Business of Medicine

Direct-to-consumer telemedicine services that provide gender-affirming hormone therapy appear to follow evidence-based guidelines and charge about the same as brick-and-mortar medical centers, according to researchers who reviewed the platforms’ websites.

The findings suggest that virtual care “may be a good option” for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, who often report difficulty finding physicians they trust, Erin Jesse, MD, a fifth-year urology resident at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, who is the first author of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Jesse’s group presented their findings at a joint scientific meeting of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America and the International Society for Sexual Medicine in Miami. The results have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

New direct-to-consumer telemedicine companies have emerged with gender-diverse staff and services tailored to the needs of these individuals. They offer “a more inclusive feel” than might be encountered at a physician’s office, Dr. Jesse said.

Confirming that these companies adhere to standards of care and cost-effectiveness “is especially important considering the reduced access to care and potentially increased vulnerability of the gender-diverse population,” she and her colleagues wrote.

From a Google search in March, the team identified six U.S.-based platforms that offer gender-affirming medical therapy: FOLX, True U Clinic, QueerDoc, Queer Med, TransClinique, and Plume.

From information posted on the companies’ websites, the researchers determined that all aligned with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care in two areas: use of an informed consent model to ensure that patients have sufficient information and understanding to decide on their own treatment and endorsement of frequent laboratory monitoring of hormone levels in early stages of treatment.

The team also compared the costs listed on the websites for the first year of therapy to the costs of similar care at a tertiary center, as determined using University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center’s online estimator.

The platforms offered various pricing models, including fee-for-service and monthly membership plans ranging from $59 to $139. For individuals without insurance, estimates ranged from $1,022 to $1,428 for oral estradiol and from $1,184 to $1,668 for intramuscular testosterone from the online companies, compared with $1,184 and $1,216, respectively, at the tertiary center.

Although some platforms accept insurance, the researchers were not able to evaluate the cost of using private insurance or Medicaid, Dr. Jesse said. She noted that transgender individuals are more likely to lack insurance than are cisgender patients.

The team also assessed the scope of services. All companies offered legal help with changes to names and gender markers, such as “M” and “F.” Three or more companies offered preexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection, treatment for erectile dysfunction, referrals for surgery, and medical letters of support for surgery.

Two offered puberty blockers, although the researchers were unable to determine the risk of adolescents obtaining treatment without proper assessments, because details of those services are not disclosed on websites, Dr. Jesse said.

An avenue of further research would be to interview patients to learn how platforms operate in practice and whether patients are properly assessed before treatment. “Those sorts of questions we can’t answer just by looking at the websites,” she said.

However, Charlotte Hoffman, JD, senior policy counsel for the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, said she does not harbor concerns about patients being treated inappropriately simply because care is virtual. All clinicians who provide gender-affirming care face potential repercussions, such as malpractice lawsuits or state disciplinary action, if they veer from treatment guidelines, she said.

“I don’t necessarily take the premise that telehealth is inherently worse than in-person care as a given,” Ms. Hoffman said.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. Hoffman added, direct-to-consumer telemedicine has expanded access for individuals in rural areas, people with disabilities, and those who live in places where in-person providers of transgender care face public hostility, although individuals without the resources to pay may still be left out.

What might happen to that access if telemedicine restrictions that were loosened during the pandemic are reinstated is unclear, she said.

The researchers and Ms. Hoffman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Direct-to-consumer telemedicine services that provide gender-affirming hormone therapy appear to follow evidence-based guidelines and charge about the same as brick-and-mortar medical centers, according to researchers who reviewed the platforms’ websites.

The findings suggest that virtual care “may be a good option” for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, who often report difficulty finding physicians they trust, Erin Jesse, MD, a fifth-year urology resident at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, who is the first author of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Jesse’s group presented their findings at a joint scientific meeting of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America and the International Society for Sexual Medicine in Miami. The results have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

New direct-to-consumer telemedicine companies have emerged with gender-diverse staff and services tailored to the needs of these individuals. They offer “a more inclusive feel” than might be encountered at a physician’s office, Dr. Jesse said.

Confirming that these companies adhere to standards of care and cost-effectiveness “is especially important considering the reduced access to care and potentially increased vulnerability of the gender-diverse population,” she and her colleagues wrote.

From a Google search in March, the team identified six U.S.-based platforms that offer gender-affirming medical therapy: FOLX, True U Clinic, QueerDoc, Queer Med, TransClinique, and Plume.

From information posted on the companies’ websites, the researchers determined that all aligned with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care in two areas: use of an informed consent model to ensure that patients have sufficient information and understanding to decide on their own treatment and endorsement of frequent laboratory monitoring of hormone levels in early stages of treatment.

The team also compared the costs listed on the websites for the first year of therapy to the costs of similar care at a tertiary center, as determined using University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center’s online estimator.

The platforms offered various pricing models, including fee-for-service and monthly membership plans ranging from $59 to $139. For individuals without insurance, estimates ranged from $1,022 to $1,428 for oral estradiol and from $1,184 to $1,668 for intramuscular testosterone from the online companies, compared with $1,184 and $1,216, respectively, at the tertiary center.

Although some platforms accept insurance, the researchers were not able to evaluate the cost of using private insurance or Medicaid, Dr. Jesse said. She noted that transgender individuals are more likely to lack insurance than are cisgender patients.

The team also assessed the scope of services. All companies offered legal help with changes to names and gender markers, such as “M” and “F.” Three or more companies offered preexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection, treatment for erectile dysfunction, referrals for surgery, and medical letters of support for surgery.

Two offered puberty blockers, although the researchers were unable to determine the risk of adolescents obtaining treatment without proper assessments, because details of those services are not disclosed on websites, Dr. Jesse said.

An avenue of further research would be to interview patients to learn how platforms operate in practice and whether patients are properly assessed before treatment. “Those sorts of questions we can’t answer just by looking at the websites,” she said.

However, Charlotte Hoffman, JD, senior policy counsel for the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, said she does not harbor concerns about patients being treated inappropriately simply because care is virtual. All clinicians who provide gender-affirming care face potential repercussions, such as malpractice lawsuits or state disciplinary action, if they veer from treatment guidelines, she said.

“I don’t necessarily take the premise that telehealth is inherently worse than in-person care as a given,” Ms. Hoffman said.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. Hoffman added, direct-to-consumer telemedicine has expanded access for individuals in rural areas, people with disabilities, and those who live in places where in-person providers of transgender care face public hostility, although individuals without the resources to pay may still be left out.

What might happen to that access if telemedicine restrictions that were loosened during the pandemic are reinstated is unclear, she said.

The researchers and Ms. Hoffman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Direct-to-consumer telemedicine services that provide gender-affirming hormone therapy appear to follow evidence-based guidelines and charge about the same as brick-and-mortar medical centers, according to researchers who reviewed the platforms’ websites.

The findings suggest that virtual care “may be a good option” for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, who often report difficulty finding physicians they trust, Erin Jesse, MD, a fifth-year urology resident at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, who is the first author of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Jesse’s group presented their findings at a joint scientific meeting of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America and the International Society for Sexual Medicine in Miami. The results have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

New direct-to-consumer telemedicine companies have emerged with gender-diverse staff and services tailored to the needs of these individuals. They offer “a more inclusive feel” than might be encountered at a physician’s office, Dr. Jesse said.

Confirming that these companies adhere to standards of care and cost-effectiveness “is especially important considering the reduced access to care and potentially increased vulnerability of the gender-diverse population,” she and her colleagues wrote.

From a Google search in March, the team identified six U.S.-based platforms that offer gender-affirming medical therapy: FOLX, True U Clinic, QueerDoc, Queer Med, TransClinique, and Plume.

From information posted on the companies’ websites, the researchers determined that all aligned with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care in two areas: use of an informed consent model to ensure that patients have sufficient information and understanding to decide on their own treatment and endorsement of frequent laboratory monitoring of hormone levels in early stages of treatment.

The team also compared the costs listed on the websites for the first year of therapy to the costs of similar care at a tertiary center, as determined using University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center’s online estimator.

The platforms offered various pricing models, including fee-for-service and monthly membership plans ranging from $59 to $139. For individuals without insurance, estimates ranged from $1,022 to $1,428 for oral estradiol and from $1,184 to $1,668 for intramuscular testosterone from the online companies, compared with $1,184 and $1,216, respectively, at the tertiary center.

Although some platforms accept insurance, the researchers were not able to evaluate the cost of using private insurance or Medicaid, Dr. Jesse said. She noted that transgender individuals are more likely to lack insurance than are cisgender patients.

The team also assessed the scope of services. All companies offered legal help with changes to names and gender markers, such as “M” and “F.” Three or more companies offered preexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection, treatment for erectile dysfunction, referrals for surgery, and medical letters of support for surgery.

Two offered puberty blockers, although the researchers were unable to determine the risk of adolescents obtaining treatment without proper assessments, because details of those services are not disclosed on websites, Dr. Jesse said.

An avenue of further research would be to interview patients to learn how platforms operate in practice and whether patients are properly assessed before treatment. “Those sorts of questions we can’t answer just by looking at the websites,” she said.

However, Charlotte Hoffman, JD, senior policy counsel for the National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy group, said she does not harbor concerns about patients being treated inappropriately simply because care is virtual. All clinicians who provide gender-affirming care face potential repercussions, such as malpractice lawsuits or state disciplinary action, if they veer from treatment guidelines, she said.

“I don’t necessarily take the premise that telehealth is inherently worse than in-person care as a given,” Ms. Hoffman said.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. Hoffman added, direct-to-consumer telemedicine has expanded access for individuals in rural areas, people with disabilities, and those who live in places where in-person providers of transgender care face public hostility, although individuals without the resources to pay may still be left out.

What might happen to that access if telemedicine restrictions that were loosened during the pandemic are reinstated is unclear, she said.

The researchers and Ms. Hoffman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Response-adapted de-escalation of immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings for payers – close to $20,000 per patient – compared with standard immunotherapy, an economic analysis found.

“The rising costs of cancer therapies are becoming untenable for both patients and payers, and there is both clinical and economic benefit to finding less expensive treatment alternatives,” Wolfgang Kunz, MD, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told this news organization.

This economic analysis “highlights that leveraging modern diagnostic capabilities can do just that: Pairing drug regimens with CT-image analysis to optimize dosages can reduce health care costs and improve clinical outcomes,” Dr. Kunz said.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

While the use of immunotherapies over the past decade has improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma, these drugs come with a hefty price tag.

One potential way to help reduce costs: de-escalate therapy. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated similar progression-free and overall survival among patients who received response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation and those who received standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Kunz and colleagues wanted to understand whether this response-adapted approach was also cost effective.

The team applied economic modeling to data from the ADAPT-IT trial as well as CheckMate 067, in which patients received standard of care four doses of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy. In the ADAPT-IT trial, patients also initially received the immunotherapy combination but had CT scans to determine their response after two doses; if they responded, patients discontinued ipilimumab and continued with nivolumab monotherapy.

Overall, ADAPT-IT showed that responders could forgo the additional two doses of ipilimumab plus nivolumab while maintaining similar progression-free survival and overall survival seen at 18 months in the CheckMate 067 trial.

The current economic analysis, based on 41 patients from ADAPT-IT and 314 from CheckMate 067, showed a potential reduction in health care costs of $19,891 per patient with the response-adapted approach.

Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94% of simulated scenarios.

When extrapolated to 2019 incidence rates of distant melanoma cases, yearly national savings could reach about $58 million.

“In the relatively small space of immunotherapies in advanced melanoma, we hope this analysis motivates clinicians to consider response-adapted treatment,” Dr. Kunz told this news organization.

“On the larger scale, this analysis serves as a stepping stone to more response-guided treatment protocols,” Dr. Kunz added. “With drug costs rising and imaging capabilities growing, more frequent image-guided adjustments are a perfect fit into the personalized care model.”

When applying the cost savings noted in this analysis across all treated patients, “the economic impact may be profound,” said Joseph Skitzki, MD, surgical oncologist, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., who wasn’t involved in the study. The “financial toxicity of cancer care is increasingly recognized as a potential barrier to optimal outcomes and any measures to mitigate cost may be impactful.”

However, Dr. Skitzki said several caveats need to be considered.

One is that the data included from ADAPT-IT only included 41 patients, compared with 314 patients from CheckMate 067.

“It is possible that a larger real-world study utilizing the ADAPT-IT protocol may not be as favorable in terms of outcomes and could lessen the economic impact of de-escalation, although any form of de-escalation is likely to have a cost benefit,” Dr. Skitzki said in an interview.

A real-world response–adapted de-escalation clinical trial, with an emphasis on costs and a benchmark of similar progression-free and overall survival, should be conducted before the de-escalated option becomes “practice changing,” Dr. Skitzki said.

Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“I would not base treatment decisions on a small sampling of 41 patients in the absence of a randomized comparison,” Dr. Weber told this news organization. “Without a proper comparison, I would not advocate using only two doses of ipilimumab-nivolumab to make decisions on treatment.”

Dr. Skitzki added that, while “studies like this one are desperately needed to lessen the economic impact of new and emerging combination immunotherapies,” there is likely also a “disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct this type of research.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Kunz and Dr. Skitzki reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Regeneron, and GSK, among others, and holds equity in Cytomx, Biond, NexImmune, and Immunomax.

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

Response-adapted de-escalation of immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings for payers – close to $20,000 per patient – compared with standard immunotherapy, an economic analysis found.

“The rising costs of cancer therapies are becoming untenable for both patients and payers, and there is both clinical and economic benefit to finding less expensive treatment alternatives,” Wolfgang Kunz, MD, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told this news organization.

This economic analysis “highlights that leveraging modern diagnostic capabilities can do just that: Pairing drug regimens with CT-image analysis to optimize dosages can reduce health care costs and improve clinical outcomes,” Dr. Kunz said.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

While the use of immunotherapies over the past decade has improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma, these drugs come with a hefty price tag.

One potential way to help reduce costs: de-escalate therapy. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated similar progression-free and overall survival among patients who received response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation and those who received standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Kunz and colleagues wanted to understand whether this response-adapted approach was also cost effective.

The team applied economic modeling to data from the ADAPT-IT trial as well as CheckMate 067, in which patients received standard of care four doses of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy. In the ADAPT-IT trial, patients also initially received the immunotherapy combination but had CT scans to determine their response after two doses; if they responded, patients discontinued ipilimumab and continued with nivolumab monotherapy.

Overall, ADAPT-IT showed that responders could forgo the additional two doses of ipilimumab plus nivolumab while maintaining similar progression-free survival and overall survival seen at 18 months in the CheckMate 067 trial.

The current economic analysis, based on 41 patients from ADAPT-IT and 314 from CheckMate 067, showed a potential reduction in health care costs of $19,891 per patient with the response-adapted approach.

Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94% of simulated scenarios.

When extrapolated to 2019 incidence rates of distant melanoma cases, yearly national savings could reach about $58 million.

“In the relatively small space of immunotherapies in advanced melanoma, we hope this analysis motivates clinicians to consider response-adapted treatment,” Dr. Kunz told this news organization.

“On the larger scale, this analysis serves as a stepping stone to more response-guided treatment protocols,” Dr. Kunz added. “With drug costs rising and imaging capabilities growing, more frequent image-guided adjustments are a perfect fit into the personalized care model.”

When applying the cost savings noted in this analysis across all treated patients, “the economic impact may be profound,” said Joseph Skitzki, MD, surgical oncologist, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., who wasn’t involved in the study. The “financial toxicity of cancer care is increasingly recognized as a potential barrier to optimal outcomes and any measures to mitigate cost may be impactful.”

However, Dr. Skitzki said several caveats need to be considered.

One is that the data included from ADAPT-IT only included 41 patients, compared with 314 patients from CheckMate 067.

“It is possible that a larger real-world study utilizing the ADAPT-IT protocol may not be as favorable in terms of outcomes and could lessen the economic impact of de-escalation, although any form of de-escalation is likely to have a cost benefit,” Dr. Skitzki said in an interview.

A real-world response–adapted de-escalation clinical trial, with an emphasis on costs and a benchmark of similar progression-free and overall survival, should be conducted before the de-escalated option becomes “practice changing,” Dr. Skitzki said.

Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“I would not base treatment decisions on a small sampling of 41 patients in the absence of a randomized comparison,” Dr. Weber told this news organization. “Without a proper comparison, I would not advocate using only two doses of ipilimumab-nivolumab to make decisions on treatment.”

Dr. Skitzki added that, while “studies like this one are desperately needed to lessen the economic impact of new and emerging combination immunotherapies,” there is likely also a “disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct this type of research.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Kunz and Dr. Skitzki reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Regeneron, and GSK, among others, and holds equity in Cytomx, Biond, NexImmune, and Immunomax.

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

Response-adapted de-escalation of immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings for payers – close to $20,000 per patient – compared with standard immunotherapy, an economic analysis found.

“The rising costs of cancer therapies are becoming untenable for both patients and payers, and there is both clinical and economic benefit to finding less expensive treatment alternatives,” Wolfgang Kunz, MD, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told this news organization.

This economic analysis “highlights that leveraging modern diagnostic capabilities can do just that: Pairing drug regimens with CT-image analysis to optimize dosages can reduce health care costs and improve clinical outcomes,” Dr. Kunz said.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

While the use of immunotherapies over the past decade has improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma, these drugs come with a hefty price tag.

One potential way to help reduce costs: de-escalate therapy. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated similar progression-free and overall survival among patients who received response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation and those who received standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Kunz and colleagues wanted to understand whether this response-adapted approach was also cost effective.

The team applied economic modeling to data from the ADAPT-IT trial as well as CheckMate 067, in which patients received standard of care four doses of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy. In the ADAPT-IT trial, patients also initially received the immunotherapy combination but had CT scans to determine their response after two doses; if they responded, patients discontinued ipilimumab and continued with nivolumab monotherapy.

Overall, ADAPT-IT showed that responders could forgo the additional two doses of ipilimumab plus nivolumab while maintaining similar progression-free survival and overall survival seen at 18 months in the CheckMate 067 trial.

The current economic analysis, based on 41 patients from ADAPT-IT and 314 from CheckMate 067, showed a potential reduction in health care costs of $19,891 per patient with the response-adapted approach.

Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94% of simulated scenarios.

When extrapolated to 2019 incidence rates of distant melanoma cases, yearly national savings could reach about $58 million.

“In the relatively small space of immunotherapies in advanced melanoma, we hope this analysis motivates clinicians to consider response-adapted treatment,” Dr. Kunz told this news organization.

“On the larger scale, this analysis serves as a stepping stone to more response-guided treatment protocols,” Dr. Kunz added. “With drug costs rising and imaging capabilities growing, more frequent image-guided adjustments are a perfect fit into the personalized care model.”

When applying the cost savings noted in this analysis across all treated patients, “the economic impact may be profound,” said Joseph Skitzki, MD, surgical oncologist, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., who wasn’t involved in the study. The “financial toxicity of cancer care is increasingly recognized as a potential barrier to optimal outcomes and any measures to mitigate cost may be impactful.”

However, Dr. Skitzki said several caveats need to be considered.

One is that the data included from ADAPT-IT only included 41 patients, compared with 314 patients from CheckMate 067.

“It is possible that a larger real-world study utilizing the ADAPT-IT protocol may not be as favorable in terms of outcomes and could lessen the economic impact of de-escalation, although any form of de-escalation is likely to have a cost benefit,” Dr. Skitzki said in an interview.

A real-world response–adapted de-escalation clinical trial, with an emphasis on costs and a benchmark of similar progression-free and overall survival, should be conducted before the de-escalated option becomes “practice changing,” Dr. Skitzki said.

Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“I would not base treatment decisions on a small sampling of 41 patients in the absence of a randomized comparison,” Dr. Weber told this news organization. “Without a proper comparison, I would not advocate using only two doses of ipilimumab-nivolumab to make decisions on treatment.”

Dr. Skitzki added that, while “studies like this one are desperately needed to lessen the economic impact of new and emerging combination immunotherapies,” there is likely also a “disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct this type of research.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Kunz and Dr. Skitzki reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Regeneron, and GSK, among others, and holds equity in Cytomx, Biond, NexImmune, and Immunomax.

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

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

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

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

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

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

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

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

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

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

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

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

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

Regardless of the setting, one of the most frequently discussed topics in health care is imposter syndrome.

Imposter syndrome was first defined by Clance and Imes as an inability to internalize success, and the tendency to attribute success to external causes such as luck, error, or knowing the appropriate individual.¹ This definition is essential because most health care professionals have had a sense of doubt or questioned the full extent of their competencies in various situations. I would argue that this is normal and – within reason – helpful to the practice of medicine. The problem with true imposter syndrome is that the individual does not incorporate success in a way that builds healthy self-esteem and self-efficacy.² 

Imposter syndrome has a very nasty way of interacting with burnout. Studies have shown that imposter syndrome can be associated with high levels of emotional exhaustion at work.³ In my experience, this makes clinical sense. Professionals suffering from imposter syndrome can spend a great deal of time and energy trying to maintain a particular image.⁴ They are acting a part 24/7. Have you ever seriously tried to act? It’s arduous work. A friend once asked me to read a role for a play because “you’d be great; you’re a natural.” By the time I was done with rehearsal, I felt like I had run a 4-by-400-meter relay, by myself, in Victoria, Tex.

And any talk of imposter syndrome must include its running mate, perfectionism. These two conditions exist together so commonly it can be a bit of a chicken or egg question as to which came first.

Imposter syndrome, perfectionism, and burnout can form a deadly triad if not recognized and addressed quickly. In medicine, perfectionism can be a coping strategy that sets up unrelenting standards. Failure to meet unrelenting standards then serves as fuel and validation for imposter syndrome and emotional exhaustion. The consequences of this cycle going unchecked over a health care professional’s career are seismic and can include downstream effects ranging from depression to suicide.

Some readers will relate to this, while others will shrug their shoulders and say that this has never happened in their professional life. I get it. However, I would now ask if you have ever felt like an imposter in your personal life. I’ll make a cup of tea and wait for you to figure out precisely what is the boundary between your personal and professional life. Okay, all done? Great. Now I’ll give you some more time to sincerely reflect if any of the traits of imposter syndrome have described you at times in your personal life. Hmmm, interesting to think about, isn’t it?

I believe that health care professionals frequently use one credit card to pay off another, but the debt remains the same. So even if things are going well at work, we may have just shifted the debt to our personal lives. (At some point in the future, I’ll share my 10 greatest father fails to date to elucidate my point.)

In my work at the GW Resiliency and Well-Being Center, I’ve gravitated toward a few methods supported by evidence that help alleviate imposter syndrome symptoms and potentially serve as protective factors against the future development of imposter syndrome.⁴ These include but are not limited to:

• Keep a record of small personal success that is yours alone.
• Have a mentor to share failures with.
• Use personal reflection to examine what it means to successfully reach your goals and fulfill your purpose, not a relative value unit target.
• Share experiences with each other, so you know you’re not alone.

The last method is one of my favorites because it involves connecting to others and shining a light on our shared experiences and, coincidentally, our collective strengths. Once this collective strength is realized, the circumstances of that 4-by-400-meter relay change drastically. Be safe and well, everyone.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is a psychiatrist and chief wellness officer for the George Washington University Medical Enterprise and serves as associate dean of student affairs and administration for the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

References

1. Clance PR, Imes SA. The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice. 1978;15(3): 241-7. doi: 10.1037/h0086006.

2. Thomas M, Bigatti S. Perfectionism, impostor phenomenon, and mental health in medicine: A literature review. Int J Med Educ. 2020 Sep 28;11:201-3. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5f54.c8f8.

3. Liu RQ et al. Impostorism and anxiety contribute to burnout among resident physicians. Med Teach. 2022 Jul;44(7):758-64. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2022.2028751.

4. Gottlieb M et al. Impostor syndrome among physicians and physicians in training: A scoping review. Med Educ. 2020 Feb;54(2):116-24. doi: 10.1111/medu.13956.


 

Regardless of the setting, one of the most frequently discussed topics in health care is imposter syndrome.

Imposter syndrome was first defined by Clance and Imes as an inability to internalize success, and the tendency to attribute success to external causes such as luck, error, or knowing the appropriate individual.¹ This definition is essential because most health care professionals have had a sense of doubt or questioned the full extent of their competencies in various situations. I would argue that this is normal and – within reason – helpful to the practice of medicine. The problem with true imposter syndrome is that the individual does not incorporate success in a way that builds healthy self-esteem and self-efficacy.² 

Imposter syndrome has a very nasty way of interacting with burnout. Studies have shown that imposter syndrome can be associated with high levels of emotional exhaustion at work.³ In my experience, this makes clinical sense. Professionals suffering from imposter syndrome can spend a great deal of time and energy trying to maintain a particular image.⁴ They are acting a part 24/7. Have you ever seriously tried to act? It’s arduous work. A friend once asked me to read a role for a play because “you’d be great; you’re a natural.” By the time I was done with rehearsal, I felt like I had run a 4-by-400-meter relay, by myself, in Victoria, Tex.

And any talk of imposter syndrome must include its running mate, perfectionism. These two conditions exist together so commonly it can be a bit of a chicken or egg question as to which came first.

Imposter syndrome, perfectionism, and burnout can form a deadly triad if not recognized and addressed quickly. In medicine, perfectionism can be a coping strategy that sets up unrelenting standards. Failure to meet unrelenting standards then serves as fuel and validation for imposter syndrome and emotional exhaustion. The consequences of this cycle going unchecked over a health care professional’s career are seismic and can include downstream effects ranging from depression to suicide.

Some readers will relate to this, while others will shrug their shoulders and say that this has never happened in their professional life. I get it. However, I would now ask if you have ever felt like an imposter in your personal life. I’ll make a cup of tea and wait for you to figure out precisely what is the boundary between your personal and professional life. Okay, all done? Great. Now I’ll give you some more time to sincerely reflect if any of the traits of imposter syndrome have described you at times in your personal life. Hmmm, interesting to think about, isn’t it?

I believe that health care professionals frequently use one credit card to pay off another, but the debt remains the same. So even if things are going well at work, we may have just shifted the debt to our personal lives. (At some point in the future, I’ll share my 10 greatest father fails to date to elucidate my point.)

In my work at the GW Resiliency and Well-Being Center, I’ve gravitated toward a few methods supported by evidence that help alleviate imposter syndrome symptoms and potentially serve as protective factors against the future development of imposter syndrome.⁴ These include but are not limited to:

• Keep a record of small personal success that is yours alone.
• Have a mentor to share failures with.
• Use personal reflection to examine what it means to successfully reach your goals and fulfill your purpose, not a relative value unit target.
• Share experiences with each other, so you know you’re not alone.

The last method is one of my favorites because it involves connecting to others and shining a light on our shared experiences and, coincidentally, our collective strengths. Once this collective strength is realized, the circumstances of that 4-by-400-meter relay change drastically. Be safe and well, everyone.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is a psychiatrist and chief wellness officer for the George Washington University Medical Enterprise and serves as associate dean of student affairs and administration for the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

References

1. Clance PR, Imes SA. The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice. 1978;15(3): 241-7. doi: 10.1037/h0086006.

2. Thomas M, Bigatti S. Perfectionism, impostor phenomenon, and mental health in medicine: A literature review. Int J Med Educ. 2020 Sep 28;11:201-3. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5f54.c8f8.

3. Liu RQ et al. Impostorism and anxiety contribute to burnout among resident physicians. Med Teach. 2022 Jul;44(7):758-64. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2022.2028751.

4. Gottlieb M et al. Impostor syndrome among physicians and physicians in training: A scoping review. Med Educ. 2020 Feb;54(2):116-24. doi: 10.1111/medu.13956.


 

Regardless of the setting, one of the most frequently discussed topics in health care is imposter syndrome.

Imposter syndrome was first defined by Clance and Imes as an inability to internalize success, and the tendency to attribute success to external causes such as luck, error, or knowing the appropriate individual.¹ This definition is essential because most health care professionals have had a sense of doubt or questioned the full extent of their competencies in various situations. I would argue that this is normal and – within reason – helpful to the practice of medicine. The problem with true imposter syndrome is that the individual does not incorporate success in a way that builds healthy self-esteem and self-efficacy.² 

Imposter syndrome has a very nasty way of interacting with burnout. Studies have shown that imposter syndrome can be associated with high levels of emotional exhaustion at work.³ In my experience, this makes clinical sense. Professionals suffering from imposter syndrome can spend a great deal of time and energy trying to maintain a particular image.⁴ They are acting a part 24/7. Have you ever seriously tried to act? It’s arduous work. A friend once asked me to read a role for a play because “you’d be great; you’re a natural.” By the time I was done with rehearsal, I felt like I had run a 4-by-400-meter relay, by myself, in Victoria, Tex.

And any talk of imposter syndrome must include its running mate, perfectionism. These two conditions exist together so commonly it can be a bit of a chicken or egg question as to which came first.

Imposter syndrome, perfectionism, and burnout can form a deadly triad if not recognized and addressed quickly. In medicine, perfectionism can be a coping strategy that sets up unrelenting standards. Failure to meet unrelenting standards then serves as fuel and validation for imposter syndrome and emotional exhaustion. The consequences of this cycle going unchecked over a health care professional’s career are seismic and can include downstream effects ranging from depression to suicide.

Some readers will relate to this, while others will shrug their shoulders and say that this has never happened in their professional life. I get it. However, I would now ask if you have ever felt like an imposter in your personal life. I’ll make a cup of tea and wait for you to figure out precisely what is the boundary between your personal and professional life. Okay, all done? Great. Now I’ll give you some more time to sincerely reflect if any of the traits of imposter syndrome have described you at times in your personal life. Hmmm, interesting to think about, isn’t it?

I believe that health care professionals frequently use one credit card to pay off another, but the debt remains the same. So even if things are going well at work, we may have just shifted the debt to our personal lives. (At some point in the future, I’ll share my 10 greatest father fails to date to elucidate my point.)

In my work at the GW Resiliency and Well-Being Center, I’ve gravitated toward a few methods supported by evidence that help alleviate imposter syndrome symptoms and potentially serve as protective factors against the future development of imposter syndrome.⁴ These include but are not limited to:

• Keep a record of small personal success that is yours alone.
• Have a mentor to share failures with.
• Use personal reflection to examine what it means to successfully reach your goals and fulfill your purpose, not a relative value unit target.
• Share experiences with each other, so you know you’re not alone.

The last method is one of my favorites because it involves connecting to others and shining a light on our shared experiences and, coincidentally, our collective strengths. Once this collective strength is realized, the circumstances of that 4-by-400-meter relay change drastically. Be safe and well, everyone.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is a psychiatrist and chief wellness officer for the George Washington University Medical Enterprise and serves as associate dean of student affairs and administration for the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

References

1. Clance PR, Imes SA. The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice. 1978;15(3): 241-7. doi: 10.1037/h0086006.

2. Thomas M, Bigatti S. Perfectionism, impostor phenomenon, and mental health in medicine: A literature review. Int J Med Educ. 2020 Sep 28;11:201-3. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5f54.c8f8.

3. Liu RQ et al. Impostorism and anxiety contribute to burnout among resident physicians. Med Teach. 2022 Jul;44(7):758-64. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2022.2028751.

4. Gottlieb M et al. Impostor syndrome among physicians and physicians in training: A scoping review. Med Educ. 2020 Feb;54(2):116-24. doi: 10.1111/medu.13956.


 

An emergency department physician and a radiologist face a recent $75 million medical malpractice verdict linked to their care of a 32-year-old patient after he collapsed during a chiropractic neck treatment in 2015.

The patient, Jonathan Buckelew, was taken to North Fulton Regional Hospital in Roswell, Ga., where imaging revealed that he had suffered a brain stem stroke.

The patient’s attorney, Laura Shamp, alleged in the legal complaint that a series of miscommunications and negligence by multiple providers delayed the diagnosis and treatment of the stroke until the next day, which led to catastrophic brain damage for the patient, who developed locked-in syndrome. The rare neurologic syndrome causes complete paralysis except for the muscles that control eye movements.

“Mr. Buckelew has expended millions of dollars for medical expenses for his care and he will need 24 hour a day care for the rest of his life,” his lawyer said in court documents.

Both physicians’ attorneys denied the claims and said their clients met the standard of care.

The jury attributed 60% fault to ED physician Matthew Womack, MD, and 40% to radiologist James Waldschmidt, MD.

Ms. Shamp alleged that Dr. Womack failed to inform the consulting neurologist of the chiropractic neck adjustment – a known stroke risk factor – and did not adequately communicate the results from CT angiography and lumbar puncture.

In addition, she said Dr. Womack failed to rule out a vertebral artery dissection and that Dr. Waldschmidt did not “[appreciate] an indisputable acute or subacute vertebral-basilar artery occlusion.”

Further allegations were levied against several other members of the patient’s care team, including the neurologist, a critical care physician, a physician assistant, and intensive care unit nurses, but they were not found liable by the jury.

The chiropractor, Michael Axt, DC, was named in the original complaint, but court documents filed earlier in 2022 requested that he be dismissed from the lawsuit, stating that he and the patient had reached an amicable resolution.

“This is a very large verdict,” James B. Edwards, JD, a medical malpractice attorney based in Texas who was not involved in the case, said in an interview. The diagnosis of locked-in syndrome likely contributed to the substantial monetary award.

“The more sympathetic the plaintiff and the situation, the greater risk of a verdict [against] the defendants,” Mr. Edwards said. “Cases that elicit significant and sometimes decisive sympathy include locked-in syndrome, permanent vegetative state, injury to the sexual or reproductive organs, burns, and blindness.”

The effectiveness and safety of chiropractic adjustments often come under fire. Although postmanipulation injuries are not common, they can have near-fatal consequences when they do occur.

In August, a healthy 28-year-old college student experienced four artery dissections after a chiropractic visit for low-back pain. She subsequently had a stroke and went into cardiac arrest. The patient survived but remains paralyzed.

Mr. Buckelew’s legal team said in a statement that his injuries would have been completely avoided had “the slew of health care providers ... acted according to the standard of care, caught and treated his stroke earlier, and communicated more effectively.”

On the day of the chiropractic adjustment, Ms. Shamp said Mr. Axt had documented that Mr. Buckelew’s primary complaints – neck pain, a headache, and bouts of blurred vision and ringing in the ears – began after exercise and had continued for several days.

In his closing statement, Dr. Womack’s attorney said the “chiropractor is solely responsible” for the patient’s injuries because he performed a manipulation despite the patient having a 2-week history of headaches.

Very few medical malpractice verdicts are appealed, though the sizable award in this suit may increase the likelihood that the defense will do so, Mr. Edwards said.

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

An emergency department physician and a radiologist face a recent $75 million medical malpractice verdict linked to their care of a 32-year-old patient after he collapsed during a chiropractic neck treatment in 2015.

The patient, Jonathan Buckelew, was taken to North Fulton Regional Hospital in Roswell, Ga., where imaging revealed that he had suffered a brain stem stroke.

The patient’s attorney, Laura Shamp, alleged in the legal complaint that a series of miscommunications and negligence by multiple providers delayed the diagnosis and treatment of the stroke until the next day, which led to catastrophic brain damage for the patient, who developed locked-in syndrome. The rare neurologic syndrome causes complete paralysis except for the muscles that control eye movements.

“Mr. Buckelew has expended millions of dollars for medical expenses for his care and he will need 24 hour a day care for the rest of his life,” his lawyer said in court documents.

Both physicians’ attorneys denied the claims and said their clients met the standard of care.

The jury attributed 60% fault to ED physician Matthew Womack, MD, and 40% to radiologist James Waldschmidt, MD.

Ms. Shamp alleged that Dr. Womack failed to inform the consulting neurologist of the chiropractic neck adjustment – a known stroke risk factor – and did not adequately communicate the results from CT angiography and lumbar puncture.

In addition, she said Dr. Womack failed to rule out a vertebral artery dissection and that Dr. Waldschmidt did not “[appreciate] an indisputable acute or subacute vertebral-basilar artery occlusion.”

Further allegations were levied against several other members of the patient’s care team, including the neurologist, a critical care physician, a physician assistant, and intensive care unit nurses, but they were not found liable by the jury.

The chiropractor, Michael Axt, DC, was named in the original complaint, but court documents filed earlier in 2022 requested that he be dismissed from the lawsuit, stating that he and the patient had reached an amicable resolution.

“This is a very large verdict,” James B. Edwards, JD, a medical malpractice attorney based in Texas who was not involved in the case, said in an interview. The diagnosis of locked-in syndrome likely contributed to the substantial monetary award.

“The more sympathetic the plaintiff and the situation, the greater risk of a verdict [against] the defendants,” Mr. Edwards said. “Cases that elicit significant and sometimes decisive sympathy include locked-in syndrome, permanent vegetative state, injury to the sexual or reproductive organs, burns, and blindness.”

The effectiveness and safety of chiropractic adjustments often come under fire. Although postmanipulation injuries are not common, they can have near-fatal consequences when they do occur.

In August, a healthy 28-year-old college student experienced four artery dissections after a chiropractic visit for low-back pain. She subsequently had a stroke and went into cardiac arrest. The patient survived but remains paralyzed.

Mr. Buckelew’s legal team said in a statement that his injuries would have been completely avoided had “the slew of health care providers ... acted according to the standard of care, caught and treated his stroke earlier, and communicated more effectively.”

On the day of the chiropractic adjustment, Ms. Shamp said Mr. Axt had documented that Mr. Buckelew’s primary complaints – neck pain, a headache, and bouts of blurred vision and ringing in the ears – began after exercise and had continued for several days.

In his closing statement, Dr. Womack’s attorney said the “chiropractor is solely responsible” for the patient’s injuries because he performed a manipulation despite the patient having a 2-week history of headaches.

Very few medical malpractice verdicts are appealed, though the sizable award in this suit may increase the likelihood that the defense will do so, Mr. Edwards said.

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

An emergency department physician and a radiologist face a recent $75 million medical malpractice verdict linked to their care of a 32-year-old patient after he collapsed during a chiropractic neck treatment in 2015.

The patient, Jonathan Buckelew, was taken to North Fulton Regional Hospital in Roswell, Ga., where imaging revealed that he had suffered a brain stem stroke.

The patient’s attorney, Laura Shamp, alleged in the legal complaint that a series of miscommunications and negligence by multiple providers delayed the diagnosis and treatment of the stroke until the next day, which led to catastrophic brain damage for the patient, who developed locked-in syndrome. The rare neurologic syndrome causes complete paralysis except for the muscles that control eye movements.

“Mr. Buckelew has expended millions of dollars for medical expenses for his care and he will need 24 hour a day care for the rest of his life,” his lawyer said in court documents.

Both physicians’ attorneys denied the claims and said their clients met the standard of care.

The jury attributed 60% fault to ED physician Matthew Womack, MD, and 40% to radiologist James Waldschmidt, MD.

Ms. Shamp alleged that Dr. Womack failed to inform the consulting neurologist of the chiropractic neck adjustment – a known stroke risk factor – and did not adequately communicate the results from CT angiography and lumbar puncture.

In addition, she said Dr. Womack failed to rule out a vertebral artery dissection and that Dr. Waldschmidt did not “[appreciate] an indisputable acute or subacute vertebral-basilar artery occlusion.”

Further allegations were levied against several other members of the patient’s care team, including the neurologist, a critical care physician, a physician assistant, and intensive care unit nurses, but they were not found liable by the jury.

The chiropractor, Michael Axt, DC, was named in the original complaint, but court documents filed earlier in 2022 requested that he be dismissed from the lawsuit, stating that he and the patient had reached an amicable resolution.

“This is a very large verdict,” James B. Edwards, JD, a medical malpractice attorney based in Texas who was not involved in the case, said in an interview. The diagnosis of locked-in syndrome likely contributed to the substantial monetary award.

“The more sympathetic the plaintiff and the situation, the greater risk of a verdict [against] the defendants,” Mr. Edwards said. “Cases that elicit significant and sometimes decisive sympathy include locked-in syndrome, permanent vegetative state, injury to the sexual or reproductive organs, burns, and blindness.”

The effectiveness and safety of chiropractic adjustments often come under fire. Although postmanipulation injuries are not common, they can have near-fatal consequences when they do occur.

In August, a healthy 28-year-old college student experienced four artery dissections after a chiropractic visit for low-back pain. She subsequently had a stroke and went into cardiac arrest. The patient survived but remains paralyzed.

Mr. Buckelew’s legal team said in a statement that his injuries would have been completely avoided had “the slew of health care providers ... acted according to the standard of care, caught and treated his stroke earlier, and communicated more effectively.”

On the day of the chiropractic adjustment, Ms. Shamp said Mr. Axt had documented that Mr. Buckelew’s primary complaints – neck pain, a headache, and bouts of blurred vision and ringing in the ears – began after exercise and had continued for several days.

In his closing statement, Dr. Womack’s attorney said the “chiropractor is solely responsible” for the patient’s injuries because he performed a manipulation despite the patient having a 2-week history of headaches.

Very few medical malpractice verdicts are appealed, though the sizable award in this suit may increase the likelihood that the defense will do so, Mr. Edwards said.

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

The federal government has eased its annual punishments for hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates in an acknowledgment of the upheaval the COVID-19 pandemic has caused, resulting in the lightest penalties since 2014.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program has been a mainstay of Medicare’s hospital payment system since it began in 2012. Created by the Affordable Care Act, the program evaluates the frequency with which Medicare patients at most hospitals return within 30 days and lowers future payments to hospitals that had a greater-than-expected rate of return. Hospitals can lose up to 3% of each Medicare payment for a year.

The pandemic threw hospitals into turmoil, inundating them with COVID patients while forcing many to postpone elective surgeries for months. When the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services evaluated hospitals’ previous 3 years of readmissions, as it does annually, the government decided to exclude the first half of 2020 because of the chaos caused by the pandemic. CMS also excluded from its calculations Medicare patients who were readmitted with pneumonia across all three years because of the difficulty in distinguishing them from patients with COVID.

Akin Demehin, senior director of quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association, said the changes were warranted. “The COVID pandemic did a lot of really unprecedented things to care patterns of hospitals,” he said.

After making those changes, CMS evaluated 2½ years of readmission cases for Medicare patients who’d had heart failure, heart attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery bypass grafts, and knee and hip replacements. As a result of its analysis, CMS penalized 2,273 hospitals, the fewest since the fiscal year that ended in September 2014, a KHN analysis found.

The average payment reduction was 0.43%, also the lowest since 2014. The reductions will be applied to each Medicare payment to the affected hospitals from Oct. 1 to next September and cost them $320 million over that 12-month period.

Some hospitals will see their penalties greatly reduced from 2021. The penalty on St. Mary’s Hospital in Athens, Ga., is dropping from 2.54% to 0.06%. Saint Joseph East in Lexington, Ky., received the maximum penalty, 3%, in 2021; it will lose 0.78% as of Oct. 1. In Flemington, N.J., the penalty for Hunterdon Medical Center is dropping from 2.29% to 0.12%.

To limit penalties, many hospitals in recent years have instituted new strategies to keep former patients from needing a return visit. Robert Coates, MD, interim chief medical officer at Hunterdon Health, which owns Hunterdon Medical Center, said in a statement that the hospital set up a system to identify patients who visited the emergency room within 30 days of a hospital stay. Instead of readmitting them, Hunterdon helps them set up next-day appointments at a doctor’s office or home monitoring of their health. Hunterdon also calls all discharged patients to ensure they have filled their prescriptions and had a follow-up visit with a clinician within a week of leaving the hospital.

Jessica Satterfield, MD, director of quality and clinical excellence at St. Mary’s Health Care System, which operates St. Mary’s Hospital, said in a statement that the hospital identified patients at risk of readmission when they were first admitted and focused on making sure that their medications were correct and that they had follow-up visits. “We are proud that our efforts are bearing fruit in the form of greatly reduced penalties but, more importantly, as a reflection of the exceptional care our staff and medical staff provide to our patients,” Dr. Satterfield said.

Saint Joseph East did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Despite the changes, 43% of the nation’s 5,236 hospitals were penalized. Of the unpenalized, all but 770 were automatically exempted. The 2,193 exempted hospitals include those that specialize in children, psychiatric patients, or veterans. Rehabilitation and long-term care hospitals are also excluded from the program, as are critical access hospitals, which Medicare pays differently to help them stay open in areas with no other hospitals. The government also exempted Maryland hospitals because that state has a special payment arrangement with Medicare. Of the hospitals that Medicare assessed, 75% were penalized.

For the new fiscal year, Medicare also cited the pandemic in giving hospitals a reprieve from its other major quality-focused effort that assesses penalties: the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program. It slashes Medicare payments by 1% to the quarter of general hospitals with the highest rates of infections and other potentially preventable patient injuries. For the previous fiscal year, CMS punished 764 hospitals under that program. Those penalties – which would have cost hospitals an estimated $350 million in 2022 – will resume next fiscal year, with adjustments that better take COVID patients into account. CMS will also refine the readmissions penalty program to distinguish pneumonia patients from COVID patients.

“COVID has been a tremendously disruptive force for all aspects of health care, most certainly CMS’ quality measurement programs,” Mr. Demehin said. “It’s probably going to be a couple of volatile years for readmission penalties.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The federal government has eased its annual punishments for hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates in an acknowledgment of the upheaval the COVID-19 pandemic has caused, resulting in the lightest penalties since 2014.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program has been a mainstay of Medicare’s hospital payment system since it began in 2012. Created by the Affordable Care Act, the program evaluates the frequency with which Medicare patients at most hospitals return within 30 days and lowers future payments to hospitals that had a greater-than-expected rate of return. Hospitals can lose up to 3% of each Medicare payment for a year.

The pandemic threw hospitals into turmoil, inundating them with COVID patients while forcing many to postpone elective surgeries for months. When the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services evaluated hospitals’ previous 3 years of readmissions, as it does annually, the government decided to exclude the first half of 2020 because of the chaos caused by the pandemic. CMS also excluded from its calculations Medicare patients who were readmitted with pneumonia across all three years because of the difficulty in distinguishing them from patients with COVID.

Akin Demehin, senior director of quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association, said the changes were warranted. “The COVID pandemic did a lot of really unprecedented things to care patterns of hospitals,” he said.

After making those changes, CMS evaluated 2½ years of readmission cases for Medicare patients who’d had heart failure, heart attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery bypass grafts, and knee and hip replacements. As a result of its analysis, CMS penalized 2,273 hospitals, the fewest since the fiscal year that ended in September 2014, a KHN analysis found.

The average payment reduction was 0.43%, also the lowest since 2014. The reductions will be applied to each Medicare payment to the affected hospitals from Oct. 1 to next September and cost them $320 million over that 12-month period.

Some hospitals will see their penalties greatly reduced from 2021. The penalty on St. Mary’s Hospital in Athens, Ga., is dropping from 2.54% to 0.06%. Saint Joseph East in Lexington, Ky., received the maximum penalty, 3%, in 2021; it will lose 0.78% as of Oct. 1. In Flemington, N.J., the penalty for Hunterdon Medical Center is dropping from 2.29% to 0.12%.

To limit penalties, many hospitals in recent years have instituted new strategies to keep former patients from needing a return visit. Robert Coates, MD, interim chief medical officer at Hunterdon Health, which owns Hunterdon Medical Center, said in a statement that the hospital set up a system to identify patients who visited the emergency room within 30 days of a hospital stay. Instead of readmitting them, Hunterdon helps them set up next-day appointments at a doctor’s office or home monitoring of their health. Hunterdon also calls all discharged patients to ensure they have filled their prescriptions and had a follow-up visit with a clinician within a week of leaving the hospital.

Jessica Satterfield, MD, director of quality and clinical excellence at St. Mary’s Health Care System, which operates St. Mary’s Hospital, said in a statement that the hospital identified patients at risk of readmission when they were first admitted and focused on making sure that their medications were correct and that they had follow-up visits. “We are proud that our efforts are bearing fruit in the form of greatly reduced penalties but, more importantly, as a reflection of the exceptional care our staff and medical staff provide to our patients,” Dr. Satterfield said.

Saint Joseph East did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Despite the changes, 43% of the nation’s 5,236 hospitals were penalized. Of the unpenalized, all but 770 were automatically exempted. The 2,193 exempted hospitals include those that specialize in children, psychiatric patients, or veterans. Rehabilitation and long-term care hospitals are also excluded from the program, as are critical access hospitals, which Medicare pays differently to help them stay open in areas with no other hospitals. The government also exempted Maryland hospitals because that state has a special payment arrangement with Medicare. Of the hospitals that Medicare assessed, 75% were penalized.

For the new fiscal year, Medicare also cited the pandemic in giving hospitals a reprieve from its other major quality-focused effort that assesses penalties: the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program. It slashes Medicare payments by 1% to the quarter of general hospitals with the highest rates of infections and other potentially preventable patient injuries. For the previous fiscal year, CMS punished 764 hospitals under that program. Those penalties – which would have cost hospitals an estimated $350 million in 2022 – will resume next fiscal year, with adjustments that better take COVID patients into account. CMS will also refine the readmissions penalty program to distinguish pneumonia patients from COVID patients.

“COVID has been a tremendously disruptive force for all aspects of health care, most certainly CMS’ quality measurement programs,” Mr. Demehin said. “It’s probably going to be a couple of volatile years for readmission penalties.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The federal government has eased its annual punishments for hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates in an acknowledgment of the upheaval the COVID-19 pandemic has caused, resulting in the lightest penalties since 2014.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program has been a mainstay of Medicare’s hospital payment system since it began in 2012. Created by the Affordable Care Act, the program evaluates the frequency with which Medicare patients at most hospitals return within 30 days and lowers future payments to hospitals that had a greater-than-expected rate of return. Hospitals can lose up to 3% of each Medicare payment for a year.

The pandemic threw hospitals into turmoil, inundating them with COVID patients while forcing many to postpone elective surgeries for months. When the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services evaluated hospitals’ previous 3 years of readmissions, as it does annually, the government decided to exclude the first half of 2020 because of the chaos caused by the pandemic. CMS also excluded from its calculations Medicare patients who were readmitted with pneumonia across all three years because of the difficulty in distinguishing them from patients with COVID.

Akin Demehin, senior director of quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association, said the changes were warranted. “The COVID pandemic did a lot of really unprecedented things to care patterns of hospitals,” he said.

After making those changes, CMS evaluated 2½ years of readmission cases for Medicare patients who’d had heart failure, heart attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery bypass grafts, and knee and hip replacements. As a result of its analysis, CMS penalized 2,273 hospitals, the fewest since the fiscal year that ended in September 2014, a KHN analysis found.

The average payment reduction was 0.43%, also the lowest since 2014. The reductions will be applied to each Medicare payment to the affected hospitals from Oct. 1 to next September and cost them $320 million over that 12-month period.

Some hospitals will see their penalties greatly reduced from 2021. The penalty on St. Mary’s Hospital in Athens, Ga., is dropping from 2.54% to 0.06%. Saint Joseph East in Lexington, Ky., received the maximum penalty, 3%, in 2021; it will lose 0.78% as of Oct. 1. In Flemington, N.J., the penalty for Hunterdon Medical Center is dropping from 2.29% to 0.12%.

To limit penalties, many hospitals in recent years have instituted new strategies to keep former patients from needing a return visit. Robert Coates, MD, interim chief medical officer at Hunterdon Health, which owns Hunterdon Medical Center, said in a statement that the hospital set up a system to identify patients who visited the emergency room within 30 days of a hospital stay. Instead of readmitting them, Hunterdon helps them set up next-day appointments at a doctor’s office or home monitoring of their health. Hunterdon also calls all discharged patients to ensure they have filled their prescriptions and had a follow-up visit with a clinician within a week of leaving the hospital.

Jessica Satterfield, MD, director of quality and clinical excellence at St. Mary’s Health Care System, which operates St. Mary’s Hospital, said in a statement that the hospital identified patients at risk of readmission when they were first admitted and focused on making sure that their medications were correct and that they had follow-up visits. “We are proud that our efforts are bearing fruit in the form of greatly reduced penalties but, more importantly, as a reflection of the exceptional care our staff and medical staff provide to our patients,” Dr. Satterfield said.

Saint Joseph East did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Despite the changes, 43% of the nation’s 5,236 hospitals were penalized. Of the unpenalized, all but 770 were automatically exempted. The 2,193 exempted hospitals include those that specialize in children, psychiatric patients, or veterans. Rehabilitation and long-term care hospitals are also excluded from the program, as are critical access hospitals, which Medicare pays differently to help them stay open in areas with no other hospitals. The government also exempted Maryland hospitals because that state has a special payment arrangement with Medicare. Of the hospitals that Medicare assessed, 75% were penalized.

For the new fiscal year, Medicare also cited the pandemic in giving hospitals a reprieve from its other major quality-focused effort that assesses penalties: the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program. It slashes Medicare payments by 1% to the quarter of general hospitals with the highest rates of infections and other potentially preventable patient injuries. For the previous fiscal year, CMS punished 764 hospitals under that program. Those penalties – which would have cost hospitals an estimated $350 million in 2022 – will resume next fiscal year, with adjustments that better take COVID patients into account. CMS will also refine the readmissions penalty program to distinguish pneumonia patients from COVID patients.

“COVID has been a tremendously disruptive force for all aspects of health care, most certainly CMS’ quality measurement programs,” Mr. Demehin said. “It’s probably going to be a couple of volatile years for readmission penalties.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Is health care a human right?

This year voters in Oregon are being asked to decide that. In the United States, health care isn’t guaranteed, as it is in many other countries.

It brings up some interesting questions. Should it be a right? Food, water, shelter, and oxygen aren’t, as far as I know, considered such. So why health care?

Probably the main argument against the idea is that, if it’s a right, shouldn’t the government (and therefore taxpayers) be tasked with paying for it all?

Good question, and not one that I can answer. If my neighbor refuses to buy insurance, then has a health crisis he can’t afford, why should I have to pay for his obstinacy and lack of foresight? Isn’t it his problem?

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

Is health care a human right?

This year voters in Oregon are being asked to decide that. In the United States, health care isn’t guaranteed, as it is in many other countries.

It brings up some interesting questions. Should it be a right? Food, water, shelter, and oxygen aren’t, as far as I know, considered such. So why health care?

Probably the main argument against the idea is that, if it’s a right, shouldn’t the government (and therefore taxpayers) be tasked with paying for it all?

Good question, and not one that I can answer. If my neighbor refuses to buy insurance, then has a health crisis he can’t afford, why should I have to pay for his obstinacy and lack of foresight? Isn’t it his problem?

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

Is health care a human right?

This year voters in Oregon are being asked to decide that. In the United States, health care isn’t guaranteed, as it is in many other countries.

It brings up some interesting questions. Should it be a right? Food, water, shelter, and oxygen aren’t, as far as I know, considered such. So why health care?

Probably the main argument against the idea is that, if it’s a right, shouldn’t the government (and therefore taxpayers) be tasked with paying for it all?

Good question, and not one that I can answer. If my neighbor refuses to buy insurance, then has a health crisis he can’t afford, why should I have to pay for his obstinacy and lack of foresight? Isn’t it his problem?

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

Researchers have identified a set of 42 genes that are associated with dyslexia, based on data from approximately 50,000 dyslexic individuals and 1 million controls.

Dyslexia occurs in 5%-17% of the general population, depending on the diagnostic criteria, and has been linked with speech and language disorders, as well as ADHD, Catherine Doust, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh and colleagues wrote.

However, previous studies of the genetics of dyslexia are limited, corresponding author Michelle Luciano, PhD, said in an interview. “So much progress has been made in understanding the genetics of behavior and health, but only a small genomewide study of dyslexia existed before ours.”

Currently, genetic testing for dyslexia alone is not done.

“You couldn’t order a genetic test for dyslexia unless it were part of another genetic panel,” according to Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

There are also known associations with some genes and autism, but none are definitive, and testing requires a workup of which a genetic panel may be a part. Such tests are expensive, and rarely covered by insurance, the pediatrician explained. 

Experts recommend genetic screening for every child with developmental delay, but most insurance won’t cover it, Dr. Lessin continued.

In the new genomewide association study published in Nature Genetics, the researchers reviewed data from 51,800 adults aged 18 years and older with a self-reported dyslexia diagnosis and 1,087,070 controls. All study participants are enrolled in ongoing research with 23andMe, the personal genetics company.

The researchers investigated the genetic correlations with reading and related skills and evaluated evidence for genes previously associated with dyslexia. The mean ages of the dyslexia cases and controls were 49.6 years and 51.7 years, respectively.

The researchers identified 42 independent genetic variants (genomewide significant loci) associated with dyslexia; 15 of these loci were in genes previously associated with cognitive ability and educational attainment, and 27 were newly identified as specifically associated with dyslexia. The researchers further determined that 12 of the newly identified genes were associated with proficiency in reading and spelling in English and European languages, and 1 in a Chinese-language population.

A polygenic risk score is a way to characterize an individual’s risk of developing a disease, based on the total number of genetic changes related to the disease; the researchers used this score to validate their results. Dyslexia polygenic scores were used to predict reading and spelling in additional population-based and reading disorder–enriched samples outside of the study population; these genetic measures explained up to 6% of variance in reading traits, the researchers noted. Ultimately, these scores may be a tool to help identify children with a predisposition for dyslexia so reading skills support can begin early.

The researchers also found that many of the genes associated with dyslexia are also associated with ADHD, (24% of dyslexia patients reporting ADHD vs. 9% of controls), and with a moderate correlation, which suggests possible shared genetic components for deficits in working memory and attention.

The study findings were limited by the inability to prove causality, and by the potential bias in the study sample, but were strengthened by the large study population, the researchers noted.
 

Potential implications for reading and spelling

“We were surprised that none of the previous dyslexia candidate genes were genomewide significant in our study; all of our discoveries were in new genes that had not been previously implicated in dyslexia,” Dr. Luciano said in an interview. “Some of these genes have been found to be associated with general cognitive ability, but most were novel and may represent genes specifically related to cognitive processes dominant in reading and spelling.

“We were also surprised that there was little genetic correlation (or overlap) with brain MRI variables, given that brain regions have been linked to reading skill. This suggests that the link is environmental in origin,” she added.

“Our results do not directly feed into clinical practice,” said Dr. Luciano. However, “the moderate genetic overlap with ADHD suggests that broader assessments of behavior are important when a child presents with dyslexia, as co-occurrence with other conditions might influence the intervention chosen. Asking about family history of dyslexia might also help in identification.

With more research, genetic studies may find a place in the clinical setting, said Dr. Luciano.  

“As genomewide association studies become larger and the findings more stable, genetic information might be used as an adjunct to what is known about the child’s environment and their performance on standardized tests of reading. The key advantage of genetic information is that it could allow much earlier identification of children who would benefit from extra learning support,” she said.

More research is needed to understand the interaction between genes and the environment, Dr. Luciano said. “It is essential that we understand what environmental learning support can minimize genetic predisposition to dyslexia.”
 

Too soon for clinical utility

The study findings are an important foundation for additional research, but not yet clinically useful, Dr. Lessin said in an interview.

“Dyslexia is a tough diagnosis,” that requires assessment by a developmental pediatrician or a pediatric neurologist and these specialists are often not accessible to many parents, Dr. Lessin noted.

In the current study, the researchers found a number of genes potentially associated with dyslexia, but the study does not prove causality, he emphasized. The findings simply mean that some of these genes may have something to do with dyslexia, and further research might identify a genetic cause.

“No one is going to make a diagnosis of dyslexia based on genes just yet,” said Dr. Lessin. In the meantime, clinicians should be aware that good research is being conducted, and that the genetic foundations for dyslexia are being explored.

Lead author Dr. Doust and corresponding author Dr. Luciano had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed support from the Max Planck Society (Germany), the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences Research of the Ministry of Education, and General Project of Shaanxi Natural Science Basic Research Program. Two coauthors are employed by and hold stock or stock options in 23andMe. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Researchers have identified a set of 42 genes that are associated with dyslexia, based on data from approximately 50,000 dyslexic individuals and 1 million controls.

Dyslexia occurs in 5%-17% of the general population, depending on the diagnostic criteria, and has been linked with speech and language disorders, as well as ADHD, Catherine Doust, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh and colleagues wrote.

However, previous studies of the genetics of dyslexia are limited, corresponding author Michelle Luciano, PhD, said in an interview. “So much progress has been made in understanding the genetics of behavior and health, but only a small genomewide study of dyslexia existed before ours.”

Currently, genetic testing for dyslexia alone is not done.

“You couldn’t order a genetic test for dyslexia unless it were part of another genetic panel,” according to Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

There are also known associations with some genes and autism, but none are definitive, and testing requires a workup of which a genetic panel may be a part. Such tests are expensive, and rarely covered by insurance, the pediatrician explained. 

Experts recommend genetic screening for every child with developmental delay, but most insurance won’t cover it, Dr. Lessin continued.

In the new genomewide association study published in Nature Genetics, the researchers reviewed data from 51,800 adults aged 18 years and older with a self-reported dyslexia diagnosis and 1,087,070 controls. All study participants are enrolled in ongoing research with 23andMe, the personal genetics company.

The researchers investigated the genetic correlations with reading and related skills and evaluated evidence for genes previously associated with dyslexia. The mean ages of the dyslexia cases and controls were 49.6 years and 51.7 years, respectively.

The researchers identified 42 independent genetic variants (genomewide significant loci) associated with dyslexia; 15 of these loci were in genes previously associated with cognitive ability and educational attainment, and 27 were newly identified as specifically associated with dyslexia. The researchers further determined that 12 of the newly identified genes were associated with proficiency in reading and spelling in English and European languages, and 1 in a Chinese-language population.

A polygenic risk score is a way to characterize an individual’s risk of developing a disease, based on the total number of genetic changes related to the disease; the researchers used this score to validate their results. Dyslexia polygenic scores were used to predict reading and spelling in additional population-based and reading disorder–enriched samples outside of the study population; these genetic measures explained up to 6% of variance in reading traits, the researchers noted. Ultimately, these scores may be a tool to help identify children with a predisposition for dyslexia so reading skills support can begin early.

The researchers also found that many of the genes associated with dyslexia are also associated with ADHD, (24% of dyslexia patients reporting ADHD vs. 9% of controls), and with a moderate correlation, which suggests possible shared genetic components for deficits in working memory and attention.

The study findings were limited by the inability to prove causality, and by the potential bias in the study sample, but were strengthened by the large study population, the researchers noted.
 

Potential implications for reading and spelling

“We were surprised that none of the previous dyslexia candidate genes were genomewide significant in our study; all of our discoveries were in new genes that had not been previously implicated in dyslexia,” Dr. Luciano said in an interview. “Some of these genes have been found to be associated with general cognitive ability, but most were novel and may represent genes specifically related to cognitive processes dominant in reading and spelling.

“We were also surprised that there was little genetic correlation (or overlap) with brain MRI variables, given that brain regions have been linked to reading skill. This suggests that the link is environmental in origin,” she added.

“Our results do not directly feed into clinical practice,” said Dr. Luciano. However, “the moderate genetic overlap with ADHD suggests that broader assessments of behavior are important when a child presents with dyslexia, as co-occurrence with other conditions might influence the intervention chosen. Asking about family history of dyslexia might also help in identification.

With more research, genetic studies may find a place in the clinical setting, said Dr. Luciano.  

“As genomewide association studies become larger and the findings more stable, genetic information might be used as an adjunct to what is known about the child’s environment and their performance on standardized tests of reading. The key advantage of genetic information is that it could allow much earlier identification of children who would benefit from extra learning support,” she said.

More research is needed to understand the interaction between genes and the environment, Dr. Luciano said. “It is essential that we understand what environmental learning support can minimize genetic predisposition to dyslexia.”
 

Too soon for clinical utility

The study findings are an important foundation for additional research, but not yet clinically useful, Dr. Lessin said in an interview.

“Dyslexia is a tough diagnosis,” that requires assessment by a developmental pediatrician or a pediatric neurologist and these specialists are often not accessible to many parents, Dr. Lessin noted.

In the current study, the researchers found a number of genes potentially associated with dyslexia, but the study does not prove causality, he emphasized. The findings simply mean that some of these genes may have something to do with dyslexia, and further research might identify a genetic cause.

“No one is going to make a diagnosis of dyslexia based on genes just yet,” said Dr. Lessin. In the meantime, clinicians should be aware that good research is being conducted, and that the genetic foundations for dyslexia are being explored.

Lead author Dr. Doust and corresponding author Dr. Luciano had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed support from the Max Planck Society (Germany), the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences Research of the Ministry of Education, and General Project of Shaanxi Natural Science Basic Research Program. Two coauthors are employed by and hold stock or stock options in 23andMe. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Researchers have identified a set of 42 genes that are associated with dyslexia, based on data from approximately 50,000 dyslexic individuals and 1 million controls.

Dyslexia occurs in 5%-17% of the general population, depending on the diagnostic criteria, and has been linked with speech and language disorders, as well as ADHD, Catherine Doust, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh and colleagues wrote.

However, previous studies of the genetics of dyslexia are limited, corresponding author Michelle Luciano, PhD, said in an interview. “So much progress has been made in understanding the genetics of behavior and health, but only a small genomewide study of dyslexia existed before ours.”

Currently, genetic testing for dyslexia alone is not done.

“You couldn’t order a genetic test for dyslexia unless it were part of another genetic panel,” according to Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

There are also known associations with some genes and autism, but none are definitive, and testing requires a workup of which a genetic panel may be a part. Such tests are expensive, and rarely covered by insurance, the pediatrician explained. 

Experts recommend genetic screening for every child with developmental delay, but most insurance won’t cover it, Dr. Lessin continued.

In the new genomewide association study published in Nature Genetics, the researchers reviewed data from 51,800 adults aged 18 years and older with a self-reported dyslexia diagnosis and 1,087,070 controls. All study participants are enrolled in ongoing research with 23andMe, the personal genetics company.

The researchers investigated the genetic correlations with reading and related skills and evaluated evidence for genes previously associated with dyslexia. The mean ages of the dyslexia cases and controls were 49.6 years and 51.7 years, respectively.

The researchers identified 42 independent genetic variants (genomewide significant loci) associated with dyslexia; 15 of these loci were in genes previously associated with cognitive ability and educational attainment, and 27 were newly identified as specifically associated with dyslexia. The researchers further determined that 12 of the newly identified genes were associated with proficiency in reading and spelling in English and European languages, and 1 in a Chinese-language population.

A polygenic risk score is a way to characterize an individual’s risk of developing a disease, based on the total number of genetic changes related to the disease; the researchers used this score to validate their results. Dyslexia polygenic scores were used to predict reading and spelling in additional population-based and reading disorder–enriched samples outside of the study population; these genetic measures explained up to 6% of variance in reading traits, the researchers noted. Ultimately, these scores may be a tool to help identify children with a predisposition for dyslexia so reading skills support can begin early.

The researchers also found that many of the genes associated with dyslexia are also associated with ADHD, (24% of dyslexia patients reporting ADHD vs. 9% of controls), and with a moderate correlation, which suggests possible shared genetic components for deficits in working memory and attention.

The study findings were limited by the inability to prove causality, and by the potential bias in the study sample, but were strengthened by the large study population, the researchers noted.
 

Potential implications for reading and spelling

“We were surprised that none of the previous dyslexia candidate genes were genomewide significant in our study; all of our discoveries were in new genes that had not been previously implicated in dyslexia,” Dr. Luciano said in an interview. “Some of these genes have been found to be associated with general cognitive ability, but most were novel and may represent genes specifically related to cognitive processes dominant in reading and spelling.

“We were also surprised that there was little genetic correlation (or overlap) with brain MRI variables, given that brain regions have been linked to reading skill. This suggests that the link is environmental in origin,” she added.

“Our results do not directly feed into clinical practice,” said Dr. Luciano. However, “the moderate genetic overlap with ADHD suggests that broader assessments of behavior are important when a child presents with dyslexia, as co-occurrence with other conditions might influence the intervention chosen. Asking about family history of dyslexia might also help in identification.

With more research, genetic studies may find a place in the clinical setting, said Dr. Luciano.  

“As genomewide association studies become larger and the findings more stable, genetic information might be used as an adjunct to what is known about the child’s environment and their performance on standardized tests of reading. The key advantage of genetic information is that it could allow much earlier identification of children who would benefit from extra learning support,” she said.

More research is needed to understand the interaction between genes and the environment, Dr. Luciano said. “It is essential that we understand what environmental learning support can minimize genetic predisposition to dyslexia.”
 

Too soon for clinical utility

The study findings are an important foundation for additional research, but not yet clinically useful, Dr. Lessin said in an interview.

“Dyslexia is a tough diagnosis,” that requires assessment by a developmental pediatrician or a pediatric neurologist and these specialists are often not accessible to many parents, Dr. Lessin noted.

In the current study, the researchers found a number of genes potentially associated with dyslexia, but the study does not prove causality, he emphasized. The findings simply mean that some of these genes may have something to do with dyslexia, and further research might identify a genetic cause.

“No one is going to make a diagnosis of dyslexia based on genes just yet,” said Dr. Lessin. In the meantime, clinicians should be aware that good research is being conducted, and that the genetic foundations for dyslexia are being explored.

Lead author Dr. Doust and corresponding author Dr. Luciano had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed support from the Max Planck Society (Germany), the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences Research of the Ministry of Education, and General Project of Shaanxi Natural Science Basic Research Program. Two coauthors are employed by and hold stock or stock options in 23andMe. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.