by inconveniencing our colleagues and our patients is more potent than dry heaves. And so we go. Suck it up. Sip ginger ale. Load up on acetaminophen. Carry on. This harms not only us, but also patients whom we put in the path of transmission. We become terrible 2-year-olds.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

They call me and I go.

– William Carlos Williams

I never get sick. I’ve never had the flu. When everyone’s got a cold, I’m somehow immune. The last time I threw up was June 29th, 1980. You see, I work out almost daily, eat vegan, and sleep plenty. I drink gallons of pressed juice and throw down a few high-quality supplements. Yes, I’m that guy: The one who never gets sick. Well, I was anyway.

I am no longer that guy since our little girl became a supersocial little toddler. My undefeated welterweight “never-sick” title has been obliterated by multiple knockouts. One was a wicked adenovirus that broke the no-vomit streak. At one point, I lay on the luxury gray tile bathroom floor hoping to go unconscious to make the nausea stop. I actually called out sick that day. Then with a nasty COVID-despite-vaccine infection. I called out again. Later with a hacking lower respiratory – RSV?! – bug. Called out. All of which our 2-year-old blonde, curly-haired vector transmitted to me with remarkable efficiency.

In fact, we reached the high water mark for physicians calling out sick from my department this year. That’s saying a lot. Our docs, like most, don’t call out sick.

We physicians have legendary stamina. Compared with other professionals, we are no less likely to become ill but a whopping 80% less likely to call out sick.

Presenteeism is our physician version of Omerta, a code of honor to never give in even at the expense of our, or our family’s, health and well-being. Every medical student is regaled with stories of physicians getting an IV before rounds or finishing clinic after their water broke. Why? In part it’s an indoctrination into this thing of ours we call Medicine: An elitist club that admits only those able to pass O-chem and hold diarrhea. But it is also because our medical system is so brittle that the slightest bend causes it to shatter. When I cancel a clinic, patients who have waited weeks for their spot have to be sent home. And for critical cases or those patients who don’t get the message, my already slammed colleagues have to cram the unlucky ones in between already-scheduled appointments. The guilt induced by inconveniencing our colleagues and our patients is more potent than dry heaves. And so we go. Suck it up. Sip ginger ale. Load up on acetaminophen. Carry on. This harms not only us, but also patients whom we put in the path of transmission. We become terrible 2-year-olds.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

They call me and I go.

– William Carlos Williams

I never get sick. I’ve never had the flu. When everyone’s got a cold, I’m somehow immune. The last time I threw up was June 29th, 1980. You see, I work out almost daily, eat vegan, and sleep plenty. I drink gallons of pressed juice and throw down a few high-quality supplements. Yes, I’m that guy: The one who never gets sick. Well, I was anyway.

I am no longer that guy since our little girl became a supersocial little toddler. My undefeated welterweight “never-sick” title has been obliterated by multiple knockouts. One was a wicked adenovirus that broke the no-vomit streak. At one point, I lay on the luxury gray tile bathroom floor hoping to go unconscious to make the nausea stop. I actually called out sick that day. Then with a nasty COVID-despite-vaccine infection. I called out again. Later with a hacking lower respiratory – RSV?! – bug. Called out. All of which our 2-year-old blonde, curly-haired vector transmitted to me with remarkable efficiency.

In fact, we reached the high water mark for physicians calling out sick from my department this year. That’s saying a lot. Our docs, like most, don’t call out sick.

We physicians have legendary stamina. Compared with other professionals, we are no less likely to become ill but a whopping 80% less likely to call out sick.

Presenteeism is our physician version of Omerta, a code of honor to never give in even at the expense of our, or our family’s, health and well-being. Every medical student is regaled with stories of physicians getting an IV before rounds or finishing clinic after their water broke. Why? In part it’s an indoctrination into this thing of ours we call Medicine: An elitist club that admits only those able to pass O-chem and hold diarrhea. But it is also because our medical system is so brittle that the slightest bend causes it to shatter. When I cancel a clinic, patients who have waited weeks for their spot have to be sent home. And for critical cases or those patients who don’t get the message, my already slammed colleagues have to cram the unlucky ones in between already-scheduled appointments. The guilt induced by inconveniencing our colleagues and our patients is more potent than dry heaves. And so we go. Suck it up. Sip ginger ale. Load up on acetaminophen. Carry on. This harms not only us, but also patients whom we put in the path of transmission. We become terrible 2-year-olds.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

Emergency medicine providers worry more about committing medical errors that harm patients than about triggering malpractice lawsuits, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

The cross-sectional study was conducted by researchers from Soroka University Medical Center, Israel; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Online survey responses were collected from 1,222 emergency department attending physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts from January to September 2020.

Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement – from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” – with two statements: “In my day-to-day practice, I am fearful of making a mistake which results in [1] harm to the patient” (fear of harm) and [2] “being sued” (fear of suit).

The average age of the participants was about 44 years; 54.2% were men, 45.1% were women, and 0.7% were of other gender. Approximately 70% of responses were from MDs or DOs, and the remainder were from nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Participants had between 5 and 19 years of experience (median, 10 years).

The study found that the mean score was greater with regard to fear of harm than to fear of suit, regardless of clinician type, experience, or sex and whether the survey was completed before or after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in mean scores regarding fear of suit before the pandemic and after it.

“Our data show a significantly greater fear of harming a patient than a fear of a malpractice suit,” Linda Isbell, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who is one of the study’s authors, told this news organization. “There is a genuine concern and fear of harming patients and a desire to provide the best care for the patient’s well-being.”

In general, fear-of-harm and fear-of-suit scores decreased as providers gained experience. Those with less than 5 years of experience reported the highest levels of both.

“Although our data do not specifically provide reasons why age may impact [fear] levels, it is possible that with more practice experience ... providers have a better sense of the likelihood of patient harm and malpractice and how to manage such outcomes should they happen,” says Dr. Isbell. She noted that a longitudinal study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

One exception was female APCs, whose fear-of-harm scores remained relatively steady across all experience levels. Among male APCs, fear of causing patient harm decreased among those with 5-14 years of experience but increased slightly at 14-44 years of experience.

While previous research typically focused on fear of malpractice as a significant driver of defensive medicine, such as testing excessively, this study examined providers’ fear of harming patients because of a medical error.

The findings suggest “that fear of harm should be considered with, and may be more consequential than, fear of suit in medical decision-making,” the authors note.

“[F]ear can motivate people to engage in more careful and thorough information processing, which can drive behaviors in systematic ways,” says Dr. Isbell. “It is possible that one’s fear of harming a patient is triggering a high level of vigilance, reflected in the practice of defensive medicine across different types of patients – some of whom may be better off with less testing and referrals.”

Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, FACEP, an emergency medicine physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, says defensive medicine is common in the specialty and that it occurs 20%-40% of the time.

“Early in practice, the proverbial worst sin is missing a diagnosis, so that’s where the overtesting mentality comes from,” he says. In addition, “there are cities where you can’t drive a mile without seeing a half dozen legal advertisements. That imposes a cost burden on the system, [adding] roughly 20% to the cost of overall care.”

Emergency medicine providers attempt to minimize testing, but between their role as “America’s safety net” and the difficult circumstances they often face when treating patients, it takes a while to strike a balance, Dr. Vukmir acknowledges.

“There’s a training correlation, which showed up [in this study]; as people got further advanced in training, they felt more comfortable and felt the need to do it less,” says Dr. Vukmir.

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Isbell reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Vukmir has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency medicine providers worry more about committing medical errors that harm patients than about triggering malpractice lawsuits, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

The cross-sectional study was conducted by researchers from Soroka University Medical Center, Israel; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Online survey responses were collected from 1,222 emergency department attending physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts from January to September 2020.

Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement – from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” – with two statements: “In my day-to-day practice, I am fearful of making a mistake which results in [1] harm to the patient” (fear of harm) and [2] “being sued” (fear of suit).

The average age of the participants was about 44 years; 54.2% were men, 45.1% were women, and 0.7% were of other gender. Approximately 70% of responses were from MDs or DOs, and the remainder were from nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Participants had between 5 and 19 years of experience (median, 10 years).

The study found that the mean score was greater with regard to fear of harm than to fear of suit, regardless of clinician type, experience, or sex and whether the survey was completed before or after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in mean scores regarding fear of suit before the pandemic and after it.

“Our data show a significantly greater fear of harming a patient than a fear of a malpractice suit,” Linda Isbell, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who is one of the study’s authors, told this news organization. “There is a genuine concern and fear of harming patients and a desire to provide the best care for the patient’s well-being.”

In general, fear-of-harm and fear-of-suit scores decreased as providers gained experience. Those with less than 5 years of experience reported the highest levels of both.

“Although our data do not specifically provide reasons why age may impact [fear] levels, it is possible that with more practice experience ... providers have a better sense of the likelihood of patient harm and malpractice and how to manage such outcomes should they happen,” says Dr. Isbell. She noted that a longitudinal study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

One exception was female APCs, whose fear-of-harm scores remained relatively steady across all experience levels. Among male APCs, fear of causing patient harm decreased among those with 5-14 years of experience but increased slightly at 14-44 years of experience.

While previous research typically focused on fear of malpractice as a significant driver of defensive medicine, such as testing excessively, this study examined providers’ fear of harming patients because of a medical error.

The findings suggest “that fear of harm should be considered with, and may be more consequential than, fear of suit in medical decision-making,” the authors note.

“[F]ear can motivate people to engage in more careful and thorough information processing, which can drive behaviors in systematic ways,” says Dr. Isbell. “It is possible that one’s fear of harming a patient is triggering a high level of vigilance, reflected in the practice of defensive medicine across different types of patients – some of whom may be better off with less testing and referrals.”

Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, FACEP, an emergency medicine physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, says defensive medicine is common in the specialty and that it occurs 20%-40% of the time.

“Early in practice, the proverbial worst sin is missing a diagnosis, so that’s where the overtesting mentality comes from,” he says. In addition, “there are cities where you can’t drive a mile without seeing a half dozen legal advertisements. That imposes a cost burden on the system, [adding] roughly 20% to the cost of overall care.”

Emergency medicine providers attempt to minimize testing, but between their role as “America’s safety net” and the difficult circumstances they often face when treating patients, it takes a while to strike a balance, Dr. Vukmir acknowledges.

“There’s a training correlation, which showed up [in this study]; as people got further advanced in training, they felt more comfortable and felt the need to do it less,” says Dr. Vukmir.

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Isbell reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Vukmir has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency medicine providers worry more about committing medical errors that harm patients than about triggering malpractice lawsuits, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

The cross-sectional study was conducted by researchers from Soroka University Medical Center, Israel; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Online survey responses were collected from 1,222 emergency department attending physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts from January to September 2020.

Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement – from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” – with two statements: “In my day-to-day practice, I am fearful of making a mistake which results in [1] harm to the patient” (fear of harm) and [2] “being sued” (fear of suit).

The average age of the participants was about 44 years; 54.2% were men, 45.1% were women, and 0.7% were of other gender. Approximately 70% of responses were from MDs or DOs, and the remainder were from nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Participants had between 5 and 19 years of experience (median, 10 years).

The study found that the mean score was greater with regard to fear of harm than to fear of suit, regardless of clinician type, experience, or sex and whether the survey was completed before or after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in mean scores regarding fear of suit before the pandemic and after it.

“Our data show a significantly greater fear of harming a patient than a fear of a malpractice suit,” Linda Isbell, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who is one of the study’s authors, told this news organization. “There is a genuine concern and fear of harming patients and a desire to provide the best care for the patient’s well-being.”

In general, fear-of-harm and fear-of-suit scores decreased as providers gained experience. Those with less than 5 years of experience reported the highest levels of both.

“Although our data do not specifically provide reasons why age may impact [fear] levels, it is possible that with more practice experience ... providers have a better sense of the likelihood of patient harm and malpractice and how to manage such outcomes should they happen,” says Dr. Isbell. She noted that a longitudinal study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

One exception was female APCs, whose fear-of-harm scores remained relatively steady across all experience levels. Among male APCs, fear of causing patient harm decreased among those with 5-14 years of experience but increased slightly at 14-44 years of experience.

While previous research typically focused on fear of malpractice as a significant driver of defensive medicine, such as testing excessively, this study examined providers’ fear of harming patients because of a medical error.

The findings suggest “that fear of harm should be considered with, and may be more consequential than, fear of suit in medical decision-making,” the authors note.

“[F]ear can motivate people to engage in more careful and thorough information processing, which can drive behaviors in systematic ways,” says Dr. Isbell. “It is possible that one’s fear of harming a patient is triggering a high level of vigilance, reflected in the practice of defensive medicine across different types of patients – some of whom may be better off with less testing and referrals.”

Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, FACEP, an emergency medicine physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, says defensive medicine is common in the specialty and that it occurs 20%-40% of the time.

“Early in practice, the proverbial worst sin is missing a diagnosis, so that’s where the overtesting mentality comes from,” he says. In addition, “there are cities where you can’t drive a mile without seeing a half dozen legal advertisements. That imposes a cost burden on the system, [adding] roughly 20% to the cost of overall care.”

Emergency medicine providers attempt to minimize testing, but between their role as “America’s safety net” and the difficult circumstances they often face when treating patients, it takes a while to strike a balance, Dr. Vukmir acknowledges.

“There’s a training correlation, which showed up [in this study]; as people got further advanced in training, they felt more comfortable and felt the need to do it less,” says Dr. Vukmir.

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Isbell reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Vukmir has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In most cases, passengers on an airline flight are representative of the general population, which means that anyone could have an emergency at any time.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2013 showed that a medical emergency occurred in 1 per 604 flights, as determined on the basis of in-flight medical emergencies that resulted in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center, said Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH of Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas–Fort Worth, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study authors reviewed records of 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010. The data showed that physician passengers provided medical assistance in nearly half of in-flight emergencies (48.1%) and that flights were diverted because of the emergency in 7.3% of cases.

The majority of the in-flight emergencies involved syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), followed by respiratory symptoms (12.1%) and nausea or vomiting (9.5%), according to the study.

The in-flight medical bag

Tools in a physician’s in-flight toolbox start with the first-aid kit. Airplanes also have an emergency medical kit (EMK), an oxygen tank, and an AED.

The minimum EMK contents are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Dr. Ho. The standard equipment includes a stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, and three sizes of oropharyngeal airways. Other items include self-inflating manual resuscitation devices and CPR masks in thee sizes, alcohol sponges, gloves, adhesive tape, scissors, a tourniquet, as well as saline solution, needles, syringes, and an intravenous administration set consisting of tubing and two Y connectors.

An EMK also should contain the following medications: nonnarcotic analgesic tablets, antihistamine tablets, an injectable antihistamine, atropine, aspirin tablets, a bronchodilator, and epinephrine (both 1:1000; 1 injectable cc and 1:10,000; two injectable cc). Nitroglycerin tablets and 5 cc of 20 mg/mL injectable cardiac lidocaine are part of the mandated kit as well, according to Dr. Ho.

Some airlines carry additional supplies on all their flights, said Dr. Ho. Notably, American Airlines and British Airways carry EpiPens for adults and children, as well as opioid reversal medication (naloxone) and glucose for managing low blood sugar. American Airlines and Delta stock antiemetics, and Delta also carries naloxone. British Airways is unique in stocking additional cardiac medications, both oral and injectable.
 

How to handle an in-flight emergency

Physicians should always carry a copy of their medical license when traveling for documentation by the airline if they assist in a medical emergency during a flight, Dr. Ho emphasized. “Staff” personnel should be used. These include the flight attendants, medical ground control, and other passengers who might have useful skills, such as nursing, the ability to perform CPR, or therapy/counseling to calm a frightened patient. If needed, “crowdsource additional supplies from passengers,” such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter.

Legal lessons

Physicians are not obligated to assist during an in-flight medical emergency, said Dr. Ho. Legal jurisdiction can vary. In the United States, a bystander who assists in an emergency is generally protected by Good Samaritan laws; for international airlines, the laws may vary; those where the airline is based usually apply.

The Aviation Medical Assistance Act, passed in 1998, protects individuals from being sued for negligence while providing medical assistance, “unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence of willful misconduct,” Dr. Ho noted. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act also protects the airline itself “if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.”

Dr. Ho disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In most cases, passengers on an airline flight are representative of the general population, which means that anyone could have an emergency at any time.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2013 showed that a medical emergency occurred in 1 per 604 flights, as determined on the basis of in-flight medical emergencies that resulted in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center, said Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH of Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas–Fort Worth, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study authors reviewed records of 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010. The data showed that physician passengers provided medical assistance in nearly half of in-flight emergencies (48.1%) and that flights were diverted because of the emergency in 7.3% of cases.

The majority of the in-flight emergencies involved syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), followed by respiratory symptoms (12.1%) and nausea or vomiting (9.5%), according to the study.

The in-flight medical bag

Tools in a physician’s in-flight toolbox start with the first-aid kit. Airplanes also have an emergency medical kit (EMK), an oxygen tank, and an AED.

The minimum EMK contents are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Dr. Ho. The standard equipment includes a stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, and three sizes of oropharyngeal airways. Other items include self-inflating manual resuscitation devices and CPR masks in thee sizes, alcohol sponges, gloves, adhesive tape, scissors, a tourniquet, as well as saline solution, needles, syringes, and an intravenous administration set consisting of tubing and two Y connectors.

An EMK also should contain the following medications: nonnarcotic analgesic tablets, antihistamine tablets, an injectable antihistamine, atropine, aspirin tablets, a bronchodilator, and epinephrine (both 1:1000; 1 injectable cc and 1:10,000; two injectable cc). Nitroglycerin tablets and 5 cc of 20 mg/mL injectable cardiac lidocaine are part of the mandated kit as well, according to Dr. Ho.

Some airlines carry additional supplies on all their flights, said Dr. Ho. Notably, American Airlines and British Airways carry EpiPens for adults and children, as well as opioid reversal medication (naloxone) and glucose for managing low blood sugar. American Airlines and Delta stock antiemetics, and Delta also carries naloxone. British Airways is unique in stocking additional cardiac medications, both oral and injectable.
 

How to handle an in-flight emergency

Physicians should always carry a copy of their medical license when traveling for documentation by the airline if they assist in a medical emergency during a flight, Dr. Ho emphasized. “Staff” personnel should be used. These include the flight attendants, medical ground control, and other passengers who might have useful skills, such as nursing, the ability to perform CPR, or therapy/counseling to calm a frightened patient. If needed, “crowdsource additional supplies from passengers,” such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter.

Legal lessons

Physicians are not obligated to assist during an in-flight medical emergency, said Dr. Ho. Legal jurisdiction can vary. In the United States, a bystander who assists in an emergency is generally protected by Good Samaritan laws; for international airlines, the laws may vary; those where the airline is based usually apply.

The Aviation Medical Assistance Act, passed in 1998, protects individuals from being sued for negligence while providing medical assistance, “unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence of willful misconduct,” Dr. Ho noted. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act also protects the airline itself “if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.”

Dr. Ho disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In most cases, passengers on an airline flight are representative of the general population, which means that anyone could have an emergency at any time.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2013 showed that a medical emergency occurred in 1 per 604 flights, as determined on the basis of in-flight medical emergencies that resulted in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center, said Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH of Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas–Fort Worth, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study authors reviewed records of 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010. The data showed that physician passengers provided medical assistance in nearly half of in-flight emergencies (48.1%) and that flights were diverted because of the emergency in 7.3% of cases.

The majority of the in-flight emergencies involved syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), followed by respiratory symptoms (12.1%) and nausea or vomiting (9.5%), according to the study.

The in-flight medical bag

Tools in a physician’s in-flight toolbox start with the first-aid kit. Airplanes also have an emergency medical kit (EMK), an oxygen tank, and an AED.

The minimum EMK contents are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Dr. Ho. The standard equipment includes a stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, and three sizes of oropharyngeal airways. Other items include self-inflating manual resuscitation devices and CPR masks in thee sizes, alcohol sponges, gloves, adhesive tape, scissors, a tourniquet, as well as saline solution, needles, syringes, and an intravenous administration set consisting of tubing and two Y connectors.

An EMK also should contain the following medications: nonnarcotic analgesic tablets, antihistamine tablets, an injectable antihistamine, atropine, aspirin tablets, a bronchodilator, and epinephrine (both 1:1000; 1 injectable cc and 1:10,000; two injectable cc). Nitroglycerin tablets and 5 cc of 20 mg/mL injectable cardiac lidocaine are part of the mandated kit as well, according to Dr. Ho.

Some airlines carry additional supplies on all their flights, said Dr. Ho. Notably, American Airlines and British Airways carry EpiPens for adults and children, as well as opioid reversal medication (naloxone) and glucose for managing low blood sugar. American Airlines and Delta stock antiemetics, and Delta also carries naloxone. British Airways is unique in stocking additional cardiac medications, both oral and injectable.
 

How to handle an in-flight emergency

Physicians should always carry a copy of their medical license when traveling for documentation by the airline if they assist in a medical emergency during a flight, Dr. Ho emphasized. “Staff” personnel should be used. These include the flight attendants, medical ground control, and other passengers who might have useful skills, such as nursing, the ability to perform CPR, or therapy/counseling to calm a frightened patient. If needed, “crowdsource additional supplies from passengers,” such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter.

Legal lessons

Physicians are not obligated to assist during an in-flight medical emergency, said Dr. Ho. Legal jurisdiction can vary. In the United States, a bystander who assists in an emergency is generally protected by Good Samaritan laws; for international airlines, the laws may vary; those where the airline is based usually apply.

The Aviation Medical Assistance Act, passed in 1998, protects individuals from being sued for negligence while providing medical assistance, “unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence of willful misconduct,” Dr. Ho noted. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act also protects the airline itself “if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.”

Dr. Ho disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In my last column, I discussed blogging as a great way to capture the attention of anyone interested in your practice, especially prospective patients. If you are already blogging – or would like to consider a less crowded and competitive activity – podcasting might be the answer. At this writing (November 2022), more than 600 million blogs are online, compared with about 2 million podcasts, and relatively few of them are run by physicians. With podcasts, you have a better chance of standing out in a crowded online world.

Starting a podcast is not difficult, but there are several steps you need to go through before launching one.

As with blogging, start by outlining a long-range plan. Your general topic will probably be your specialty, but you will need to narrow your focus to a few specific subjects, such as the problems you see most often, or a subspecialty that you concentrate on. You can always expand your topic later, as you get more popular. Choose a name for your podcast, and purchase a domain name that accurately describes it.

You will also need to choose a hosting service. Numerous inexpensive hosting platforms are available, and a simple Google search will find them for you. Many of them provide free learning materials, helpful creative tools, and customer support to get you through the confusing technical aspects. They can also help you choose a music introduction (to add a bit of polish), and help you piece together your audio segments. Buzzsprout, RSS.com, and Podbean get good reviews on many sites. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned herein.)

Hosting services can assist you in creating a template – a framework that you can reuse each time you record an episode – containing your intro and exit music, tracks for your conversations, etc. This will make your podcasts instantly recognizable each time your listeners tune in.

Many podcasting experts recommend recruiting a co-host. This can be an associate within your practice, a friend who practices elsewhere, or perhaps a resident in an academic setting. You will be able to spread the workload of creating, editing, and promoting. Plus, it is much easier to generate interesting content when two people are having a conversation, rather than one person lecturing from a prepared script. You might also consider having multiple co-hosts, either to expand episodes into group discussions, or to take turns working with you in covering different subjects.

How long you make your podcast is entirely up to you. Some consultants recommend specific time frames, such as 5 minutes (because that’s an average attention span), or 28 minutes (because that’s the average driving commute time). There are short podcasts and long ones; whatever works for you is fine, as long as you don’t drift off the topic. Furthermore, no one says they must all be the same length; when you are finished talking, you are done. And no one says you must stick with one subject throughout. Combining several short segments might hold more listeners’ interest and will make it easier to share small clips on social media.

Content guidelines are similar to those for blogs. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. Talk about subjects – medical and otherwise – that are relevant to your practice or are prominent in the news.

As with blogs, try to avoid polarizing political discussions, and while it’s fine to discuss treatments and procedures that you offer, aggressive solicitation tends to make viewers look elsewhere. Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t portray any specific patients as examples.

When your podcast is ready, your hosting platform will show you how to submit it to iTunes, and how to submit your podcast RSS feed to other podcast directories. As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed, so that any directory you are listed on will receive the new episode.

Once you are uploaded, you can use your host’s social sharing tools to spread the word. As with blogs, use social media, such as your practice’s Facebook page, to push podcast updates into patients’ feeds and track relevant Twitter hashtags to find online communities that might be interested in your subject matter. You should also find your episode embed code (which your host will have) and place it in a prominent place on your website so patients can listen directly from there.

Transcriptions are another excellent promotional tool. Search engines will “read” your podcasts and list them in searches. Some podcast hosts will do transcribing for a fee, but there are independent transcription services as well.

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].

In my last column, I discussed blogging as a great way to capture the attention of anyone interested in your practice, especially prospective patients. If you are already blogging – or would like to consider a less crowded and competitive activity – podcasting might be the answer. At this writing (November 2022), more than 600 million blogs are online, compared with about 2 million podcasts, and relatively few of them are run by physicians. With podcasts, you have a better chance of standing out in a crowded online world.

Starting a podcast is not difficult, but there are several steps you need to go through before launching one.

As with blogging, start by outlining a long-range plan. Your general topic will probably be your specialty, but you will need to narrow your focus to a few specific subjects, such as the problems you see most often, or a subspecialty that you concentrate on. You can always expand your topic later, as you get more popular. Choose a name for your podcast, and purchase a domain name that accurately describes it.

You will also need to choose a hosting service. Numerous inexpensive hosting platforms are available, and a simple Google search will find them for you. Many of them provide free learning materials, helpful creative tools, and customer support to get you through the confusing technical aspects. They can also help you choose a music introduction (to add a bit of polish), and help you piece together your audio segments. Buzzsprout, RSS.com, and Podbean get good reviews on many sites. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned herein.)

Hosting services can assist you in creating a template – a framework that you can reuse each time you record an episode – containing your intro and exit music, tracks for your conversations, etc. This will make your podcasts instantly recognizable each time your listeners tune in.

Many podcasting experts recommend recruiting a co-host. This can be an associate within your practice, a friend who practices elsewhere, or perhaps a resident in an academic setting. You will be able to spread the workload of creating, editing, and promoting. Plus, it is much easier to generate interesting content when two people are having a conversation, rather than one person lecturing from a prepared script. You might also consider having multiple co-hosts, either to expand episodes into group discussions, or to take turns working with you in covering different subjects.

How long you make your podcast is entirely up to you. Some consultants recommend specific time frames, such as 5 minutes (because that’s an average attention span), or 28 minutes (because that’s the average driving commute time). There are short podcasts and long ones; whatever works for you is fine, as long as you don’t drift off the topic. Furthermore, no one says they must all be the same length; when you are finished talking, you are done. And no one says you must stick with one subject throughout. Combining several short segments might hold more listeners’ interest and will make it easier to share small clips on social media.

Content guidelines are similar to those for blogs. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. Talk about subjects – medical and otherwise – that are relevant to your practice or are prominent in the news.

As with blogs, try to avoid polarizing political discussions, and while it’s fine to discuss treatments and procedures that you offer, aggressive solicitation tends to make viewers look elsewhere. Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t portray any specific patients as examples.

When your podcast is ready, your hosting platform will show you how to submit it to iTunes, and how to submit your podcast RSS feed to other podcast directories. As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed, so that any directory you are listed on will receive the new episode.

Once you are uploaded, you can use your host’s social sharing tools to spread the word. As with blogs, use social media, such as your practice’s Facebook page, to push podcast updates into patients’ feeds and track relevant Twitter hashtags to find online communities that might be interested in your subject matter. You should also find your episode embed code (which your host will have) and place it in a prominent place on your website so patients can listen directly from there.

Transcriptions are another excellent promotional tool. Search engines will “read” your podcasts and list them in searches. Some podcast hosts will do transcribing for a fee, but there are independent transcription services as well.

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].

In my last column, I discussed blogging as a great way to capture the attention of anyone interested in your practice, especially prospective patients. If you are already blogging – or would like to consider a less crowded and competitive activity – podcasting might be the answer. At this writing (November 2022), more than 600 million blogs are online, compared with about 2 million podcasts, and relatively few of them are run by physicians. With podcasts, you have a better chance of standing out in a crowded online world.

Starting a podcast is not difficult, but there are several steps you need to go through before launching one.

As with blogging, start by outlining a long-range plan. Your general topic will probably be your specialty, but you will need to narrow your focus to a few specific subjects, such as the problems you see most often, or a subspecialty that you concentrate on. You can always expand your topic later, as you get more popular. Choose a name for your podcast, and purchase a domain name that accurately describes it.

You will also need to choose a hosting service. Numerous inexpensive hosting platforms are available, and a simple Google search will find them for you. Many of them provide free learning materials, helpful creative tools, and customer support to get you through the confusing technical aspects. They can also help you choose a music introduction (to add a bit of polish), and help you piece together your audio segments. Buzzsprout, RSS.com, and Podbean get good reviews on many sites. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned herein.)

Hosting services can assist you in creating a template – a framework that you can reuse each time you record an episode – containing your intro and exit music, tracks for your conversations, etc. This will make your podcasts instantly recognizable each time your listeners tune in.

Many podcasting experts recommend recruiting a co-host. This can be an associate within your practice, a friend who practices elsewhere, or perhaps a resident in an academic setting. You will be able to spread the workload of creating, editing, and promoting. Plus, it is much easier to generate interesting content when two people are having a conversation, rather than one person lecturing from a prepared script. You might also consider having multiple co-hosts, either to expand episodes into group discussions, or to take turns working with you in covering different subjects.

How long you make your podcast is entirely up to you. Some consultants recommend specific time frames, such as 5 minutes (because that’s an average attention span), or 28 minutes (because that’s the average driving commute time). There are short podcasts and long ones; whatever works for you is fine, as long as you don’t drift off the topic. Furthermore, no one says they must all be the same length; when you are finished talking, you are done. And no one says you must stick with one subject throughout. Combining several short segments might hold more listeners’ interest and will make it easier to share small clips on social media.

Content guidelines are similar to those for blogs. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. Talk about subjects – medical and otherwise – that are relevant to your practice or are prominent in the news.

As with blogs, try to avoid polarizing political discussions, and while it’s fine to discuss treatments and procedures that you offer, aggressive solicitation tends to make viewers look elsewhere. Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t portray any specific patients as examples.

When your podcast is ready, your hosting platform will show you how to submit it to iTunes, and how to submit your podcast RSS feed to other podcast directories. As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed, so that any directory you are listed on will receive the new episode.

Once you are uploaded, you can use your host’s social sharing tools to spread the word. As with blogs, use social media, such as your practice’s Facebook page, to push podcast updates into patients’ feeds and track relevant Twitter hashtags to find online communities that might be interested in your subject matter. You should also find your episode embed code (which your host will have) and place it in a prominent place on your website so patients can listen directly from there.

Transcriptions are another excellent promotional tool. Search engines will “read” your podcasts and list them in searches. Some podcast hosts will do transcribing for a fee, but there are independent transcription services as well.

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].

Earning a huge salary was never a top priority for Sarah Ramer, MD, a nephrologist at the James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New York. That was obvious even when she was still a medical student, since she opted for an extra academic year to get a masters degree in clinical research methods.

After doing a combined internal medicine/pediatric residency, Dr. Ramer completed two fellowships, one in adult nephrology and one in palliative care.

“Every extra year that you spend in training is another year you’re not making a salary as an attending, so by doing 7 years in residency and a fellowship, I was not building my net worth the way some physicians do,” she says.

When Dr. Ramer, now 41, was ready to enter the job market in 2019, she had two offers on the table – one at a large, urban, research-intense medical center that included some clinical work combined with research and that paid $105,000, and one as a clinical nephrologist at a smaller suburban medical center with a $230,000 salary and a $20,000 performance bonus.

She took the first job, because she liked the idea of being ensured of having time to perform research, and she hoped to qualify for a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Over the next few months, Dr. Ramer was diagnosed with cancer and the pandemic began ravaging the country. She considered taking a leave of absence from her job, but since she had only recently started at the job, taking a medical leave would mean she’d get only 50% of her salary, which would have left her with just over $50,000 to cover her mortgage, student loans, and other expenses.

“Financially, it would have been disastrous for me to go on leave at that time,” she says. “Things happen, but that’s something I didn’t consider when I decided to take a very low-paying job.”

Dr. Ramer has completed cancer treatment and has moved on to her current role at the VA medical center, where she is earning less than she would have made at the suburban medical center but more than twice as much as she did at the urban research hospital.
 

Lifestyle trade-offs

While Dr. Ramer’s salary is nearly four times that of the average American worker, it’s only about 60% of what the average physician earns. That works for Dr. Ramer, who has never put much value in material possessions. She has lived in the same working-class New Jersey neighborhood for more than a decade and drives a 2010 Hyundai Elantra.

“I need a new kitchen and new bathrooms in my apartment,” she says. “I’m still working on that. I have a good cushion, but I need to build up my emergency fund before I start spending money on home renovations.”

Such trade-offs are common among physicians who’ve chosen to work in a rural area, at a Medicaid practice, or in public health. But physicians who find themselves on the lower end of the pay scale say that there are rewards and benefits to opting for less lucrative career trajectories.

For Sean Kissel, MD, 30, a family physician in northern Utah, it’s about the lifestyle afforded by his role, which has earned him between $190,000 and $230,000 over the past few years. “I have no on-call shifts,” he says. “So, when I’m done, I’m done. I don’t have to work weekends or holidays, and I have dinner with my kids every night.”

According to the 2022 Medscape physician compensation report, physicians earned an average of $339,000 annually last year. Primary care physicians took home an average of $260,000, compared with $368,000 for specialists. The disparity in physician income was even greater when broken down by specialty. Plastic surgeons earned the most ($576,000), and public health and preventive medicine physicians earned the least ($243,000).

Still, that study found that physician salaries were up across every specialty, ranging from a 1% increase for critical care physicians to a 13% jump for otolaryngologists.
 

Scaling back

While private-pay physicians tend to make more than peers who work in community or government health clinics, they may have to work longer hours or face pressure to see more patients, which can decrease the quality of care they provide.

A recent study, published in JAMA Health Forum, found that most health systems base physician pay on the number of patients seen. That’s the case for more than 80% of primary care physicians and more than 90% of specialists, according to the study.

Given that landscape, a growing number of physicians are opting for a “lifestyle” practice – accepting lower compensation in order to see a limited number of patients or work only a few days per week, says Stu Schaff, the founder and lead adviser of Contract Medicine, a consulting firm that helps physicians understand, evaluate, and negotiate their employment contracts. Mr. Schaff concedes that most of the doctors who fall into this category are winding down their careers or have a high-earning spouse with a salary that offsets their lower income.

Other physicians move into administrative roles within a hospital or health center. Such positions typically involve seeing fewer patients and may pay less, but they also have more traditional hours, which can be appealing, Mr. Schaff says.

“Those folks might still do patient care 1 or 2 days a week, or even less,” he says. “They’re still physicians. They’re still using their physician expertise, but they’re not practicing at the same level or generating the same level of income as they might in a full-time clinical position.”
 

Cost of living matters

Dr. Kissel says that while he may take home less than the typical physician, he still makes enough to comfortably cover his expenses, including his student loan payments. Still, when new acquaintances learn he’s a physician, they often assume he’s earning much more.

“People assume most of us make mid-$300,000’s or low $400,000’s, and that’s true for some family doctors, but not for all,” he notes. “I like what I do. I’m in a good place, and we are happy with our life.”

Plus, Dr. Kissel may benefit from living in Utah, where the lower cost of living may allow him to stretch his salary further. Although salaries are typically higher in the most expensive states in the United States, compared with states that have a lower cost of living, those higher salaries aren’t always enough to make up the difference.

A recent WalletHub analysis found that New York, California, and Massachusetts were among the states with the lowest average annual wage when adjusted for the cost of living, while South Dakota, Indiana, and Wisconsin had the highest average wage after the adjustment.

“Even if a physician is in a lower-paying specialty or location, they’re still well-paid relative to the average U.S. citizen,” Mr. Schaff says. “When we talk about specialties that pay less, we’re still talking – if you’re full-time – about a six-figure income.”
 

Location, location, location

To combat a provider shortage, rural health centers have been increasing the pay doctors receive. Nevertheless, many physicians are opting not to live in a community where they have no connection.

“I think there has to be a tie to the community for a physician to want to be here,” says Scott Crouch, chief executive officer at Ozarks Community Health Center, Bolivar, Missouri. “NHSC [National Health Service Corps] can help some, but it’s not the draw it once was.”

Physicians and dentists who interview at the Ozarks Community Health Center often like the facilities and the area but don’t want to live in a rustic locale. “Most medical schools are in bigger cities,” Mr. Crouch says. “So it’s hard to get them into a rural environment.”

In some cases, physicians opt to go the community health route but choose to work in a city, even if it means they’re going to earn less. That was the case for Kevin King, MD, 33, a general pediatrician at St. John’s Community Health Center, Los Angeles. Dr. King knew he wanted to work in a community health center after completing a residency at a Medicaid clinic.
 

A rewarding career

“I find my work very rewarding,” Dr. King says. “Working in Medicaid can be difficult, and there are many barriers to care. It’s a lot more work to get things done, but the rewards come from the patients.”

That said, Dr. King adds he wouldn’t have been able to take this job without access to a loan forgiveness program that helps him manage his student-loan debt. “Without that, I’d probably have to find work in a private-pay population, making more money,” he says. “Loan forgiveness allowed me to choose this career path.”

Dr. King says he earns between $150,000 and $200,000 annually. That’s significantly less than the $243,000 median pediatrician salary in Los Angeles, according to Salary.com. Still, Dr. King says he wouldn’t trade his job for a more lucrative one.

“In medicine, there are so many different career paths you can take after residency training,” he says. “Finding one that brings you joy in what you do every day is more valuable than any amount of money.”

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

Earning a huge salary was never a top priority for Sarah Ramer, MD, a nephrologist at the James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New York. That was obvious even when she was still a medical student, since she opted for an extra academic year to get a masters degree in clinical research methods.

After doing a combined internal medicine/pediatric residency, Dr. Ramer completed two fellowships, one in adult nephrology and one in palliative care.

“Every extra year that you spend in training is another year you’re not making a salary as an attending, so by doing 7 years in residency and a fellowship, I was not building my net worth the way some physicians do,” she says.

When Dr. Ramer, now 41, was ready to enter the job market in 2019, she had two offers on the table – one at a large, urban, research-intense medical center that included some clinical work combined with research and that paid $105,000, and one as a clinical nephrologist at a smaller suburban medical center with a $230,000 salary and a $20,000 performance bonus.

She took the first job, because she liked the idea of being ensured of having time to perform research, and she hoped to qualify for a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Over the next few months, Dr. Ramer was diagnosed with cancer and the pandemic began ravaging the country. She considered taking a leave of absence from her job, but since she had only recently started at the job, taking a medical leave would mean she’d get only 50% of her salary, which would have left her with just over $50,000 to cover her mortgage, student loans, and other expenses.

“Financially, it would have been disastrous for me to go on leave at that time,” she says. “Things happen, but that’s something I didn’t consider when I decided to take a very low-paying job.”

Dr. Ramer has completed cancer treatment and has moved on to her current role at the VA medical center, where she is earning less than she would have made at the suburban medical center but more than twice as much as she did at the urban research hospital.
 

Lifestyle trade-offs

While Dr. Ramer’s salary is nearly four times that of the average American worker, it’s only about 60% of what the average physician earns. That works for Dr. Ramer, who has never put much value in material possessions. She has lived in the same working-class New Jersey neighborhood for more than a decade and drives a 2010 Hyundai Elantra.

“I need a new kitchen and new bathrooms in my apartment,” she says. “I’m still working on that. I have a good cushion, but I need to build up my emergency fund before I start spending money on home renovations.”

Such trade-offs are common among physicians who’ve chosen to work in a rural area, at a Medicaid practice, or in public health. But physicians who find themselves on the lower end of the pay scale say that there are rewards and benefits to opting for less lucrative career trajectories.

For Sean Kissel, MD, 30, a family physician in northern Utah, it’s about the lifestyle afforded by his role, which has earned him between $190,000 and $230,000 over the past few years. “I have no on-call shifts,” he says. “So, when I’m done, I’m done. I don’t have to work weekends or holidays, and I have dinner with my kids every night.”

According to the 2022 Medscape physician compensation report, physicians earned an average of $339,000 annually last year. Primary care physicians took home an average of $260,000, compared with $368,000 for specialists. The disparity in physician income was even greater when broken down by specialty. Plastic surgeons earned the most ($576,000), and public health and preventive medicine physicians earned the least ($243,000).

Still, that study found that physician salaries were up across every specialty, ranging from a 1% increase for critical care physicians to a 13% jump for otolaryngologists.
 

Scaling back

While private-pay physicians tend to make more than peers who work in community or government health clinics, they may have to work longer hours or face pressure to see more patients, which can decrease the quality of care they provide.

A recent study, published in JAMA Health Forum, found that most health systems base physician pay on the number of patients seen. That’s the case for more than 80% of primary care physicians and more than 90% of specialists, according to the study.

Given that landscape, a growing number of physicians are opting for a “lifestyle” practice – accepting lower compensation in order to see a limited number of patients or work only a few days per week, says Stu Schaff, the founder and lead adviser of Contract Medicine, a consulting firm that helps physicians understand, evaluate, and negotiate their employment contracts. Mr. Schaff concedes that most of the doctors who fall into this category are winding down their careers or have a high-earning spouse with a salary that offsets their lower income.

Other physicians move into administrative roles within a hospital or health center. Such positions typically involve seeing fewer patients and may pay less, but they also have more traditional hours, which can be appealing, Mr. Schaff says.

“Those folks might still do patient care 1 or 2 days a week, or even less,” he says. “They’re still physicians. They’re still using their physician expertise, but they’re not practicing at the same level or generating the same level of income as they might in a full-time clinical position.”
 

Cost of living matters

Dr. Kissel says that while he may take home less than the typical physician, he still makes enough to comfortably cover his expenses, including his student loan payments. Still, when new acquaintances learn he’s a physician, they often assume he’s earning much more.

“People assume most of us make mid-$300,000’s or low $400,000’s, and that’s true for some family doctors, but not for all,” he notes. “I like what I do. I’m in a good place, and we are happy with our life.”

Plus, Dr. Kissel may benefit from living in Utah, where the lower cost of living may allow him to stretch his salary further. Although salaries are typically higher in the most expensive states in the United States, compared with states that have a lower cost of living, those higher salaries aren’t always enough to make up the difference.

A recent WalletHub analysis found that New York, California, and Massachusetts were among the states with the lowest average annual wage when adjusted for the cost of living, while South Dakota, Indiana, and Wisconsin had the highest average wage after the adjustment.

“Even if a physician is in a lower-paying specialty or location, they’re still well-paid relative to the average U.S. citizen,” Mr. Schaff says. “When we talk about specialties that pay less, we’re still talking – if you’re full-time – about a six-figure income.”
 

Location, location, location

To combat a provider shortage, rural health centers have been increasing the pay doctors receive. Nevertheless, many physicians are opting not to live in a community where they have no connection.

“I think there has to be a tie to the community for a physician to want to be here,” says Scott Crouch, chief executive officer at Ozarks Community Health Center, Bolivar, Missouri. “NHSC [National Health Service Corps] can help some, but it’s not the draw it once was.”

Physicians and dentists who interview at the Ozarks Community Health Center often like the facilities and the area but don’t want to live in a rustic locale. “Most medical schools are in bigger cities,” Mr. Crouch says. “So it’s hard to get them into a rural environment.”

In some cases, physicians opt to go the community health route but choose to work in a city, even if it means they’re going to earn less. That was the case for Kevin King, MD, 33, a general pediatrician at St. John’s Community Health Center, Los Angeles. Dr. King knew he wanted to work in a community health center after completing a residency at a Medicaid clinic.
 

A rewarding career

“I find my work very rewarding,” Dr. King says. “Working in Medicaid can be difficult, and there are many barriers to care. It’s a lot more work to get things done, but the rewards come from the patients.”

That said, Dr. King adds he wouldn’t have been able to take this job without access to a loan forgiveness program that helps him manage his student-loan debt. “Without that, I’d probably have to find work in a private-pay population, making more money,” he says. “Loan forgiveness allowed me to choose this career path.”

Dr. King says he earns between $150,000 and $200,000 annually. That’s significantly less than the $243,000 median pediatrician salary in Los Angeles, according to Salary.com. Still, Dr. King says he wouldn’t trade his job for a more lucrative one.

“In medicine, there are so many different career paths you can take after residency training,” he says. “Finding one that brings you joy in what you do every day is more valuable than any amount of money.”

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

Earning a huge salary was never a top priority for Sarah Ramer, MD, a nephrologist at the James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New York. That was obvious even when she was still a medical student, since she opted for an extra academic year to get a masters degree in clinical research methods.

After doing a combined internal medicine/pediatric residency, Dr. Ramer completed two fellowships, one in adult nephrology and one in palliative care.

“Every extra year that you spend in training is another year you’re not making a salary as an attending, so by doing 7 years in residency and a fellowship, I was not building my net worth the way some physicians do,” she says.

When Dr. Ramer, now 41, was ready to enter the job market in 2019, she had two offers on the table – one at a large, urban, research-intense medical center that included some clinical work combined with research and that paid $105,000, and one as a clinical nephrologist at a smaller suburban medical center with a $230,000 salary and a $20,000 performance bonus.

She took the first job, because she liked the idea of being ensured of having time to perform research, and she hoped to qualify for a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Over the next few months, Dr. Ramer was diagnosed with cancer and the pandemic began ravaging the country. She considered taking a leave of absence from her job, but since she had only recently started at the job, taking a medical leave would mean she’d get only 50% of her salary, which would have left her with just over $50,000 to cover her mortgage, student loans, and other expenses.

“Financially, it would have been disastrous for me to go on leave at that time,” she says. “Things happen, but that’s something I didn’t consider when I decided to take a very low-paying job.”

Dr. Ramer has completed cancer treatment and has moved on to her current role at the VA medical center, where she is earning less than she would have made at the suburban medical center but more than twice as much as she did at the urban research hospital.
 

Lifestyle trade-offs

While Dr. Ramer’s salary is nearly four times that of the average American worker, it’s only about 60% of what the average physician earns. That works for Dr. Ramer, who has never put much value in material possessions. She has lived in the same working-class New Jersey neighborhood for more than a decade and drives a 2010 Hyundai Elantra.

“I need a new kitchen and new bathrooms in my apartment,” she says. “I’m still working on that. I have a good cushion, but I need to build up my emergency fund before I start spending money on home renovations.”

Such trade-offs are common among physicians who’ve chosen to work in a rural area, at a Medicaid practice, or in public health. But physicians who find themselves on the lower end of the pay scale say that there are rewards and benefits to opting for less lucrative career trajectories.

For Sean Kissel, MD, 30, a family physician in northern Utah, it’s about the lifestyle afforded by his role, which has earned him between $190,000 and $230,000 over the past few years. “I have no on-call shifts,” he says. “So, when I’m done, I’m done. I don’t have to work weekends or holidays, and I have dinner with my kids every night.”

According to the 2022 Medscape physician compensation report, physicians earned an average of $339,000 annually last year. Primary care physicians took home an average of $260,000, compared with $368,000 for specialists. The disparity in physician income was even greater when broken down by specialty. Plastic surgeons earned the most ($576,000), and public health and preventive medicine physicians earned the least ($243,000).

Still, that study found that physician salaries were up across every specialty, ranging from a 1% increase for critical care physicians to a 13% jump for otolaryngologists.
 

Scaling back

While private-pay physicians tend to make more than peers who work in community or government health clinics, they may have to work longer hours or face pressure to see more patients, which can decrease the quality of care they provide.

A recent study, published in JAMA Health Forum, found that most health systems base physician pay on the number of patients seen. That’s the case for more than 80% of primary care physicians and more than 90% of specialists, according to the study.

Given that landscape, a growing number of physicians are opting for a “lifestyle” practice – accepting lower compensation in order to see a limited number of patients or work only a few days per week, says Stu Schaff, the founder and lead adviser of Contract Medicine, a consulting firm that helps physicians understand, evaluate, and negotiate their employment contracts. Mr. Schaff concedes that most of the doctors who fall into this category are winding down their careers or have a high-earning spouse with a salary that offsets their lower income.

Other physicians move into administrative roles within a hospital or health center. Such positions typically involve seeing fewer patients and may pay less, but they also have more traditional hours, which can be appealing, Mr. Schaff says.

“Those folks might still do patient care 1 or 2 days a week, or even less,” he says. “They’re still physicians. They’re still using their physician expertise, but they’re not practicing at the same level or generating the same level of income as they might in a full-time clinical position.”
 

Cost of living matters

Dr. Kissel says that while he may take home less than the typical physician, he still makes enough to comfortably cover his expenses, including his student loan payments. Still, when new acquaintances learn he’s a physician, they often assume he’s earning much more.

“People assume most of us make mid-$300,000’s or low $400,000’s, and that’s true for some family doctors, but not for all,” he notes. “I like what I do. I’m in a good place, and we are happy with our life.”

Plus, Dr. Kissel may benefit from living in Utah, where the lower cost of living may allow him to stretch his salary further. Although salaries are typically higher in the most expensive states in the United States, compared with states that have a lower cost of living, those higher salaries aren’t always enough to make up the difference.

A recent WalletHub analysis found that New York, California, and Massachusetts were among the states with the lowest average annual wage when adjusted for the cost of living, while South Dakota, Indiana, and Wisconsin had the highest average wage after the adjustment.

“Even if a physician is in a lower-paying specialty or location, they’re still well-paid relative to the average U.S. citizen,” Mr. Schaff says. “When we talk about specialties that pay less, we’re still talking – if you’re full-time – about a six-figure income.”
 

Location, location, location

To combat a provider shortage, rural health centers have been increasing the pay doctors receive. Nevertheless, many physicians are opting not to live in a community where they have no connection.

“I think there has to be a tie to the community for a physician to want to be here,” says Scott Crouch, chief executive officer at Ozarks Community Health Center, Bolivar, Missouri. “NHSC [National Health Service Corps] can help some, but it’s not the draw it once was.”

Physicians and dentists who interview at the Ozarks Community Health Center often like the facilities and the area but don’t want to live in a rustic locale. “Most medical schools are in bigger cities,” Mr. Crouch says. “So it’s hard to get them into a rural environment.”

In some cases, physicians opt to go the community health route but choose to work in a city, even if it means they’re going to earn less. That was the case for Kevin King, MD, 33, a general pediatrician at St. John’s Community Health Center, Los Angeles. Dr. King knew he wanted to work in a community health center after completing a residency at a Medicaid clinic.
 

A rewarding career

“I find my work very rewarding,” Dr. King says. “Working in Medicaid can be difficult, and there are many barriers to care. It’s a lot more work to get things done, but the rewards come from the patients.”

That said, Dr. King adds he wouldn’t have been able to take this job without access to a loan forgiveness program that helps him manage his student-loan debt. “Without that, I’d probably have to find work in a private-pay population, making more money,” he says. “Loan forgiveness allowed me to choose this career path.”

Dr. King says he earns between $150,000 and $200,000 annually. That’s significantly less than the $243,000 median pediatrician salary in Los Angeles, according to Salary.com. Still, Dr. King says he wouldn’t trade his job for a more lucrative one.

“In medicine, there are so many different career paths you can take after residency training,” he says. “Finding one that brings you joy in what you do every day is more valuable than any amount of money.”

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

I put a Christmas tree up early in November.

It’s not like it’s a real tree, or even a fancy one. For that matter, I’m Jewish.

Growing up in the 1970s one thing that could be relied on every year was the Charlie Brown Christmas special. It never changed. By age 5 you knew most of the lines, and loved the highlight when Charlie Brown brings home the saddest-looking tree ever, which collapses when he puts a single bauble on it.

Courtesy Dr. Allan M. Block

Years ago, my kids gave me a Charlie Brown tree as a gift. It even plays the late Vince Guaraldi’s immortal Peanuts theme when you push a button. I forgot about it for a few years, then discovered it, and immediately brought it to my office.

I’m not a fan of holiday creep, where they move up earlier in the year, so I used to put it up after Thanksgiving. But we close the office 2-3 weeks later for the rest of the year. I like the tree, my staff likes the tree, and my patients like the tree, so I just started putting it up in early November so we can enjoy it for a month.

It’s whimsical and brings back memories of innocence, childhood, and (of course) Peanuts. It sets a cheerful tone when you see it there. Very few of my patients can resist pressing the button and playing the music as they go by.

The start of a new year is a relatively arbitrary date, chosen long ago. But its approach is always a reminder that life goes on. We continue our trips around the sun. Good times and bad times come and go, but time never stops.

In bad years the tree reminds me that it’s coming to an end, and to look toward the next. In good years it reminds me that it’s time to be ready for the surprises of the coming one. With the stresses of the holidays and things (like getting taxes ready) that the year’s end brings, as well as the routine daily challenges of any medical practice, the Charlie Brown Christmas is a reminder to keep a sense of humor.

In mid-December, after the patients are done for the last day of the year, I quietly put it away. It’s a vaguely somber moment, but at the same time I’m glad to know I now have 2-3 weeks of home time. It mostly involves working at my desk and returning phone calls, but there’s also time to relax with my kids, do jigsaw puzzles, and enjoy the Phoenix winter weather as a break before the next round starts.

To those who disagree with my choice of decoration or its timing, I simply respond: “Good grief!”

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I put a Christmas tree up early in November.

It’s not like it’s a real tree, or even a fancy one. For that matter, I’m Jewish.

Growing up in the 1970s one thing that could be relied on every year was the Charlie Brown Christmas special. It never changed. By age 5 you knew most of the lines, and loved the highlight when Charlie Brown brings home the saddest-looking tree ever, which collapses when he puts a single bauble on it.

Courtesy Dr. Allan M. Block

Years ago, my kids gave me a Charlie Brown tree as a gift. It even plays the late Vince Guaraldi’s immortal Peanuts theme when you push a button. I forgot about it for a few years, then discovered it, and immediately brought it to my office.

I’m not a fan of holiday creep, where they move up earlier in the year, so I used to put it up after Thanksgiving. But we close the office 2-3 weeks later for the rest of the year. I like the tree, my staff likes the tree, and my patients like the tree, so I just started putting it up in early November so we can enjoy it for a month.

It’s whimsical and brings back memories of innocence, childhood, and (of course) Peanuts. It sets a cheerful tone when you see it there. Very few of my patients can resist pressing the button and playing the music as they go by.

The start of a new year is a relatively arbitrary date, chosen long ago. But its approach is always a reminder that life goes on. We continue our trips around the sun. Good times and bad times come and go, but time never stops.

In bad years the tree reminds me that it’s coming to an end, and to look toward the next. In good years it reminds me that it’s time to be ready for the surprises of the coming one. With the stresses of the holidays and things (like getting taxes ready) that the year’s end brings, as well as the routine daily challenges of any medical practice, the Charlie Brown Christmas is a reminder to keep a sense of humor.

In mid-December, after the patients are done for the last day of the year, I quietly put it away. It’s a vaguely somber moment, but at the same time I’m glad to know I now have 2-3 weeks of home time. It mostly involves working at my desk and returning phone calls, but there’s also time to relax with my kids, do jigsaw puzzles, and enjoy the Phoenix winter weather as a break before the next round starts.

To those who disagree with my choice of decoration or its timing, I simply respond: “Good grief!”

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I put a Christmas tree up early in November.

It’s not like it’s a real tree, or even a fancy one. For that matter, I’m Jewish.

Growing up in the 1970s one thing that could be relied on every year was the Charlie Brown Christmas special. It never changed. By age 5 you knew most of the lines, and loved the highlight when Charlie Brown brings home the saddest-looking tree ever, which collapses when he puts a single bauble on it.

Courtesy Dr. Allan M. Block

Years ago, my kids gave me a Charlie Brown tree as a gift. It even plays the late Vince Guaraldi’s immortal Peanuts theme when you push a button. I forgot about it for a few years, then discovered it, and immediately brought it to my office.

I’m not a fan of holiday creep, where they move up earlier in the year, so I used to put it up after Thanksgiving. But we close the office 2-3 weeks later for the rest of the year. I like the tree, my staff likes the tree, and my patients like the tree, so I just started putting it up in early November so we can enjoy it for a month.

It’s whimsical and brings back memories of innocence, childhood, and (of course) Peanuts. It sets a cheerful tone when you see it there. Very few of my patients can resist pressing the button and playing the music as they go by.

The start of a new year is a relatively arbitrary date, chosen long ago. But its approach is always a reminder that life goes on. We continue our trips around the sun. Good times and bad times come and go, but time never stops.

In bad years the tree reminds me that it’s coming to an end, and to look toward the next. In good years it reminds me that it’s time to be ready for the surprises of the coming one. With the stresses of the holidays and things (like getting taxes ready) that the year’s end brings, as well as the routine daily challenges of any medical practice, the Charlie Brown Christmas is a reminder to keep a sense of humor.

In mid-December, after the patients are done for the last day of the year, I quietly put it away. It’s a vaguely somber moment, but at the same time I’m glad to know I now have 2-3 weeks of home time. It mostly involves working at my desk and returning phone calls, but there’s also time to relax with my kids, do jigsaw puzzles, and enjoy the Phoenix winter weather as a break before the next round starts.

To those who disagree with my choice of decoration or its timing, I simply respond: “Good grief!”

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!

Insurance

Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.

Legislation and regulation

Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.

At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.

Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.

With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.

As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.

Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.

The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.

Turning frustration into action

Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.

It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.

As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.

CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.

Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!

Insurance

Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.

Legislation and regulation

Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.

At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.

Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.

With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.

As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.

Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.

The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.

Turning frustration into action

Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.

It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.

As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.

CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.

Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!

Insurance

Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.

Legislation and regulation

Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.

At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.

Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.

With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.

As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.

Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.

The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.

Turning frustration into action

Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.

It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.

As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.

CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.

Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].