Business of Medicine

In an intensive push to fill acute workforce shortages, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is holding a “national onboarding surge event” the week of November 14. The goal is to get people who have already said yes to a job in the VA on that job more quickly. Every VA facility has been asked to submit a list of the highest-priority candidates, regardless of the position.

One of the most pressing reasons for getting more workers into the pipeline faster is that more and more veterans are entering VA care. As of October 1, tens of thousands of veterans will be eligible for VA health care, thanks to the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (PACT Act), passed in August, which expanded benefits for post-9/11 service members with illnesses due to toxic exposures.

Another reason is the need to fill the gaps left by attrition. In an October 19 press briefing, VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said the agency needs to hire about 52,000 employees per year just to keep up with the rate of health care professionals (HCPs) leaving the agency. At a September breakfast meeting with the Defense Writers Group, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said July 2022 marked the first month this year that the VA hired more nurses than it lost to retirement. He said the VA needs to hire 45,000 nurses over the next 3 years to keep up with attrition and growing demand for veteran care.

“We have to do a better job on hiring,” McDonough said. Streamlining the process is a major goal. Hiring rules loosened during the pandemic have since tightened back up. He pointed out that in many cases, the VA takes 90 to 100 days to onboard candidates and called the long-drawn-out process “being dragged through a bureaucratic morass.” During that time, he said, “They’re not being paid, they’re filling out paperwork… That’s disastrous.” In his press briefing, Elnahal said “we lose folks after we’ve made the selection” because the process is so long.

Moreover, the agency has a critical shortage not only of HCPs but the human resources professionals needed to fast-track the hirees’ progress. McDonough called it a “supply chain issue.” “We have the lowest ratio of human resource professionals per employee in the federal government by a long shot.” Partly, he said, because “a lot of our people end up hired away to other federal agencies.”

McDonough said the VA is also interested in transitioning more active-duty service members with in-demand skills, certifications, and talent into the VA workforce. “Cross-walking active duty into VA service much more aggressively,” he said, is another way to “grow that supply of ready, deployable, trained personnel.” The PACT Act gives the VA new incentives to entice workers, such as expanded recruitment, retention bonuses, and student loan repayment. The VA already provides training to about 1500 nurse and nurse residency programs across the VA, McDonough said but has plans for expanding to 5 times its current scope. He also addressed the question of a looming physician shortage: “Roughly 7 in 10 doctors in the United States will have had some portion of their training in a VA facility. We have to maintain that training function going forward.” The VA trains doctors, he added, “better than anybody else.”

The onboarding event will serve as a “national signal that we take this priority very seriously,” Elnahal said. “This will be not only a chance to have a step function improvement in the number of folks on board, which is an urgent priority, but to also set the groundwork for the more longitudinal work that we will need to do to improve the hiring process.”

Bulking up the workforce, he said, is “still far and away among our first priorities. Because if we don’t get our hospitals and facility staffed, it’s going to be a really hard effort to make process on the other priorities.”

In an intensive push to fill acute workforce shortages, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is holding a “national onboarding surge event” the week of November 14. The goal is to get people who have already said yes to a job in the VA on that job more quickly. Every VA facility has been asked to submit a list of the highest-priority candidates, regardless of the position.

One of the most pressing reasons for getting more workers into the pipeline faster is that more and more veterans are entering VA care. As of October 1, tens of thousands of veterans will be eligible for VA health care, thanks to the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (PACT Act), passed in August, which expanded benefits for post-9/11 service members with illnesses due to toxic exposures.

Another reason is the need to fill the gaps left by attrition. In an October 19 press briefing, VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said the agency needs to hire about 52,000 employees per year just to keep up with the rate of health care professionals (HCPs) leaving the agency. At a September breakfast meeting with the Defense Writers Group, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said July 2022 marked the first month this year that the VA hired more nurses than it lost to retirement. He said the VA needs to hire 45,000 nurses over the next 3 years to keep up with attrition and growing demand for veteran care.

“We have to do a better job on hiring,” McDonough said. Streamlining the process is a major goal. Hiring rules loosened during the pandemic have since tightened back up. He pointed out that in many cases, the VA takes 90 to 100 days to onboard candidates and called the long-drawn-out process “being dragged through a bureaucratic morass.” During that time, he said, “They’re not being paid, they’re filling out paperwork… That’s disastrous.” In his press briefing, Elnahal said “we lose folks after we’ve made the selection” because the process is so long.

Moreover, the agency has a critical shortage not only of HCPs but the human resources professionals needed to fast-track the hirees’ progress. McDonough called it a “supply chain issue.” “We have the lowest ratio of human resource professionals per employee in the federal government by a long shot.” Partly, he said, because “a lot of our people end up hired away to other federal agencies.”

McDonough said the VA is also interested in transitioning more active-duty service members with in-demand skills, certifications, and talent into the VA workforce. “Cross-walking active duty into VA service much more aggressively,” he said, is another way to “grow that supply of ready, deployable, trained personnel.” The PACT Act gives the VA new incentives to entice workers, such as expanded recruitment, retention bonuses, and student loan repayment. The VA already provides training to about 1500 nurse and nurse residency programs across the VA, McDonough said but has plans for expanding to 5 times its current scope. He also addressed the question of a looming physician shortage: “Roughly 7 in 10 doctors in the United States will have had some portion of their training in a VA facility. We have to maintain that training function going forward.” The VA trains doctors, he added, “better than anybody else.”

The onboarding event will serve as a “national signal that we take this priority very seriously,” Elnahal said. “This will be not only a chance to have a step function improvement in the number of folks on board, which is an urgent priority, but to also set the groundwork for the more longitudinal work that we will need to do to improve the hiring process.”

Bulking up the workforce, he said, is “still far and away among our first priorities. Because if we don’t get our hospitals and facility staffed, it’s going to be a really hard effort to make process on the other priorities.”

In an intensive push to fill acute workforce shortages, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is holding a “national onboarding surge event” the week of November 14. The goal is to get people who have already said yes to a job in the VA on that job more quickly. Every VA facility has been asked to submit a list of the highest-priority candidates, regardless of the position.

One of the most pressing reasons for getting more workers into the pipeline faster is that more and more veterans are entering VA care. As of October 1, tens of thousands of veterans will be eligible for VA health care, thanks to the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (PACT Act), passed in August, which expanded benefits for post-9/11 service members with illnesses due to toxic exposures.

Another reason is the need to fill the gaps left by attrition. In an October 19 press briefing, VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said the agency needs to hire about 52,000 employees per year just to keep up with the rate of health care professionals (HCPs) leaving the agency. At a September breakfast meeting with the Defense Writers Group, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said July 2022 marked the first month this year that the VA hired more nurses than it lost to retirement. He said the VA needs to hire 45,000 nurses over the next 3 years to keep up with attrition and growing demand for veteran care.

“We have to do a better job on hiring,” McDonough said. Streamlining the process is a major goal. Hiring rules loosened during the pandemic have since tightened back up. He pointed out that in many cases, the VA takes 90 to 100 days to onboard candidates and called the long-drawn-out process “being dragged through a bureaucratic morass.” During that time, he said, “They’re not being paid, they’re filling out paperwork… That’s disastrous.” In his press briefing, Elnahal said “we lose folks after we’ve made the selection” because the process is so long.

Moreover, the agency has a critical shortage not only of HCPs but the human resources professionals needed to fast-track the hirees’ progress. McDonough called it a “supply chain issue.” “We have the lowest ratio of human resource professionals per employee in the federal government by a long shot.” Partly, he said, because “a lot of our people end up hired away to other federal agencies.”

McDonough said the VA is also interested in transitioning more active-duty service members with in-demand skills, certifications, and talent into the VA workforce. “Cross-walking active duty into VA service much more aggressively,” he said, is another way to “grow that supply of ready, deployable, trained personnel.” The PACT Act gives the VA new incentives to entice workers, such as expanded recruitment, retention bonuses, and student loan repayment. The VA already provides training to about 1500 nurse and nurse residency programs across the VA, McDonough said but has plans for expanding to 5 times its current scope. He also addressed the question of a looming physician shortage: “Roughly 7 in 10 doctors in the United States will have had some portion of their training in a VA facility. We have to maintain that training function going forward.” The VA trains doctors, he added, “better than anybody else.”

The onboarding event will serve as a “national signal that we take this priority very seriously,” Elnahal said. “This will be not only a chance to have a step function improvement in the number of folks on board, which is an urgent priority, but to also set the groundwork for the more longitudinal work that we will need to do to improve the hiring process.”

Bulking up the workforce, he said, is “still far and away among our first priorities. Because if we don’t get our hospitals and facility staffed, it’s going to be a really hard effort to make process on the other priorities.”

DENVER – The top three social media platforms used by patients who seek aesthetic medical treatments in the United States are Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. However, in a recent survey, when asked if an aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively affects their desire to see that provider, 48% of patients were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% indicated yes.

Gerd Altmann/pixabay

Those are key findings from the survey, which aimed to evaluate the social media preferences and perceptions of patients who undergo aesthetic procedures.

“Aesthetic providers have firmly established a presence on social media,” Morgan Murphrey, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results. “According to the dermatology literature, somewhere between 25% and 50% of patients are looking up aesthetic providers on social media before they even see them in the clinic. This raises the question: How do patients perceive aesthetic providers that are on social media, and what do they want to see on their professional accounts?”

To find out, Dr. Murphrey, chief dermatology resident at the University of California, Davis, and Sabrina Fabi, MD, a San Diego–based cosmetic dermatologist, used Survey Monkey to randomly survey 2,063 individuals in the United States. They used descriptive statistics to analyze characteristics and responses of the study participants.

Of the 2,063 respondents, 651 (32%) indicated that they undergo medical aesthetic treatments including Botox injections, fillers, or laser procedures. More than half (56%) were women, 25% were 18-30 years old, 64% were 31-60 years old, and 11% were 61 years or older.

The three most common social media platforms they used were Facebook (70%), Instagram (65%), and YouTube (63%), followed by TikTok (45%) and Snapchat (29%). When the researchers stratified respondents by income level, individuals making $200,000 or more per year were statistically more likely to be on Instagram while those making less than $200,000 were more likely to be on Facebook and YouTube.

When asked if their aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively impacts their desire to see them as a patient, 48% of respondent were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% answered yes. “Only 2% felt strongly about this if the provider was on a specific social media platform, while 9% of respondents preferred that their provider not be on social media,” Dr. Murphrey added.

When asked if the number of social media followers influences their perception of an aesthetic provider as an expert, 43% of respondents answered no while 57% answered yes. “Once you get to about 20,000 followers, there seems to be somewhat of a law of diminishing returns in the number of followers,” she said. However, 55% indicated that they prefer to see a provider with a social media account that is verified with a blue check mark.

As for content published, 70% of respondents found it very important (36%) or important (34%) that a provider show before-and-after photos on their social media pages, while 67% said that they favor viewing personal content such as posts about the provider’s family and hobbies.

“This study summarizes to us that there is really low risk to creating a social media account; it’s something to think about,” Dr. Murphrey said. “Only 9% of respondents really didn’t want aesthetic providers to be on social media, but when we stratified our results, those individuals were less likely to be on social media themselves.”

Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the findings as important, “as the role of social media (especially visually based platforms like Instagram) will only continue to grow in our dermatologic and aesthetic practices.” Several studies have displayed a trend of plastic surgeons and other subspecialities outnumbering dermatologists within the aesthetic realm of social media, she noted. “As our patients increasingly seek out health care information and advice through these platforms, studies like Dr. Murphrey’s and Dr. Fabi’s are helpful in allowing us to better understand patient preferences and perspectives, in that we, as dermatologists, may be able to better aid their medical decisions in the future,” she added.

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER – The top three social media platforms used by patients who seek aesthetic medical treatments in the United States are Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. However, in a recent survey, when asked if an aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively affects their desire to see that provider, 48% of patients were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% indicated yes.

Gerd Altmann/pixabay

Those are key findings from the survey, which aimed to evaluate the social media preferences and perceptions of patients who undergo aesthetic procedures.

“Aesthetic providers have firmly established a presence on social media,” Morgan Murphrey, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results. “According to the dermatology literature, somewhere between 25% and 50% of patients are looking up aesthetic providers on social media before they even see them in the clinic. This raises the question: How do patients perceive aesthetic providers that are on social media, and what do they want to see on their professional accounts?”

To find out, Dr. Murphrey, chief dermatology resident at the University of California, Davis, and Sabrina Fabi, MD, a San Diego–based cosmetic dermatologist, used Survey Monkey to randomly survey 2,063 individuals in the United States. They used descriptive statistics to analyze characteristics and responses of the study participants.

Of the 2,063 respondents, 651 (32%) indicated that they undergo medical aesthetic treatments including Botox injections, fillers, or laser procedures. More than half (56%) were women, 25% were 18-30 years old, 64% were 31-60 years old, and 11% were 61 years or older.

The three most common social media platforms they used were Facebook (70%), Instagram (65%), and YouTube (63%), followed by TikTok (45%) and Snapchat (29%). When the researchers stratified respondents by income level, individuals making $200,000 or more per year were statistically more likely to be on Instagram while those making less than $200,000 were more likely to be on Facebook and YouTube.

When asked if their aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively impacts their desire to see them as a patient, 48% of respondent were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% answered yes. “Only 2% felt strongly about this if the provider was on a specific social media platform, while 9% of respondents preferred that their provider not be on social media,” Dr. Murphrey added.

When asked if the number of social media followers influences their perception of an aesthetic provider as an expert, 43% of respondents answered no while 57% answered yes. “Once you get to about 20,000 followers, there seems to be somewhat of a law of diminishing returns in the number of followers,” she said. However, 55% indicated that they prefer to see a provider with a social media account that is verified with a blue check mark.

As for content published, 70% of respondents found it very important (36%) or important (34%) that a provider show before-and-after photos on their social media pages, while 67% said that they favor viewing personal content such as posts about the provider’s family and hobbies.

“This study summarizes to us that there is really low risk to creating a social media account; it’s something to think about,” Dr. Murphrey said. “Only 9% of respondents really didn’t want aesthetic providers to be on social media, but when we stratified our results, those individuals were less likely to be on social media themselves.”

Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the findings as important, “as the role of social media (especially visually based platforms like Instagram) will only continue to grow in our dermatologic and aesthetic practices.” Several studies have displayed a trend of plastic surgeons and other subspecialities outnumbering dermatologists within the aesthetic realm of social media, she noted. “As our patients increasingly seek out health care information and advice through these platforms, studies like Dr. Murphrey’s and Dr. Fabi’s are helpful in allowing us to better understand patient preferences and perspectives, in that we, as dermatologists, may be able to better aid their medical decisions in the future,” she added.

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER – The top three social media platforms used by patients who seek aesthetic medical treatments in the United States are Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. However, in a recent survey, when asked if an aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively affects their desire to see that provider, 48% of patients were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% indicated yes.

Gerd Altmann/pixabay

Those are key findings from the survey, which aimed to evaluate the social media preferences and perceptions of patients who undergo aesthetic procedures.

“Aesthetic providers have firmly established a presence on social media,” Morgan Murphrey, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results. “According to the dermatology literature, somewhere between 25% and 50% of patients are looking up aesthetic providers on social media before they even see them in the clinic. This raises the question: How do patients perceive aesthetic providers that are on social media, and what do they want to see on their professional accounts?”

To find out, Dr. Murphrey, chief dermatology resident at the University of California, Davis, and Sabrina Fabi, MD, a San Diego–based cosmetic dermatologist, used Survey Monkey to randomly survey 2,063 individuals in the United States. They used descriptive statistics to analyze characteristics and responses of the study participants.

Of the 2,063 respondents, 651 (32%) indicated that they undergo medical aesthetic treatments including Botox injections, fillers, or laser procedures. More than half (56%) were women, 25% were 18-30 years old, 64% were 31-60 years old, and 11% were 61 years or older.

The three most common social media platforms they used were Facebook (70%), Instagram (65%), and YouTube (63%), followed by TikTok (45%) and Snapchat (29%). When the researchers stratified respondents by income level, individuals making $200,000 or more per year were statistically more likely to be on Instagram while those making less than $200,000 were more likely to be on Facebook and YouTube.

When asked if their aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively impacts their desire to see them as a patient, 48% of respondent were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% answered yes. “Only 2% felt strongly about this if the provider was on a specific social media platform, while 9% of respondents preferred that their provider not be on social media,” Dr. Murphrey added.

When asked if the number of social media followers influences their perception of an aesthetic provider as an expert, 43% of respondents answered no while 57% answered yes. “Once you get to about 20,000 followers, there seems to be somewhat of a law of diminishing returns in the number of followers,” she said. However, 55% indicated that they prefer to see a provider with a social media account that is verified with a blue check mark.

As for content published, 70% of respondents found it very important (36%) or important (34%) that a provider show before-and-after photos on their social media pages, while 67% said that they favor viewing personal content such as posts about the provider’s family and hobbies.

“This study summarizes to us that there is really low risk to creating a social media account; it’s something to think about,” Dr. Murphrey said. “Only 9% of respondents really didn’t want aesthetic providers to be on social media, but when we stratified our results, those individuals were less likely to be on social media themselves.”

Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the findings as important, “as the role of social media (especially visually based platforms like Instagram) will only continue to grow in our dermatologic and aesthetic practices.” Several studies have displayed a trend of plastic surgeons and other subspecialities outnumbering dermatologists within the aesthetic realm of social media, she noted. “As our patients increasingly seek out health care information and advice through these platforms, studies like Dr. Murphrey’s and Dr. Fabi’s are helpful in allowing us to better understand patient preferences and perspectives, in that we, as dermatologists, may be able to better aid their medical decisions in the future,” she added.

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having relevant financial disclosures.

Taking call is one of the more challenging - and annoying - aspects of the job for many physicians. Calls may wake them up in the middle of the night and can interfere with their at-home activities. In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report, 37% of respondents said they have from 1 to 5 hours of call per month; 19% said they have 6 to 10 hours; and 12% have 11 hours or more.

“Even if you don’t have to come in to the ED, you can get calls in the middle of the night, and you may get paid very little, if anything,” said Robert Bitterman MD, JD, an emergency physician and attorney in Harbor Springs, Mich.

And responding to the calls is not optional. Dr. Bitterman said if on-call physicians don’t perform their duties, they could lose their hospital privileges, be fined by the federal government, or be sued for malpractice.

On-call activities are regulated by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Dr. Bitterman said it’s rare for the federal government to prosecute on-call physicians for violating EMTALA. Instead, it’s more likely that the hospital will be fined for EMTALA violations committed by on-call physicians.

However, the hospital passes the on-call obligation on to individual physicians through medical staff bylaws. Physicians who violate the bylaws may have their privileges restricted or removed, Dr. Bitterman said. Physicians could also be sued for malpractice, even if they never treated the patient, he added.
 

After-hours call duty in physicians’ practices

A very different type of call duty is having to respond to calls from one’s own patients after regular hours. Unlike doctors on ED call, who usually deal with patients they have never met, these physicians deal with their established patients or those of a colleague in their practice.

Courts have established that physicians have to provide an answering service or other means for their patients to contact them after hours, and the doctor must respond to these calls in a timely manner.

In a 2015 Louisiana ruling, a cardiologist was found liable for malpractice because he didn’t respond to an after-hours call from his patient. The patient tried several times to contact the cardiologist but got no reply.

Physicians may also be responsible if their answering service does not send critical messages to them immediately, if it fails to make appropriate documentation, or if it sends inaccurate data to the doctor.
 

Cases when on-call doctors didn’t respond

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Health and Human Services Administration oversees federal EMTALA violations and regularly reports them.

In 2018, the OIG fined a hospital in Waterloo, Iowa, $90,000 when an on-call cardiologist failed to implant a pacemaker for an ED patient. According to the OIG’s report, the patient arrived at the hospital with heart problems. Reached by phone, the cardiologist directed the ED physician to begin transcutaneous pacing but asked that the patient be transferred to another hospital for placement of the pacemaker. The patient died after transfer.

The OIG found that the original cardiologist could have placed the pacemaker, but, as often happens, it only fined the hospital, not the on-call physician for the EMTALA violation.

EMTALA requires that hospitals provide on-call specialists to assist emergency physicians with care of patients who arrive in the ED. In specialties for which there are few doctors to choose from, the on-call specialist may be on duty every third night and every third weekend. This can be daunting, especially for specialists who’ve had a grueling day of work.

Occasionally, on-call physicians, fearful they could make a medical error, request that the patient be transferred to another hospital for treatment. This is what a neurosurgeon who was on call at a Topeka, Kan., hospital did in 2001. Transferred to another hospital, the patient underwent an operation but lost sensation in his lower extremities. The patient sued the on-call neurosurgeon for negligence.

During the trial, the on-call neurosurgeon testified that he was “feeling run-down because he had been an on-call physician every third night for more than 10 years.” He also said this was the first time he had refused to see a patient because of fatigue, and he had decided that the patient “would be better off at a trauma center that had a trauma team and a fresher surgeon.”

The neurosurgeon successfully defended the malpractice suit, but Dr. Bitterman said he might have lost had there not been some unusual circumstances in the case. The court ruled that the hospital had not clearly defined the duties of on-call physicians, and the lawsuit didn’t cite the neurosurgeon’s EMTALA duty.
 

On-call duties defined by EMTALA

EMTALA sets the overall rules for on-call duties, which each hospital is expected to fine-tune on the basis of its own particular circumstances. Here are some of those rules, issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the OIG.

Only an individual physician can be on call. The hospital’s on-call schedule cannot name a physician practice.

Call applies to all ED patients. Physicians cannot limit their on-call responsibilities to their own patients, to patients in their insurance network, or to paying patients.

There may be some gaps in the call schedule. The OIG is not specific as to how many gaps are allowed, said Nick Healey, an attorney in Cheyenne, Wyo., who has written about on-call duties. Among other things, adequate coverage depends on the number of available physicians and the demand for their services. Mr. Healey added that states may require more extensive availability of on-call physicians at high-level trauma centers.

Hospitals must have made arrangements for transfer. Whenever there is a gap in the schedule, hospitals need to have a designated hospital to send the patient to. Hospitals that unnecessarily transfer patients will be penalized.

The ED physician calls the shots. The emergency physician handling the case decides if the on-call doctor has to come in and treat the patient firsthand.

The on-call physician may delegate the work to others. On-call physicians may designate a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, but the on-call physician is ultimately responsible. The ED doctor may require the physician to come in anyway, according to Todd B. Taylor, MD, an emergency physician in Phoenix, who has written about on-call duties. Dr. Bitterman noted that the physician may designate a colleague to take their call, but the substitute has to have privileges at the hospital.

Physicians may do their own work while on call. Physicians can perform elective surgery while on call, provided they have made arrangements if they then become unavailable for duty, Dr. Taylor said. He added that physicians can also have simultaneous call at other hospitals, provided they make arrangements.
 

The hospital fine-tunes call obligations

The hospital is expected to further define the federal rules. For instance, the CMS says physicians should respond to calls within a “reasonable period of time” and requires hospitals to specify response times, which may be 15-30 minutes for responding to phone calls and traveling to the ED, Dr. Bitterman said.

The CMS says older physicians can be exempted from call. The hospital determines the age at which physicians can be exempted. “Hospitals typically exempt physicians over age 65 or 70, or when they have certain medical conditions,” said Lowell Brown, a Los Angeles attorney who deals with on-call duties.

The hospital also sets the call schedule, which may result in uncovered periods in specialties in which there are few physicians to draw from, according to Mr. Healey. He said many hospitals still use a simple rule of thumb, even though it has been dismissed by the CMS. Under this so-called “rule of three,” hospitals that have three doctors or fewer in a specialty do not have to provide constant call coverage.

On-call rules are part of the medical staff bylaws, and they have to be approved by the medical staff. This may require delicate negotiations between the staff’s leadership and administrators, Dr. Bitterman said.

It is often up to the emergency physician on duty to enforce the hospital’s on-call rules, Dr. Taylor said. “If the ED physician is having trouble, he or she may contact the on-call physician’s department chairman or, if necessary, the chief of the medical staff and ask that person to deal with the physician,” Dr. Taylor said.

The ED physician has to determine whether the patient needs to be transferred to another hospital. Dr. Taylor said the ED physician must fill out a transfer form and obtain consent from the receiving hospital.

If a patient has to be transferred because an on-call physician failed to appear, the originating hospital has to report this to the CMS, and the physician and the hospital can be cited for an inappropriate transfer and fined, Mr. Brown said. “The possibility of being identified in this way should be a powerful incentive to accept call duty,” he added.
 

Malpractice exposure of on-call physicians

When on-call doctors provide medical advice regarding an ED patient, that advice may be subject to malpractice litigation, Dr. Taylor said. “Even if you only give the ED doctor advice over the phone, that may establish a patient-physician relationship and a duty that patient can cite in a malpractice case,” he noted.

Refusing to take call may also be grounds for a malpractice lawsuit, Dr. Bitterman said. Refusing to see a patient would not be considered medical negligence, he continued, because no medical decision is made. Rather, it involves general negligence, which occurs when physicians fail to carry out duties expected of them.

Dr. Bitterman cited a 2006 malpractice judgment in which an on-call neurosurgeon in Missouri was found to be generally negligent. The neurosurgeon had arranged for a colleague in his practice to take his call, but the colleague did not have privileges at the hospital.

A patient with a brain bleed came in and the substitute was on duty. The patient had to be transferred to another hospital, where the patient died. The court ordered that the on-call doctor and the originating hospital had to split a fine of $400,800.
 

On-call physicians can be charged with abandonment

Dr. Bitterman said that if on-call physicians do not provide expected follow-up treatment for an ED patient, they could be charged with abandonment, which is a matter of state law and involves filing a malpractice lawsuit.

Abandonment involves unilaterally terminating the patient relationship without providing notice. There must be an established relationship, which, in the case of call, is formed when the doctor comes to the ED to examine or admit the patient, Dr. Bitterman said. He added that the on-call doctor’s obligation applies only to the medical condition the patient came in for.

Even when an on-call doctor does not see a patient, a relationship can be established if the hospital requires its on-call doctors to make follow-up visits for ED patients, Dr. Taylor said. At some hospitals, he said, on-call doctors have blanket agreements to provide follow-up care in return for not having to arrive in the middle of the night during the ED visit.

Dr. Taylor gave an example of the on-call doctor’s obligation: “The ED doctor puts a splint on the patient’s ankle fracture, and the orthopedic surgeon on call agrees to follow up with the patient within the next few days. If the orthopedic surgeon refuses to follow up without making a reasonable accommodation, it may become an issue of patient abandonment.”
 

Now everyone has a good grasp of the rules

Fifteen years ago, many doctors were in open revolt against on-call duties, but they are more accepting now and understand the rules better, Mr. Healey said.

“Many hospitals have begun paying some specialists for call and designating hospitalists and surgicalists to do at least some of the work that used to be expected of on-call doctors,” he said.

According to Dr. Taylor, today’s on-call doctors often have less to do than in the past. “For example,” he said, “the hospitalist may admit an orthopedic patient at night, and then the orthopedic surgeon does the operation the next day. We’ve had EMTALA for 36 years now, and hospitals and doctors know how call works.”

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

Taking call is one of the more challenging - and annoying - aspects of the job for many physicians. Calls may wake them up in the middle of the night and can interfere with their at-home activities. In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report, 37% of respondents said they have from 1 to 5 hours of call per month; 19% said they have 6 to 10 hours; and 12% have 11 hours or more.

“Even if you don’t have to come in to the ED, you can get calls in the middle of the night, and you may get paid very little, if anything,” said Robert Bitterman MD, JD, an emergency physician and attorney in Harbor Springs, Mich.

And responding to the calls is not optional. Dr. Bitterman said if on-call physicians don’t perform their duties, they could lose their hospital privileges, be fined by the federal government, or be sued for malpractice.

On-call activities are regulated by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Dr. Bitterman said it’s rare for the federal government to prosecute on-call physicians for violating EMTALA. Instead, it’s more likely that the hospital will be fined for EMTALA violations committed by on-call physicians.

However, the hospital passes the on-call obligation on to individual physicians through medical staff bylaws. Physicians who violate the bylaws may have their privileges restricted or removed, Dr. Bitterman said. Physicians could also be sued for malpractice, even if they never treated the patient, he added.
 

After-hours call duty in physicians’ practices

A very different type of call duty is having to respond to calls from one’s own patients after regular hours. Unlike doctors on ED call, who usually deal with patients they have never met, these physicians deal with their established patients or those of a colleague in their practice.

Courts have established that physicians have to provide an answering service or other means for their patients to contact them after hours, and the doctor must respond to these calls in a timely manner.

In a 2015 Louisiana ruling, a cardiologist was found liable for malpractice because he didn’t respond to an after-hours call from his patient. The patient tried several times to contact the cardiologist but got no reply.

Physicians may also be responsible if their answering service does not send critical messages to them immediately, if it fails to make appropriate documentation, or if it sends inaccurate data to the doctor.
 

Cases when on-call doctors didn’t respond

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Health and Human Services Administration oversees federal EMTALA violations and regularly reports them.

In 2018, the OIG fined a hospital in Waterloo, Iowa, $90,000 when an on-call cardiologist failed to implant a pacemaker for an ED patient. According to the OIG’s report, the patient arrived at the hospital with heart problems. Reached by phone, the cardiologist directed the ED physician to begin transcutaneous pacing but asked that the patient be transferred to another hospital for placement of the pacemaker. The patient died after transfer.

The OIG found that the original cardiologist could have placed the pacemaker, but, as often happens, it only fined the hospital, not the on-call physician for the EMTALA violation.

EMTALA requires that hospitals provide on-call specialists to assist emergency physicians with care of patients who arrive in the ED. In specialties for which there are few doctors to choose from, the on-call specialist may be on duty every third night and every third weekend. This can be daunting, especially for specialists who’ve had a grueling day of work.

Occasionally, on-call physicians, fearful they could make a medical error, request that the patient be transferred to another hospital for treatment. This is what a neurosurgeon who was on call at a Topeka, Kan., hospital did in 2001. Transferred to another hospital, the patient underwent an operation but lost sensation in his lower extremities. The patient sued the on-call neurosurgeon for negligence.

During the trial, the on-call neurosurgeon testified that he was “feeling run-down because he had been an on-call physician every third night for more than 10 years.” He also said this was the first time he had refused to see a patient because of fatigue, and he had decided that the patient “would be better off at a trauma center that had a trauma team and a fresher surgeon.”

The neurosurgeon successfully defended the malpractice suit, but Dr. Bitterman said he might have lost had there not been some unusual circumstances in the case. The court ruled that the hospital had not clearly defined the duties of on-call physicians, and the lawsuit didn’t cite the neurosurgeon’s EMTALA duty.
 

On-call duties defined by EMTALA

EMTALA sets the overall rules for on-call duties, which each hospital is expected to fine-tune on the basis of its own particular circumstances. Here are some of those rules, issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the OIG.

Only an individual physician can be on call. The hospital’s on-call schedule cannot name a physician practice.

Call applies to all ED patients. Physicians cannot limit their on-call responsibilities to their own patients, to patients in their insurance network, or to paying patients.

There may be some gaps in the call schedule. The OIG is not specific as to how many gaps are allowed, said Nick Healey, an attorney in Cheyenne, Wyo., who has written about on-call duties. Among other things, adequate coverage depends on the number of available physicians and the demand for their services. Mr. Healey added that states may require more extensive availability of on-call physicians at high-level trauma centers.

Hospitals must have made arrangements for transfer. Whenever there is a gap in the schedule, hospitals need to have a designated hospital to send the patient to. Hospitals that unnecessarily transfer patients will be penalized.

The ED physician calls the shots. The emergency physician handling the case decides if the on-call doctor has to come in and treat the patient firsthand.

The on-call physician may delegate the work to others. On-call physicians may designate a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, but the on-call physician is ultimately responsible. The ED doctor may require the physician to come in anyway, according to Todd B. Taylor, MD, an emergency physician in Phoenix, who has written about on-call duties. Dr. Bitterman noted that the physician may designate a colleague to take their call, but the substitute has to have privileges at the hospital.

Physicians may do their own work while on call. Physicians can perform elective surgery while on call, provided they have made arrangements if they then become unavailable for duty, Dr. Taylor said. He added that physicians can also have simultaneous call at other hospitals, provided they make arrangements.
 

The hospital fine-tunes call obligations

The hospital is expected to further define the federal rules. For instance, the CMS says physicians should respond to calls within a “reasonable period of time” and requires hospitals to specify response times, which may be 15-30 minutes for responding to phone calls and traveling to the ED, Dr. Bitterman said.

The CMS says older physicians can be exempted from call. The hospital determines the age at which physicians can be exempted. “Hospitals typically exempt physicians over age 65 or 70, or when they have certain medical conditions,” said Lowell Brown, a Los Angeles attorney who deals with on-call duties.

The hospital also sets the call schedule, which may result in uncovered periods in specialties in which there are few physicians to draw from, according to Mr. Healey. He said many hospitals still use a simple rule of thumb, even though it has been dismissed by the CMS. Under this so-called “rule of three,” hospitals that have three doctors or fewer in a specialty do not have to provide constant call coverage.

On-call rules are part of the medical staff bylaws, and they have to be approved by the medical staff. This may require delicate negotiations between the staff’s leadership and administrators, Dr. Bitterman said.

It is often up to the emergency physician on duty to enforce the hospital’s on-call rules, Dr. Taylor said. “If the ED physician is having trouble, he or she may contact the on-call physician’s department chairman or, if necessary, the chief of the medical staff and ask that person to deal with the physician,” Dr. Taylor said.

The ED physician has to determine whether the patient needs to be transferred to another hospital. Dr. Taylor said the ED physician must fill out a transfer form and obtain consent from the receiving hospital.

If a patient has to be transferred because an on-call physician failed to appear, the originating hospital has to report this to the CMS, and the physician and the hospital can be cited for an inappropriate transfer and fined, Mr. Brown said. “The possibility of being identified in this way should be a powerful incentive to accept call duty,” he added.
 

Malpractice exposure of on-call physicians

When on-call doctors provide medical advice regarding an ED patient, that advice may be subject to malpractice litigation, Dr. Taylor said. “Even if you only give the ED doctor advice over the phone, that may establish a patient-physician relationship and a duty that patient can cite in a malpractice case,” he noted.

Refusing to take call may also be grounds for a malpractice lawsuit, Dr. Bitterman said. Refusing to see a patient would not be considered medical negligence, he continued, because no medical decision is made. Rather, it involves general negligence, which occurs when physicians fail to carry out duties expected of them.

Dr. Bitterman cited a 2006 malpractice judgment in which an on-call neurosurgeon in Missouri was found to be generally negligent. The neurosurgeon had arranged for a colleague in his practice to take his call, but the colleague did not have privileges at the hospital.

A patient with a brain bleed came in and the substitute was on duty. The patient had to be transferred to another hospital, where the patient died. The court ordered that the on-call doctor and the originating hospital had to split a fine of $400,800.
 

On-call physicians can be charged with abandonment

Dr. Bitterman said that if on-call physicians do not provide expected follow-up treatment for an ED patient, they could be charged with abandonment, which is a matter of state law and involves filing a malpractice lawsuit.

Abandonment involves unilaterally terminating the patient relationship without providing notice. There must be an established relationship, which, in the case of call, is formed when the doctor comes to the ED to examine or admit the patient, Dr. Bitterman said. He added that the on-call doctor’s obligation applies only to the medical condition the patient came in for.

Even when an on-call doctor does not see a patient, a relationship can be established if the hospital requires its on-call doctors to make follow-up visits for ED patients, Dr. Taylor said. At some hospitals, he said, on-call doctors have blanket agreements to provide follow-up care in return for not having to arrive in the middle of the night during the ED visit.

Dr. Taylor gave an example of the on-call doctor’s obligation: “The ED doctor puts a splint on the patient’s ankle fracture, and the orthopedic surgeon on call agrees to follow up with the patient within the next few days. If the orthopedic surgeon refuses to follow up without making a reasonable accommodation, it may become an issue of patient abandonment.”
 

Now everyone has a good grasp of the rules

Fifteen years ago, many doctors were in open revolt against on-call duties, but they are more accepting now and understand the rules better, Mr. Healey said.

“Many hospitals have begun paying some specialists for call and designating hospitalists and surgicalists to do at least some of the work that used to be expected of on-call doctors,” he said.

According to Dr. Taylor, today’s on-call doctors often have less to do than in the past. “For example,” he said, “the hospitalist may admit an orthopedic patient at night, and then the orthopedic surgeon does the operation the next day. We’ve had EMTALA for 36 years now, and hospitals and doctors know how call works.”

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

Taking call is one of the more challenging - and annoying - aspects of the job for many physicians. Calls may wake them up in the middle of the night and can interfere with their at-home activities. In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report, 37% of respondents said they have from 1 to 5 hours of call per month; 19% said they have 6 to 10 hours; and 12% have 11 hours or more.

“Even if you don’t have to come in to the ED, you can get calls in the middle of the night, and you may get paid very little, if anything,” said Robert Bitterman MD, JD, an emergency physician and attorney in Harbor Springs, Mich.

And responding to the calls is not optional. Dr. Bitterman said if on-call physicians don’t perform their duties, they could lose their hospital privileges, be fined by the federal government, or be sued for malpractice.

On-call activities are regulated by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Dr. Bitterman said it’s rare for the federal government to prosecute on-call physicians for violating EMTALA. Instead, it’s more likely that the hospital will be fined for EMTALA violations committed by on-call physicians.

However, the hospital passes the on-call obligation on to individual physicians through medical staff bylaws. Physicians who violate the bylaws may have their privileges restricted or removed, Dr. Bitterman said. Physicians could also be sued for malpractice, even if they never treated the patient, he added.
 

After-hours call duty in physicians’ practices

A very different type of call duty is having to respond to calls from one’s own patients after regular hours. Unlike doctors on ED call, who usually deal with patients they have never met, these physicians deal with their established patients or those of a colleague in their practice.

Courts have established that physicians have to provide an answering service or other means for their patients to contact them after hours, and the doctor must respond to these calls in a timely manner.

In a 2015 Louisiana ruling, a cardiologist was found liable for malpractice because he didn’t respond to an after-hours call from his patient. The patient tried several times to contact the cardiologist but got no reply.

Physicians may also be responsible if their answering service does not send critical messages to them immediately, if it fails to make appropriate documentation, or if it sends inaccurate data to the doctor.
 

Cases when on-call doctors didn’t respond

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Health and Human Services Administration oversees federal EMTALA violations and regularly reports them.

In 2018, the OIG fined a hospital in Waterloo, Iowa, $90,000 when an on-call cardiologist failed to implant a pacemaker for an ED patient. According to the OIG’s report, the patient arrived at the hospital with heart problems. Reached by phone, the cardiologist directed the ED physician to begin transcutaneous pacing but asked that the patient be transferred to another hospital for placement of the pacemaker. The patient died after transfer.

The OIG found that the original cardiologist could have placed the pacemaker, but, as often happens, it only fined the hospital, not the on-call physician for the EMTALA violation.

EMTALA requires that hospitals provide on-call specialists to assist emergency physicians with care of patients who arrive in the ED. In specialties for which there are few doctors to choose from, the on-call specialist may be on duty every third night and every third weekend. This can be daunting, especially for specialists who’ve had a grueling day of work.

Occasionally, on-call physicians, fearful they could make a medical error, request that the patient be transferred to another hospital for treatment. This is what a neurosurgeon who was on call at a Topeka, Kan., hospital did in 2001. Transferred to another hospital, the patient underwent an operation but lost sensation in his lower extremities. The patient sued the on-call neurosurgeon for negligence.

During the trial, the on-call neurosurgeon testified that he was “feeling run-down because he had been an on-call physician every third night for more than 10 years.” He also said this was the first time he had refused to see a patient because of fatigue, and he had decided that the patient “would be better off at a trauma center that had a trauma team and a fresher surgeon.”

The neurosurgeon successfully defended the malpractice suit, but Dr. Bitterman said he might have lost had there not been some unusual circumstances in the case. The court ruled that the hospital had not clearly defined the duties of on-call physicians, and the lawsuit didn’t cite the neurosurgeon’s EMTALA duty.
 

On-call duties defined by EMTALA

EMTALA sets the overall rules for on-call duties, which each hospital is expected to fine-tune on the basis of its own particular circumstances. Here are some of those rules, issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the OIG.

Only an individual physician can be on call. The hospital’s on-call schedule cannot name a physician practice.

Call applies to all ED patients. Physicians cannot limit their on-call responsibilities to their own patients, to patients in their insurance network, or to paying patients.

There may be some gaps in the call schedule. The OIG is not specific as to how many gaps are allowed, said Nick Healey, an attorney in Cheyenne, Wyo., who has written about on-call duties. Among other things, adequate coverage depends on the number of available physicians and the demand for their services. Mr. Healey added that states may require more extensive availability of on-call physicians at high-level trauma centers.

Hospitals must have made arrangements for transfer. Whenever there is a gap in the schedule, hospitals need to have a designated hospital to send the patient to. Hospitals that unnecessarily transfer patients will be penalized.

The ED physician calls the shots. The emergency physician handling the case decides if the on-call doctor has to come in and treat the patient firsthand.

The on-call physician may delegate the work to others. On-call physicians may designate a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, but the on-call physician is ultimately responsible. The ED doctor may require the physician to come in anyway, according to Todd B. Taylor, MD, an emergency physician in Phoenix, who has written about on-call duties. Dr. Bitterman noted that the physician may designate a colleague to take their call, but the substitute has to have privileges at the hospital.

Physicians may do their own work while on call. Physicians can perform elective surgery while on call, provided they have made arrangements if they then become unavailable for duty, Dr. Taylor said. He added that physicians can also have simultaneous call at other hospitals, provided they make arrangements.
 

The hospital fine-tunes call obligations

The hospital is expected to further define the federal rules. For instance, the CMS says physicians should respond to calls within a “reasonable period of time” and requires hospitals to specify response times, which may be 15-30 minutes for responding to phone calls and traveling to the ED, Dr. Bitterman said.

The CMS says older physicians can be exempted from call. The hospital determines the age at which physicians can be exempted. “Hospitals typically exempt physicians over age 65 or 70, or when they have certain medical conditions,” said Lowell Brown, a Los Angeles attorney who deals with on-call duties.

The hospital also sets the call schedule, which may result in uncovered periods in specialties in which there are few physicians to draw from, according to Mr. Healey. He said many hospitals still use a simple rule of thumb, even though it has been dismissed by the CMS. Under this so-called “rule of three,” hospitals that have three doctors or fewer in a specialty do not have to provide constant call coverage.

On-call rules are part of the medical staff bylaws, and they have to be approved by the medical staff. This may require delicate negotiations between the staff’s leadership and administrators, Dr. Bitterman said.

It is often up to the emergency physician on duty to enforce the hospital’s on-call rules, Dr. Taylor said. “If the ED physician is having trouble, he or she may contact the on-call physician’s department chairman or, if necessary, the chief of the medical staff and ask that person to deal with the physician,” Dr. Taylor said.

The ED physician has to determine whether the patient needs to be transferred to another hospital. Dr. Taylor said the ED physician must fill out a transfer form and obtain consent from the receiving hospital.

If a patient has to be transferred because an on-call physician failed to appear, the originating hospital has to report this to the CMS, and the physician and the hospital can be cited for an inappropriate transfer and fined, Mr. Brown said. “The possibility of being identified in this way should be a powerful incentive to accept call duty,” he added.
 

Malpractice exposure of on-call physicians

When on-call doctors provide medical advice regarding an ED patient, that advice may be subject to malpractice litigation, Dr. Taylor said. “Even if you only give the ED doctor advice over the phone, that may establish a patient-physician relationship and a duty that patient can cite in a malpractice case,” he noted.

Refusing to take call may also be grounds for a malpractice lawsuit, Dr. Bitterman said. Refusing to see a patient would not be considered medical negligence, he continued, because no medical decision is made. Rather, it involves general negligence, which occurs when physicians fail to carry out duties expected of them.

Dr. Bitterman cited a 2006 malpractice judgment in which an on-call neurosurgeon in Missouri was found to be generally negligent. The neurosurgeon had arranged for a colleague in his practice to take his call, but the colleague did not have privileges at the hospital.

A patient with a brain bleed came in and the substitute was on duty. The patient had to be transferred to another hospital, where the patient died. The court ordered that the on-call doctor and the originating hospital had to split a fine of $400,800.
 

On-call physicians can be charged with abandonment

Dr. Bitterman said that if on-call physicians do not provide expected follow-up treatment for an ED patient, they could be charged with abandonment, which is a matter of state law and involves filing a malpractice lawsuit.

Abandonment involves unilaterally terminating the patient relationship without providing notice. There must be an established relationship, which, in the case of call, is formed when the doctor comes to the ED to examine or admit the patient, Dr. Bitterman said. He added that the on-call doctor’s obligation applies only to the medical condition the patient came in for.

Even when an on-call doctor does not see a patient, a relationship can be established if the hospital requires its on-call doctors to make follow-up visits for ED patients, Dr. Taylor said. At some hospitals, he said, on-call doctors have blanket agreements to provide follow-up care in return for not having to arrive in the middle of the night during the ED visit.

Dr. Taylor gave an example of the on-call doctor’s obligation: “The ED doctor puts a splint on the patient’s ankle fracture, and the orthopedic surgeon on call agrees to follow up with the patient within the next few days. If the orthopedic surgeon refuses to follow up without making a reasonable accommodation, it may become an issue of patient abandonment.”
 

Now everyone has a good grasp of the rules

Fifteen years ago, many doctors were in open revolt against on-call duties, but they are more accepting now and understand the rules better, Mr. Healey said.

“Many hospitals have begun paying some specialists for call and designating hospitalists and surgicalists to do at least some of the work that used to be expected of on-call doctors,” he said.

According to Dr. Taylor, today’s on-call doctors often have less to do than in the past. “For example,” he said, “the hospitalist may admit an orthopedic patient at night, and then the orthopedic surgeon does the operation the next day. We’ve had EMTALA for 36 years now, and hospitals and doctors know how call works.”

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

Psychiatric patients with impaired communication abilities were significantly more likely to be admitted involuntarily to inpatient care and to experience coercive measures after admission, based on data from more than 1,500 individuals.

Despite improvements in reducing coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient care, both involuntary admission and coercive measures remain in use in many countries worldwide, wrote Celline Cole, MSc, a doctoral candidate at Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, and colleagues. Such measures are considered “severe violations of a person’s rights to self-determination and personal freedom,” they wrote.

Previous studies have identified characteristics that increase the risk of involuntary inpatient admission, but the association between patients’ communication ability and coercive measures has not been explored, they noted.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,556 adults who were admitted to psychiatric inpatient care at a single center in Germany in 2019. Patients’ communication ability was defined and recorded as one of the following: perfect; limited because of language or other reasons; or impossible because of language or other reasons (no communication).

Overall, 23% of patients were admitted involuntarily; the most common reasons for referral to inpatient care in the study population were physical aggression against individuals (8%) or objects (4%), and verbal aggression (7%). A total of 1,085 patients (70%) were able or willing to communicate.

Patients with limited or no communication ability because of language issues were three to four times more likely to be admitted involuntarily (odds ratios, 3.08 and 4.02, respectively), while those with limited or no communication ability because of nonlanguage issues were even more likely to be admitted involuntarily (ORs, 3.10 and 13.71, respectively), compared with patients without communication problems.

Patients with limited communication ability because of language issues also were significantly more likely than those without communication issues to experience coercive measures (OR, 4.53), as were patients with either limited or no communication ability because of no-language issues (ORs, 1.58 and 3.55, respectively).

Involuntary admission was defined as provisional detention, detention initiated by the patient’s legal guardian followed by a court order, or detention by court order “according to the Mental Health Law of the State of Berlin,” the researchers said. The average length of inpatient stay was 19 days. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 96 years, with a mean age of 41.5 years, and 63% identified as male. Approximately two-thirds (62%) were unemployed or job-seeking during their treatment period, 38% were living alone, and 17% were homeless.

Although most of the study population (84%) was of German nationality, nearly half (48%) had a first- or second-generation migration background, the researchers noted.

“When thinking about effectively targeting this issue it is crucial to consider the different reasons why patients are limited in their ability to communicate,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Considering the rising numbers of refugees and persons with a migration background in Germany and many other countries worldwide, it is likely that more and more individuals with a language barrier will present at psychiatric emergency rooms,” they emphasized.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the relatively small number of patients with limitations or complete inability to communicate, and the use of data from a single hospital, and the incomplete data on nonlanguage reasons for limited or no communication ability, the researchers noted. Future studies should include more complete measures for recording these reasons, and data on forced medication, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the range of sociodemographic, clinical, and admission-related variables in a large and representative sample, and highlight the need for appropriate interventions for patients with communication challenges, they said.

“Adequate financial and human resources need to be allocated to psychiatric hospitals that allow for high quality, available, and accessible interpretation services as well as mobilization of patients’ support networks during and after admission,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Psychiatric patients with impaired communication abilities were significantly more likely to be admitted involuntarily to inpatient care and to experience coercive measures after admission, based on data from more than 1,500 individuals.

Despite improvements in reducing coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient care, both involuntary admission and coercive measures remain in use in many countries worldwide, wrote Celline Cole, MSc, a doctoral candidate at Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, and colleagues. Such measures are considered “severe violations of a person’s rights to self-determination and personal freedom,” they wrote.

Previous studies have identified characteristics that increase the risk of involuntary inpatient admission, but the association between patients’ communication ability and coercive measures has not been explored, they noted.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,556 adults who were admitted to psychiatric inpatient care at a single center in Germany in 2019. Patients’ communication ability was defined and recorded as one of the following: perfect; limited because of language or other reasons; or impossible because of language or other reasons (no communication).

Overall, 23% of patients were admitted involuntarily; the most common reasons for referral to inpatient care in the study population were physical aggression against individuals (8%) or objects (4%), and verbal aggression (7%). A total of 1,085 patients (70%) were able or willing to communicate.

Patients with limited or no communication ability because of language issues were three to four times more likely to be admitted involuntarily (odds ratios, 3.08 and 4.02, respectively), while those with limited or no communication ability because of nonlanguage issues were even more likely to be admitted involuntarily (ORs, 3.10 and 13.71, respectively), compared with patients without communication problems.

Patients with limited communication ability because of language issues also were significantly more likely than those without communication issues to experience coercive measures (OR, 4.53), as were patients with either limited or no communication ability because of no-language issues (ORs, 1.58 and 3.55, respectively).

Involuntary admission was defined as provisional detention, detention initiated by the patient’s legal guardian followed by a court order, or detention by court order “according to the Mental Health Law of the State of Berlin,” the researchers said. The average length of inpatient stay was 19 days. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 96 years, with a mean age of 41.5 years, and 63% identified as male. Approximately two-thirds (62%) were unemployed or job-seeking during their treatment period, 38% were living alone, and 17% were homeless.

Although most of the study population (84%) was of German nationality, nearly half (48%) had a first- or second-generation migration background, the researchers noted.

“When thinking about effectively targeting this issue it is crucial to consider the different reasons why patients are limited in their ability to communicate,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Considering the rising numbers of refugees and persons with a migration background in Germany and many other countries worldwide, it is likely that more and more individuals with a language barrier will present at psychiatric emergency rooms,” they emphasized.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the relatively small number of patients with limitations or complete inability to communicate, and the use of data from a single hospital, and the incomplete data on nonlanguage reasons for limited or no communication ability, the researchers noted. Future studies should include more complete measures for recording these reasons, and data on forced medication, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the range of sociodemographic, clinical, and admission-related variables in a large and representative sample, and highlight the need for appropriate interventions for patients with communication challenges, they said.

“Adequate financial and human resources need to be allocated to psychiatric hospitals that allow for high quality, available, and accessible interpretation services as well as mobilization of patients’ support networks during and after admission,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Psychiatric patients with impaired communication abilities were significantly more likely to be admitted involuntarily to inpatient care and to experience coercive measures after admission, based on data from more than 1,500 individuals.

Despite improvements in reducing coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient care, both involuntary admission and coercive measures remain in use in many countries worldwide, wrote Celline Cole, MSc, a doctoral candidate at Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, and colleagues. Such measures are considered “severe violations of a person’s rights to self-determination and personal freedom,” they wrote.

Previous studies have identified characteristics that increase the risk of involuntary inpatient admission, but the association between patients’ communication ability and coercive measures has not been explored, they noted.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,556 adults who were admitted to psychiatric inpatient care at a single center in Germany in 2019. Patients’ communication ability was defined and recorded as one of the following: perfect; limited because of language or other reasons; or impossible because of language or other reasons (no communication).

Overall, 23% of patients were admitted involuntarily; the most common reasons for referral to inpatient care in the study population were physical aggression against individuals (8%) or objects (4%), and verbal aggression (7%). A total of 1,085 patients (70%) were able or willing to communicate.

Patients with limited or no communication ability because of language issues were three to four times more likely to be admitted involuntarily (odds ratios, 3.08 and 4.02, respectively), while those with limited or no communication ability because of nonlanguage issues were even more likely to be admitted involuntarily (ORs, 3.10 and 13.71, respectively), compared with patients without communication problems.

Patients with limited communication ability because of language issues also were significantly more likely than those without communication issues to experience coercive measures (OR, 4.53), as were patients with either limited or no communication ability because of no-language issues (ORs, 1.58 and 3.55, respectively).

Involuntary admission was defined as provisional detention, detention initiated by the patient’s legal guardian followed by a court order, or detention by court order “according to the Mental Health Law of the State of Berlin,” the researchers said. The average length of inpatient stay was 19 days. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 96 years, with a mean age of 41.5 years, and 63% identified as male. Approximately two-thirds (62%) were unemployed or job-seeking during their treatment period, 38% were living alone, and 17% were homeless.

Although most of the study population (84%) was of German nationality, nearly half (48%) had a first- or second-generation migration background, the researchers noted.

“When thinking about effectively targeting this issue it is crucial to consider the different reasons why patients are limited in their ability to communicate,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Considering the rising numbers of refugees and persons with a migration background in Germany and many other countries worldwide, it is likely that more and more individuals with a language barrier will present at psychiatric emergency rooms,” they emphasized.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the relatively small number of patients with limitations or complete inability to communicate, and the use of data from a single hospital, and the incomplete data on nonlanguage reasons for limited or no communication ability, the researchers noted. Future studies should include more complete measures for recording these reasons, and data on forced medication, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the range of sociodemographic, clinical, and admission-related variables in a large and representative sample, and highlight the need for appropriate interventions for patients with communication challenges, they said.

“Adequate financial and human resources need to be allocated to psychiatric hospitals that allow for high quality, available, and accessible interpretation services as well as mobilization of patients’ support networks during and after admission,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

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

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

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

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

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

When 32-year-old Brittany Dicks was diagnosed with stage II triple negative breast cancer in January 2022, she wasn’t worried about the cost of treatment. A medical assistant in Charleston, S.C., Ms. Dicks had full-time employment with health benefits.

But when she wasn’t able to work for several months because of chemotherapy and its side effects, Ms. Dicks lost her job. Her health insurance coverage ended in May. And although she filed for Medicaid at the beginning of June, it wasn’t approved until September.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dicks still needed treatment. She estimates that she ran up close to $20,000 in medical debt while finishing chemotherapy during the 4 months she was uninsured.

The surgeon she had seen since her diagnosis terminated her care when she could no longer pay her bills. That left her delaying a much-needed mastectomy.

“I don’t sleep at night,” said Ms. Dicks, a single mother of two young kids, ages 3 and 11. “Mentally, I’m drained. Just because I have cancer, doesn’t mean the bills aren’t due every month.”

As soon as she felt well enough over the summer, she started working as a part-time delivery driver for DoorDash to help pay for food and gas.

But that was just a Band-Aid. Even when her new insurance kicked in, covering the costs of daily life remained a struggle.

Ms. Dicks is still in deep medical debt. Her Medicaid has covered new medical expenses, and she hopes Medicaid will reimburse her for the debt she incurred over the summer while she waited for her coverage to kick in. So far, though, Medicaid has not touched her $20,000 debt.

“I fear that I’m not going to be able to dig out of this hole,” Ms. Dicks said.

Researchers who study the financial impacts of cancer have a term for Ms. Dicks’ experience: financial toxicity.

Financial toxicity is a catchall term for the burden many Americans with cancer experience.

“Financial toxicity is a multidimensional concept. There’s both a material burden and a psychosocial one,” said Grace Li Smith, MD, PhD, MPH, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Financial toxicity encompasses the direct costs of medical care, including copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications as well as the indirect costs from loss of income or savings associated with cancer care.

Researchers are also now beginning to understand the psychological effects these financial burdens can have on patients and their family.

“Financial toxicity is not unique to the patient,” said Dr. Li Smith. It “very directly impacts the whole family or household.”
 

Stifling financial pressures

Early in her career, Dr. Li Smith was already seeing how her patients’ worries extended beyond their physical disease.

One of Dr. Li Smith’s first patients told her their greatest worry wasn’t whether the treatment would work or what physical toxicity to expect, it was how they would pay for their care.

“There was much more anxiety and true distress about the financial burden than about the treatment itself,” Dr. Li Smith recalled.

This fear about the costs of cancer care is well founded. In the United States, cancer treatment costs reached an estimated $150 billion in 2020 and continue to rise. Patients shoulder a significant portion of that burden – with one study estimating that patients paid $21 billion for their cancer care in 2019.

The burden is often compounded by decreased income. Between 40% and 85% of patients with cancer needed to take time off work or quit their jobs during treatment. And for those, like Dicks, who find themselves with no insurance, out-of-pocket costs can quickly skyrocket.

In fact, one study of newly diagnosed cancer patients over age 50 reported that more than 42% of patients fully depleted their financial assets and around 30% incurred debt by the second year of their diagnosis.

Younger adults may be even more financially vulnerable. A study of patients in Washington found that those under 65 – which represent about half of cancer cases – were two to five times more likely to declare bankruptcy than patients over 65.

Dr. Li Smith and colleagues have found that younger patients aged 18-64 experienced greater monetary hardships, which meant less money for food, worse adherence to medications, as well as greater distress and anxiety overall. In fact, younger adults were over 4.5 times more likely to encounter severe financial toxicity, compared with older adults, and about 4 times more likely to experience severe psychological effects from this burden.

The distress, if left unchecked, can spiral out of control.

Molly MacDonald had just gone through a financially devastating divorce in 2005 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Recently out of work and dealing with a $1,300 monthly COBRA premium, the mother of five had no financial safety net. She risked having her car repossessed and her utilities shut off.

“I gave tentative thought to how I could take my life and make it look like an accident,” said Ms. MacDonald. “I thought the kids would be better off without me.”

For some, the loss of income can be even more worrisome than the medical bills. Some patients may go back to work during treatment, often against medical advice.

When Stephanie Caputo, 43, of Monroe, N.J., began treatment for stage III breast cancer in 2021, her physician recommended she stop working. Treatment would make her immunocompromised, and her job in a medical clinic could expose her to harmful pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Ms. Caputo went on disability and received $900 every 2 weeks. But that wasn’t enough to pay her mortgage, let alone cover her other monthly expenses as a single mother of 4 teenagers.

After finishing chemotherapy, and during radiation, Ms. Caputo went back to work, part time, against her doctor’s advice.

“My doctor is telling me I can’t work, but I also can’t have my house go into default,” said Ms. Caputo.

But being on her feet through 12-hour shifts made treatment side effects, especially back and joint pain, kick into overdrive. “The physicality of my job was really difficult to tolerate,” she said.

The physical burden was too great to take on more work, but the extra money also wasn’t enough to keep her afloat. Fortunately, her brother stepped in and covered 6 months of her mortgage payments.
 

Financial toxicity impacts families

Although financial toxicity research to date has largely focused on the patient, researchers are also starting to understand that family members and caregivers often share in the burden.

“We are just at the beginning of realizing that this is a real problem,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Chino and colleagues recently showed that family members of patients with cancer were more likely to delay or forgo medical care than family members of people without cancer. The study found the effect was greatest among family members of younger adults with cancer.

“The caregiver and family burden related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is really underappreciated,” said Dr. Chino. “Family members and caregivers are neglecting their own health concerns, passing up career opportunities, struggling with financial concerns.”

Dr. Chino speaks from personal experience. When her fiancé, later husband, was diagnosed with neuroendocrine carcinoma in 2005, Dr. Chino quit her job as art director at a television production company to take care of him.

The couple, both in their 20s, struggled to afford his care. Dr. Chino put her own dental, medical, and mental health care on hold. She never, for instance, went to physical therapy to address injuries sustained sleeping in hospital chairs and moving around her husband who was over 6 feet tall. At one point, she walked with a limp.

Dr. Chino’s husband passed away in 2007, and even 15 years later, her injury from sleeping in hospital chairs remains “a significant physical burden,” she said. But like many caregivers “I wasn’t really thinking about my own health.”

Danielle Hadfield, 35, an ED nurse in Rochester, N.Y., also delayed her own care when her mom got sick.

Ms. Hadfield quit her job shortly after her mom was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in August 2020. Ms. Hadfield knew her mom, who lived 3.5 hours away in Albany, N.Y., would need a lot of care in the upcoming months.

“I knew this was going to be the last year or so of her life, and I wanted to be there for her,” said Ms. Hadfield.

When Ms. Hadfield quit her job, she and her husband – who was self-employed – purchased health insurance coverage through the New York state marketplace. The monthly insurance payments for Ms. Hadfield, who was pregnant with her second child, her husband, and their toddler cost as much as the family’s monthly mortgage payments.

In addition to providing childcare for her young daughter and making frequent trips to Albany, Ms. Hadfield began a side business as a legal nurse consultant, working mostly at night, to replace a portion of her lost income. During this time, she began to experience pain attacks that would migrate through her body along with intermittent tongue and facial numbness. She ignored these health issues for nearly a year, until after her mother died in November 2021.

Only after her mother passed away did Ms. Hadfield begin seeking answers to her own pain. In September 2022, she finally got them. She had a nerve condition called small-fiber sensory neuropathy.

But even with a diagnosis, she is still facing more tests to root out the cause and understand the best treatment.
 

Is help out there?

What can physicians do to help patients and families at risk for financial toxicity?

Specific guidelines for dealing with financial toxicity do not exist in most professional guidelines, nor are there standard screening tools to identify it, said Dr. Li Smith.

These gaps put pressure on physicians to ask about financial barriers and concerns, but most do not know how to broach the topic or how to help. “Physicians may not know how to fix the problem or what resources exist,” Dr. Li Smith said.

Patients and family members, on the other hand, are often reluctant to bring up cost with physicians. Some may be ashamed to talk about their financial problems while others may fear doing so will prevent them from being offered the best possible treatments, said Ms. MacDonald.

But, experts say, financial toxicity needs to be dealt with head on. That means involving financial navigators or counselors and social workers who can, for instance, help patients and families find financial support for their basic living expenses.

From a research perspective, more clinical trials should include financial toxicity outcomes, said Joshua Palmer, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Palmer and colleagues recently showed that the number of radiation therapy clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints increased significantly from 2001 to 2020, though the absolute rate of inclusion remains low, at roughly 1.5% of radiation therapy-based clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints from 2016 to 2020.

“Financial burden is part of the broader discussion about shared decision-making,” said Dr. Palmer.

In shared decision-making, physicians discuss the risks and benefits of different treatment options, empowering the patient to make an informed choice with the physician.

What we want to avoid is patients feeling like they will get inferior care, if they have financial barriers, said Dr. Palmer.

And every little bit can help. In 2006, Ms. MacDonald started the Pink Fund – a nonprofit to help patients with cancer cover nonmedical cost-of-living expenses. Both Ms. Caputo and Ms. Dicks received grants from the Pink Fund. For Ms. Caputo, the funds covered 2 months of car payments and for Ms. Dicks, it covered 2 months of rent.

While the one-time grant was a big help, said Ms. Dicks, “cancer is an everyday thing.” And “we all deserve peace of mind” when trying to heal.

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

When 32-year-old Brittany Dicks was diagnosed with stage II triple negative breast cancer in January 2022, she wasn’t worried about the cost of treatment. A medical assistant in Charleston, S.C., Ms. Dicks had full-time employment with health benefits.

But when she wasn’t able to work for several months because of chemotherapy and its side effects, Ms. Dicks lost her job. Her health insurance coverage ended in May. And although she filed for Medicaid at the beginning of June, it wasn’t approved until September.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dicks still needed treatment. She estimates that she ran up close to $20,000 in medical debt while finishing chemotherapy during the 4 months she was uninsured.

The surgeon she had seen since her diagnosis terminated her care when she could no longer pay her bills. That left her delaying a much-needed mastectomy.

“I don’t sleep at night,” said Ms. Dicks, a single mother of two young kids, ages 3 and 11. “Mentally, I’m drained. Just because I have cancer, doesn’t mean the bills aren’t due every month.”

As soon as she felt well enough over the summer, she started working as a part-time delivery driver for DoorDash to help pay for food and gas.

But that was just a Band-Aid. Even when her new insurance kicked in, covering the costs of daily life remained a struggle.

Ms. Dicks is still in deep medical debt. Her Medicaid has covered new medical expenses, and she hopes Medicaid will reimburse her for the debt she incurred over the summer while she waited for her coverage to kick in. So far, though, Medicaid has not touched her $20,000 debt.

“I fear that I’m not going to be able to dig out of this hole,” Ms. Dicks said.

Researchers who study the financial impacts of cancer have a term for Ms. Dicks’ experience: financial toxicity.

Financial toxicity is a catchall term for the burden many Americans with cancer experience.

“Financial toxicity is a multidimensional concept. There’s both a material burden and a psychosocial one,” said Grace Li Smith, MD, PhD, MPH, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Financial toxicity encompasses the direct costs of medical care, including copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications as well as the indirect costs from loss of income or savings associated with cancer care.

Researchers are also now beginning to understand the psychological effects these financial burdens can have on patients and their family.

“Financial toxicity is not unique to the patient,” said Dr. Li Smith. It “very directly impacts the whole family or household.”
 

Stifling financial pressures

Early in her career, Dr. Li Smith was already seeing how her patients’ worries extended beyond their physical disease.

One of Dr. Li Smith’s first patients told her their greatest worry wasn’t whether the treatment would work or what physical toxicity to expect, it was how they would pay for their care.

“There was much more anxiety and true distress about the financial burden than about the treatment itself,” Dr. Li Smith recalled.

This fear about the costs of cancer care is well founded. In the United States, cancer treatment costs reached an estimated $150 billion in 2020 and continue to rise. Patients shoulder a significant portion of that burden – with one study estimating that patients paid $21 billion for their cancer care in 2019.

The burden is often compounded by decreased income. Between 40% and 85% of patients with cancer needed to take time off work or quit their jobs during treatment. And for those, like Dicks, who find themselves with no insurance, out-of-pocket costs can quickly skyrocket.

In fact, one study of newly diagnosed cancer patients over age 50 reported that more than 42% of patients fully depleted their financial assets and around 30% incurred debt by the second year of their diagnosis.

Younger adults may be even more financially vulnerable. A study of patients in Washington found that those under 65 – which represent about half of cancer cases – were two to five times more likely to declare bankruptcy than patients over 65.

Dr. Li Smith and colleagues have found that younger patients aged 18-64 experienced greater monetary hardships, which meant less money for food, worse adherence to medications, as well as greater distress and anxiety overall. In fact, younger adults were over 4.5 times more likely to encounter severe financial toxicity, compared with older adults, and about 4 times more likely to experience severe psychological effects from this burden.

The distress, if left unchecked, can spiral out of control.

Molly MacDonald had just gone through a financially devastating divorce in 2005 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Recently out of work and dealing with a $1,300 monthly COBRA premium, the mother of five had no financial safety net. She risked having her car repossessed and her utilities shut off.

“I gave tentative thought to how I could take my life and make it look like an accident,” said Ms. MacDonald. “I thought the kids would be better off without me.”

For some, the loss of income can be even more worrisome than the medical bills. Some patients may go back to work during treatment, often against medical advice.

When Stephanie Caputo, 43, of Monroe, N.J., began treatment for stage III breast cancer in 2021, her physician recommended she stop working. Treatment would make her immunocompromised, and her job in a medical clinic could expose her to harmful pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Ms. Caputo went on disability and received $900 every 2 weeks. But that wasn’t enough to pay her mortgage, let alone cover her other monthly expenses as a single mother of 4 teenagers.

After finishing chemotherapy, and during radiation, Ms. Caputo went back to work, part time, against her doctor’s advice.

“My doctor is telling me I can’t work, but I also can’t have my house go into default,” said Ms. Caputo.

But being on her feet through 12-hour shifts made treatment side effects, especially back and joint pain, kick into overdrive. “The physicality of my job was really difficult to tolerate,” she said.

The physical burden was too great to take on more work, but the extra money also wasn’t enough to keep her afloat. Fortunately, her brother stepped in and covered 6 months of her mortgage payments.
 

Financial toxicity impacts families

Although financial toxicity research to date has largely focused on the patient, researchers are also starting to understand that family members and caregivers often share in the burden.

“We are just at the beginning of realizing that this is a real problem,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Chino and colleagues recently showed that family members of patients with cancer were more likely to delay or forgo medical care than family members of people without cancer. The study found the effect was greatest among family members of younger adults with cancer.

“The caregiver and family burden related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is really underappreciated,” said Dr. Chino. “Family members and caregivers are neglecting their own health concerns, passing up career opportunities, struggling with financial concerns.”

Dr. Chino speaks from personal experience. When her fiancé, later husband, was diagnosed with neuroendocrine carcinoma in 2005, Dr. Chino quit her job as art director at a television production company to take care of him.

The couple, both in their 20s, struggled to afford his care. Dr. Chino put her own dental, medical, and mental health care on hold. She never, for instance, went to physical therapy to address injuries sustained sleeping in hospital chairs and moving around her husband who was over 6 feet tall. At one point, she walked with a limp.

Dr. Chino’s husband passed away in 2007, and even 15 years later, her injury from sleeping in hospital chairs remains “a significant physical burden,” she said. But like many caregivers “I wasn’t really thinking about my own health.”

Danielle Hadfield, 35, an ED nurse in Rochester, N.Y., also delayed her own care when her mom got sick.

Ms. Hadfield quit her job shortly after her mom was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in August 2020. Ms. Hadfield knew her mom, who lived 3.5 hours away in Albany, N.Y., would need a lot of care in the upcoming months.

“I knew this was going to be the last year or so of her life, and I wanted to be there for her,” said Ms. Hadfield.

When Ms. Hadfield quit her job, she and her husband – who was self-employed – purchased health insurance coverage through the New York state marketplace. The monthly insurance payments for Ms. Hadfield, who was pregnant with her second child, her husband, and their toddler cost as much as the family’s monthly mortgage payments.

In addition to providing childcare for her young daughter and making frequent trips to Albany, Ms. Hadfield began a side business as a legal nurse consultant, working mostly at night, to replace a portion of her lost income. During this time, she began to experience pain attacks that would migrate through her body along with intermittent tongue and facial numbness. She ignored these health issues for nearly a year, until after her mother died in November 2021.

Only after her mother passed away did Ms. Hadfield begin seeking answers to her own pain. In September 2022, she finally got them. She had a nerve condition called small-fiber sensory neuropathy.

But even with a diagnosis, she is still facing more tests to root out the cause and understand the best treatment.
 

Is help out there?

What can physicians do to help patients and families at risk for financial toxicity?

Specific guidelines for dealing with financial toxicity do not exist in most professional guidelines, nor are there standard screening tools to identify it, said Dr. Li Smith.

These gaps put pressure on physicians to ask about financial barriers and concerns, but most do not know how to broach the topic or how to help. “Physicians may not know how to fix the problem or what resources exist,” Dr. Li Smith said.

Patients and family members, on the other hand, are often reluctant to bring up cost with physicians. Some may be ashamed to talk about their financial problems while others may fear doing so will prevent them from being offered the best possible treatments, said Ms. MacDonald.

But, experts say, financial toxicity needs to be dealt with head on. That means involving financial navigators or counselors and social workers who can, for instance, help patients and families find financial support for their basic living expenses.

From a research perspective, more clinical trials should include financial toxicity outcomes, said Joshua Palmer, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Palmer and colleagues recently showed that the number of radiation therapy clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints increased significantly from 2001 to 2020, though the absolute rate of inclusion remains low, at roughly 1.5% of radiation therapy-based clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints from 2016 to 2020.

“Financial burden is part of the broader discussion about shared decision-making,” said Dr. Palmer.

In shared decision-making, physicians discuss the risks and benefits of different treatment options, empowering the patient to make an informed choice with the physician.

What we want to avoid is patients feeling like they will get inferior care, if they have financial barriers, said Dr. Palmer.

And every little bit can help. In 2006, Ms. MacDonald started the Pink Fund – a nonprofit to help patients with cancer cover nonmedical cost-of-living expenses. Both Ms. Caputo and Ms. Dicks received grants from the Pink Fund. For Ms. Caputo, the funds covered 2 months of car payments and for Ms. Dicks, it covered 2 months of rent.

While the one-time grant was a big help, said Ms. Dicks, “cancer is an everyday thing.” And “we all deserve peace of mind” when trying to heal.

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

When 32-year-old Brittany Dicks was diagnosed with stage II triple negative breast cancer in January 2022, she wasn’t worried about the cost of treatment. A medical assistant in Charleston, S.C., Ms. Dicks had full-time employment with health benefits.

But when she wasn’t able to work for several months because of chemotherapy and its side effects, Ms. Dicks lost her job. Her health insurance coverage ended in May. And although she filed for Medicaid at the beginning of June, it wasn’t approved until September.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dicks still needed treatment. She estimates that she ran up close to $20,000 in medical debt while finishing chemotherapy during the 4 months she was uninsured.

The surgeon she had seen since her diagnosis terminated her care when she could no longer pay her bills. That left her delaying a much-needed mastectomy.

“I don’t sleep at night,” said Ms. Dicks, a single mother of two young kids, ages 3 and 11. “Mentally, I’m drained. Just because I have cancer, doesn’t mean the bills aren’t due every month.”

As soon as she felt well enough over the summer, she started working as a part-time delivery driver for DoorDash to help pay for food and gas.

But that was just a Band-Aid. Even when her new insurance kicked in, covering the costs of daily life remained a struggle.

Ms. Dicks is still in deep medical debt. Her Medicaid has covered new medical expenses, and she hopes Medicaid will reimburse her for the debt she incurred over the summer while she waited for her coverage to kick in. So far, though, Medicaid has not touched her $20,000 debt.

“I fear that I’m not going to be able to dig out of this hole,” Ms. Dicks said.

Researchers who study the financial impacts of cancer have a term for Ms. Dicks’ experience: financial toxicity.

Financial toxicity is a catchall term for the burden many Americans with cancer experience.

“Financial toxicity is a multidimensional concept. There’s both a material burden and a psychosocial one,” said Grace Li Smith, MD, PhD, MPH, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Financial toxicity encompasses the direct costs of medical care, including copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications as well as the indirect costs from loss of income or savings associated with cancer care.

Researchers are also now beginning to understand the psychological effects these financial burdens can have on patients and their family.

“Financial toxicity is not unique to the patient,” said Dr. Li Smith. It “very directly impacts the whole family or household.”
 

Stifling financial pressures

Early in her career, Dr. Li Smith was already seeing how her patients’ worries extended beyond their physical disease.

One of Dr. Li Smith’s first patients told her their greatest worry wasn’t whether the treatment would work or what physical toxicity to expect, it was how they would pay for their care.

“There was much more anxiety and true distress about the financial burden than about the treatment itself,” Dr. Li Smith recalled.

This fear about the costs of cancer care is well founded. In the United States, cancer treatment costs reached an estimated $150 billion in 2020 and continue to rise. Patients shoulder a significant portion of that burden – with one study estimating that patients paid $21 billion for their cancer care in 2019.

The burden is often compounded by decreased income. Between 40% and 85% of patients with cancer needed to take time off work or quit their jobs during treatment. And for those, like Dicks, who find themselves with no insurance, out-of-pocket costs can quickly skyrocket.

In fact, one study of newly diagnosed cancer patients over age 50 reported that more than 42% of patients fully depleted their financial assets and around 30% incurred debt by the second year of their diagnosis.

Younger adults may be even more financially vulnerable. A study of patients in Washington found that those under 65 – which represent about half of cancer cases – were two to five times more likely to declare bankruptcy than patients over 65.

Dr. Li Smith and colleagues have found that younger patients aged 18-64 experienced greater monetary hardships, which meant less money for food, worse adherence to medications, as well as greater distress and anxiety overall. In fact, younger adults were over 4.5 times more likely to encounter severe financial toxicity, compared with older adults, and about 4 times more likely to experience severe psychological effects from this burden.

The distress, if left unchecked, can spiral out of control.

Molly MacDonald had just gone through a financially devastating divorce in 2005 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Recently out of work and dealing with a $1,300 monthly COBRA premium, the mother of five had no financial safety net. She risked having her car repossessed and her utilities shut off.

“I gave tentative thought to how I could take my life and make it look like an accident,” said Ms. MacDonald. “I thought the kids would be better off without me.”

For some, the loss of income can be even more worrisome than the medical bills. Some patients may go back to work during treatment, often against medical advice.

When Stephanie Caputo, 43, of Monroe, N.J., began treatment for stage III breast cancer in 2021, her physician recommended she stop working. Treatment would make her immunocompromised, and her job in a medical clinic could expose her to harmful pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Ms. Caputo went on disability and received $900 every 2 weeks. But that wasn’t enough to pay her mortgage, let alone cover her other monthly expenses as a single mother of 4 teenagers.

After finishing chemotherapy, and during radiation, Ms. Caputo went back to work, part time, against her doctor’s advice.

“My doctor is telling me I can’t work, but I also can’t have my house go into default,” said Ms. Caputo.

But being on her feet through 12-hour shifts made treatment side effects, especially back and joint pain, kick into overdrive. “The physicality of my job was really difficult to tolerate,” she said.

The physical burden was too great to take on more work, but the extra money also wasn’t enough to keep her afloat. Fortunately, her brother stepped in and covered 6 months of her mortgage payments.
 

Financial toxicity impacts families

Although financial toxicity research to date has largely focused on the patient, researchers are also starting to understand that family members and caregivers often share in the burden.

“We are just at the beginning of realizing that this is a real problem,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Chino and colleagues recently showed that family members of patients with cancer were more likely to delay or forgo medical care than family members of people without cancer. The study found the effect was greatest among family members of younger adults with cancer.

“The caregiver and family burden related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is really underappreciated,” said Dr. Chino. “Family members and caregivers are neglecting their own health concerns, passing up career opportunities, struggling with financial concerns.”

Dr. Chino speaks from personal experience. When her fiancé, later husband, was diagnosed with neuroendocrine carcinoma in 2005, Dr. Chino quit her job as art director at a television production company to take care of him.

The couple, both in their 20s, struggled to afford his care. Dr. Chino put her own dental, medical, and mental health care on hold. She never, for instance, went to physical therapy to address injuries sustained sleeping in hospital chairs and moving around her husband who was over 6 feet tall. At one point, she walked with a limp.

Dr. Chino’s husband passed away in 2007, and even 15 years later, her injury from sleeping in hospital chairs remains “a significant physical burden,” she said. But like many caregivers “I wasn’t really thinking about my own health.”

Danielle Hadfield, 35, an ED nurse in Rochester, N.Y., also delayed her own care when her mom got sick.

Ms. Hadfield quit her job shortly after her mom was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in August 2020. Ms. Hadfield knew her mom, who lived 3.5 hours away in Albany, N.Y., would need a lot of care in the upcoming months.

“I knew this was going to be the last year or so of her life, and I wanted to be there for her,” said Ms. Hadfield.

When Ms. Hadfield quit her job, she and her husband – who was self-employed – purchased health insurance coverage through the New York state marketplace. The monthly insurance payments for Ms. Hadfield, who was pregnant with her second child, her husband, and their toddler cost as much as the family’s monthly mortgage payments.

In addition to providing childcare for her young daughter and making frequent trips to Albany, Ms. Hadfield began a side business as a legal nurse consultant, working mostly at night, to replace a portion of her lost income. During this time, she began to experience pain attacks that would migrate through her body along with intermittent tongue and facial numbness. She ignored these health issues for nearly a year, until after her mother died in November 2021.

Only after her mother passed away did Ms. Hadfield begin seeking answers to her own pain. In September 2022, she finally got them. She had a nerve condition called small-fiber sensory neuropathy.

But even with a diagnosis, she is still facing more tests to root out the cause and understand the best treatment.
 

Is help out there?

What can physicians do to help patients and families at risk for financial toxicity?

Specific guidelines for dealing with financial toxicity do not exist in most professional guidelines, nor are there standard screening tools to identify it, said Dr. Li Smith.

These gaps put pressure on physicians to ask about financial barriers and concerns, but most do not know how to broach the topic or how to help. “Physicians may not know how to fix the problem or what resources exist,” Dr. Li Smith said.

Patients and family members, on the other hand, are often reluctant to bring up cost with physicians. Some may be ashamed to talk about their financial problems while others may fear doing so will prevent them from being offered the best possible treatments, said Ms. MacDonald.

But, experts say, financial toxicity needs to be dealt with head on. That means involving financial navigators or counselors and social workers who can, for instance, help patients and families find financial support for their basic living expenses.

From a research perspective, more clinical trials should include financial toxicity outcomes, said Joshua Palmer, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Palmer and colleagues recently showed that the number of radiation therapy clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints increased significantly from 2001 to 2020, though the absolute rate of inclusion remains low, at roughly 1.5% of radiation therapy-based clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints from 2016 to 2020.

“Financial burden is part of the broader discussion about shared decision-making,” said Dr. Palmer.

In shared decision-making, physicians discuss the risks and benefits of different treatment options, empowering the patient to make an informed choice with the physician.

What we want to avoid is patients feeling like they will get inferior care, if they have financial barriers, said Dr. Palmer.

And every little bit can help. In 2006, Ms. MacDonald started the Pink Fund – a nonprofit to help patients with cancer cover nonmedical cost-of-living expenses. Both Ms. Caputo and Ms. Dicks received grants from the Pink Fund. For Ms. Caputo, the funds covered 2 months of car payments and for Ms. Dicks, it covered 2 months of rent.

While the one-time grant was a big help, said Ms. Dicks, “cancer is an everyday thing.” And “we all deserve peace of mind” when trying to heal.

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

Recently there have been articles and discussions about how involved physicians should be in patient gun ownership.

There are valid points all around. Some of my colleagues, especially those in general practice, feel that they don’t have enough time to add more screening questions on top of those they already have. Others point out that routinely asking about gun ownership is none of our business. A third view I’ve seen is that very few doctors are in a position to teach issues of gun safety.

In my field, with certain patients, I do ask. Namely, the demented.

Anyone with concerning cognitive deficits shouldn’t have access to guns. As their judgment fades and their impulsivity worsens, they often don’t realize right from wrong. They might open fire on family members thinking they’re burglars. Some of them see suspicious people out in the yard that are more likely hallucinations or simply passersby.

In more advanced cases of dementia, patients may not even realize what they’re holding, but that doesn’t make it any less dangerous. Probably more so, since they’re not going to be careful with it.

Another scary issue I sometimes encounter is when patients with dementia find a gun at home – usually one that belonged to a deceased spouse and that family isn’t aware of. No one really knows if it’s working, or loaded, though we have to assume it is. They find it and start carrying it out on walks, pointing it at the mailman who they think is trespassing, etc. Sometimes the police get called. These situations are extremely dangerous for all involved.

It’s pretty easy for someone to get shot under these circumstances. It’s like leaving a gun out and having a toddler find it. They don’t mean any harm, but they’re still just as deadly as someone who does.

These people also have access to knives, which can be equally deadly, but knives aren’t guns. They don’t have the range or hitting power that make firearms so dangerous. It’s a lot easier to disarm an elderly patient with a steak knife if need be.

So, like my colleagues in psychiatry, I ask about guns in certain situations that involve dementia. Are there any guns? If so, are they locked up safely where the person can’t access them?

I’m not making a statement for or against gun ownership here. But I think all of us would agree that someone with impaired judgment, cognition, self-control, reasoning, and memory shouldn’t have access to guns.

In neurology, that’s a decent chunk of my patients. So for everyone’s safety, I ask them (and, more importantly, their families) about guns.

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

Recently there have been articles and discussions about how involved physicians should be in patient gun ownership.

There are valid points all around. Some of my colleagues, especially those in general practice, feel that they don’t have enough time to add more screening questions on top of those they already have. Others point out that routinely asking about gun ownership is none of our business. A third view I’ve seen is that very few doctors are in a position to teach issues of gun safety.

In my field, with certain patients, I do ask. Namely, the demented.

Anyone with concerning cognitive deficits shouldn’t have access to guns. As their judgment fades and their impulsivity worsens, they often don’t realize right from wrong. They might open fire on family members thinking they’re burglars. Some of them see suspicious people out in the yard that are more likely hallucinations or simply passersby.

In more advanced cases of dementia, patients may not even realize what they’re holding, but that doesn’t make it any less dangerous. Probably more so, since they’re not going to be careful with it.

Another scary issue I sometimes encounter is when patients with dementia find a gun at home – usually one that belonged to a deceased spouse and that family isn’t aware of. No one really knows if it’s working, or loaded, though we have to assume it is. They find it and start carrying it out on walks, pointing it at the mailman who they think is trespassing, etc. Sometimes the police get called. These situations are extremely dangerous for all involved.

It’s pretty easy for someone to get shot under these circumstances. It’s like leaving a gun out and having a toddler find it. They don’t mean any harm, but they’re still just as deadly as someone who does.

These people also have access to knives, which can be equally deadly, but knives aren’t guns. They don’t have the range or hitting power that make firearms so dangerous. It’s a lot easier to disarm an elderly patient with a steak knife if need be.

So, like my colleagues in psychiatry, I ask about guns in certain situations that involve dementia. Are there any guns? If so, are they locked up safely where the person can’t access them?

I’m not making a statement for or against gun ownership here. But I think all of us would agree that someone with impaired judgment, cognition, self-control, reasoning, and memory shouldn’t have access to guns.

In neurology, that’s a decent chunk of my patients. So for everyone’s safety, I ask them (and, more importantly, their families) about guns.

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

Recently there have been articles and discussions about how involved physicians should be in patient gun ownership.

There are valid points all around. Some of my colleagues, especially those in general practice, feel that they don’t have enough time to add more screening questions on top of those they already have. Others point out that routinely asking about gun ownership is none of our business. A third view I’ve seen is that very few doctors are in a position to teach issues of gun safety.

In my field, with certain patients, I do ask. Namely, the demented.

Anyone with concerning cognitive deficits shouldn’t have access to guns. As their judgment fades and their impulsivity worsens, they often don’t realize right from wrong. They might open fire on family members thinking they’re burglars. Some of them see suspicious people out in the yard that are more likely hallucinations or simply passersby.

In more advanced cases of dementia, patients may not even realize what they’re holding, but that doesn’t make it any less dangerous. Probably more so, since they’re not going to be careful with it.

Another scary issue I sometimes encounter is when patients with dementia find a gun at home – usually one that belonged to a deceased spouse and that family isn’t aware of. No one really knows if it’s working, or loaded, though we have to assume it is. They find it and start carrying it out on walks, pointing it at the mailman who they think is trespassing, etc. Sometimes the police get called. These situations are extremely dangerous for all involved.

It’s pretty easy for someone to get shot under these circumstances. It’s like leaving a gun out and having a toddler find it. They don’t mean any harm, but they’re still just as deadly as someone who does.

These people also have access to knives, which can be equally deadly, but knives aren’t guns. They don’t have the range or hitting power that make firearms so dangerous. It’s a lot easier to disarm an elderly patient with a steak knife if need be.

So, like my colleagues in psychiatry, I ask about guns in certain situations that involve dementia. Are there any guns? If so, are they locked up safely where the person can’t access them?

I’m not making a statement for or against gun ownership here. But I think all of us would agree that someone with impaired judgment, cognition, self-control, reasoning, and memory shouldn’t have access to guns.

In neurology, that’s a decent chunk of my patients. So for everyone’s safety, I ask them (and, more importantly, their families) about guns.

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

One quiet afternoon at a mobile outreach clinic, where I had been working on the West Side of Chicago, a young man without a home to go to, and clothes he kept as clean as he could, came to get a refill of buprenorphine. The drug, which works on the same opioid receptors as heroin, was helping him feel normal. It was also probably helping to keep him alive, as a study found that taking it after an overdose was associated with a one-third reduction in all-cause mortality.

He was still using drugs, but now only a few days a week instead of multiple times a day. He had put on some weight and looked visibly healthier.

I gave him his prescription and thanked him for coming back. As he got up to leave, he turned to our outreach team and said, “Thank you for being here and caring about us. Because a lot of people don’t. They don’t care if we live or die.”

But a lot of people do care and are still failing him and others who use drugs. When I first started treating addictions, I was taught to cut people like him off treatment. We could give patients a medication, but they had to follow the rules, first and foremost to stop using drugs. Keep using, even if you were using less and your health was improving, and I would have to dismiss you from the practice. This was the kind of “tough love” that many doctors have been taught, and are, in many cases, still being taught today. Even though we know that this approach does not work.

For too long, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and the broader American public have favored abstinence only treatment, criminalization, and prohibition. The proof that this approach does not work is in the spectacular overdose crisis we are experiencing in this country, as CDC data documents. While we continue to blame drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine (and thirty years ago, crack and heroin), we fail to see how our approach contributes to these overdose deaths.

For instance, treating with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with detox alone. But only one in three centers offer these medications, the gold standard of care. We continue to imprison people who use drugs, even though we have known for 15 years that the risk of overdose is exponentially higher in the first few weeks after people leave prison.

Patients who use opioids safely for decades are also arbitrarily being forced off their prescriptions because too many clinicians equate opioid use with opioid addiction, despite the fact that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose. And prohibition has led to a change in the drug supply that is now dominated by methamphetamine and fentanyl, substances far more deadly than the ones we demonized and seized decades ago.

We have tried and failed to rid the country of many drugs. We never will. Human beings will seek mind-altering substances, from caffeine to alcohol to hallucinogens. But we can stop the grim massacre of people who use drugs. We have the tools. What we lack is moral clarity.

In lecture after lecture of physicians and medical students, I hear the refrain that patients are not often “ready” for treatment. There’s nothing that doctors can do, they say, if the patient doesn’t want help. Yet they do not examine why that may be. Are we offering the help that they need? Time and again I have seen that if we meet people where they are, we can help virtually anyone.
 

Tools for fighting the opioid crisis

The reason our policies have failed is because we have not confronted a simple truth: We must care more about saving and improving the lives of people who use drugs than stopping drug use. With that framework, the approach is clear and multifactorial. First, we must make methadone treatment less draconian. Methadone, like buprenorphine, has been associated with a large reduction in all-cause mortality for people who have a history of overdose.

In this country, to access it, however, you must go to a clinic daily for the first 90 days of treatment and jump through hoops that often make it impossible to have a job and accomplish other goals. Other countries have safely moved methadone to primary care offices, and so should we. The other main drug for opioid addiction, buprenorphine, requires a special license to prescribe, even though it is far safer than other opioids that any physician can prescribe. This requirement has been weakened, but it should be removed entirely.

Moreover, the DEA conducts regular audits of buprenorphine prescribers in an effort to prevent diversion, discouraging doctors from prescribing it. This despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overdose on buprenorphine alone, and a study suggests that diversion of buprenorphine is associated with a lower overdose risk in a community by making the medication available to more people who can benefit.

Treatment is not the only way we can help people using drugs. Naloxone, an overdose rescue drug, should be available in every first aid kit and free at pharmacies without a prescription. Clean needles and pipes for people who use can help prevent infections, potentially mitigating the severity of outbreaks. Overdose prevention sites, where people can safely use, should be opened across the country.

We need accessible drug testing so people do not accidentally overdose and so they can know what they are using. We should stop sending people to jail for drug use when we know that it is too often tantamount to a death sentence, and offer effective medical treatment to anyone who is incarcerated.

All these interventions remain controversial within medicine and in the larger culture. If our metric, however, is lives saved and harm avoided, these are sure-fire approaches.

Right now, I am focused on clinical care and changing the culture of medicine, where we have opportunities to help but too often do harm instead. The impact of a shift in mentality would be huge, because we would realize there is no one we cannot help, only millions of people we do not listen to. But this is a national crisis and requires a national response. Until we are clear that our goal should and must be to stem the mounting deaths and harms above all else, we will continue to fail.

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures.

One quiet afternoon at a mobile outreach clinic, where I had been working on the West Side of Chicago, a young man without a home to go to, and clothes he kept as clean as he could, came to get a refill of buprenorphine. The drug, which works on the same opioid receptors as heroin, was helping him feel normal. It was also probably helping to keep him alive, as a study found that taking it after an overdose was associated with a one-third reduction in all-cause mortality.

He was still using drugs, but now only a few days a week instead of multiple times a day. He had put on some weight and looked visibly healthier.

I gave him his prescription and thanked him for coming back. As he got up to leave, he turned to our outreach team and said, “Thank you for being here and caring about us. Because a lot of people don’t. They don’t care if we live or die.”

But a lot of people do care and are still failing him and others who use drugs. When I first started treating addictions, I was taught to cut people like him off treatment. We could give patients a medication, but they had to follow the rules, first and foremost to stop using drugs. Keep using, even if you were using less and your health was improving, and I would have to dismiss you from the practice. This was the kind of “tough love” that many doctors have been taught, and are, in many cases, still being taught today. Even though we know that this approach does not work.

For too long, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and the broader American public have favored abstinence only treatment, criminalization, and prohibition. The proof that this approach does not work is in the spectacular overdose crisis we are experiencing in this country, as CDC data documents. While we continue to blame drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine (and thirty years ago, crack and heroin), we fail to see how our approach contributes to these overdose deaths.

For instance, treating with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with detox alone. But only one in three centers offer these medications, the gold standard of care. We continue to imprison people who use drugs, even though we have known for 15 years that the risk of overdose is exponentially higher in the first few weeks after people leave prison.

Patients who use opioids safely for decades are also arbitrarily being forced off their prescriptions because too many clinicians equate opioid use with opioid addiction, despite the fact that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose. And prohibition has led to a change in the drug supply that is now dominated by methamphetamine and fentanyl, substances far more deadly than the ones we demonized and seized decades ago.

We have tried and failed to rid the country of many drugs. We never will. Human beings will seek mind-altering substances, from caffeine to alcohol to hallucinogens. But we can stop the grim massacre of people who use drugs. We have the tools. What we lack is moral clarity.

In lecture after lecture of physicians and medical students, I hear the refrain that patients are not often “ready” for treatment. There’s nothing that doctors can do, they say, if the patient doesn’t want help. Yet they do not examine why that may be. Are we offering the help that they need? Time and again I have seen that if we meet people where they are, we can help virtually anyone.
 

Tools for fighting the opioid crisis

The reason our policies have failed is because we have not confronted a simple truth: We must care more about saving and improving the lives of people who use drugs than stopping drug use. With that framework, the approach is clear and multifactorial. First, we must make methadone treatment less draconian. Methadone, like buprenorphine, has been associated with a large reduction in all-cause mortality for people who have a history of overdose.

In this country, to access it, however, you must go to a clinic daily for the first 90 days of treatment and jump through hoops that often make it impossible to have a job and accomplish other goals. Other countries have safely moved methadone to primary care offices, and so should we. The other main drug for opioid addiction, buprenorphine, requires a special license to prescribe, even though it is far safer than other opioids that any physician can prescribe. This requirement has been weakened, but it should be removed entirely.

Moreover, the DEA conducts regular audits of buprenorphine prescribers in an effort to prevent diversion, discouraging doctors from prescribing it. This despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overdose on buprenorphine alone, and a study suggests that diversion of buprenorphine is associated with a lower overdose risk in a community by making the medication available to more people who can benefit.

Treatment is not the only way we can help people using drugs. Naloxone, an overdose rescue drug, should be available in every first aid kit and free at pharmacies without a prescription. Clean needles and pipes for people who use can help prevent infections, potentially mitigating the severity of outbreaks. Overdose prevention sites, where people can safely use, should be opened across the country.

We need accessible drug testing so people do not accidentally overdose and so they can know what they are using. We should stop sending people to jail for drug use when we know that it is too often tantamount to a death sentence, and offer effective medical treatment to anyone who is incarcerated.

All these interventions remain controversial within medicine and in the larger culture. If our metric, however, is lives saved and harm avoided, these are sure-fire approaches.

Right now, I am focused on clinical care and changing the culture of medicine, where we have opportunities to help but too often do harm instead. The impact of a shift in mentality would be huge, because we would realize there is no one we cannot help, only millions of people we do not listen to. But this is a national crisis and requires a national response. Until we are clear that our goal should and must be to stem the mounting deaths and harms above all else, we will continue to fail.

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures.

One quiet afternoon at a mobile outreach clinic, where I had been working on the West Side of Chicago, a young man without a home to go to, and clothes he kept as clean as he could, came to get a refill of buprenorphine. The drug, which works on the same opioid receptors as heroin, was helping him feel normal. It was also probably helping to keep him alive, as a study found that taking it after an overdose was associated with a one-third reduction in all-cause mortality.

He was still using drugs, but now only a few days a week instead of multiple times a day. He had put on some weight and looked visibly healthier.

I gave him his prescription and thanked him for coming back. As he got up to leave, he turned to our outreach team and said, “Thank you for being here and caring about us. Because a lot of people don’t. They don’t care if we live or die.”

But a lot of people do care and are still failing him and others who use drugs. When I first started treating addictions, I was taught to cut people like him off treatment. We could give patients a medication, but they had to follow the rules, first and foremost to stop using drugs. Keep using, even if you were using less and your health was improving, and I would have to dismiss you from the practice. This was the kind of “tough love” that many doctors have been taught, and are, in many cases, still being taught today. Even though we know that this approach does not work.

For too long, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and the broader American public have favored abstinence only treatment, criminalization, and prohibition. The proof that this approach does not work is in the spectacular overdose crisis we are experiencing in this country, as CDC data documents. While we continue to blame drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine (and thirty years ago, crack and heroin), we fail to see how our approach contributes to these overdose deaths.

For instance, treating with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with detox alone. But only one in three centers offer these medications, the gold standard of care. We continue to imprison people who use drugs, even though we have known for 15 years that the risk of overdose is exponentially higher in the first few weeks after people leave prison.

Patients who use opioids safely for decades are also arbitrarily being forced off their prescriptions because too many clinicians equate opioid use with opioid addiction, despite the fact that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose. And prohibition has led to a change in the drug supply that is now dominated by methamphetamine and fentanyl, substances far more deadly than the ones we demonized and seized decades ago.

We have tried and failed to rid the country of many drugs. We never will. Human beings will seek mind-altering substances, from caffeine to alcohol to hallucinogens. But we can stop the grim massacre of people who use drugs. We have the tools. What we lack is moral clarity.

In lecture after lecture of physicians and medical students, I hear the refrain that patients are not often “ready” for treatment. There’s nothing that doctors can do, they say, if the patient doesn’t want help. Yet they do not examine why that may be. Are we offering the help that they need? Time and again I have seen that if we meet people where they are, we can help virtually anyone.
 

Tools for fighting the opioid crisis

The reason our policies have failed is because we have not confronted a simple truth: We must care more about saving and improving the lives of people who use drugs than stopping drug use. With that framework, the approach is clear and multifactorial. First, we must make methadone treatment less draconian. Methadone, like buprenorphine, has been associated with a large reduction in all-cause mortality for people who have a history of overdose.

In this country, to access it, however, you must go to a clinic daily for the first 90 days of treatment and jump through hoops that often make it impossible to have a job and accomplish other goals. Other countries have safely moved methadone to primary care offices, and so should we. The other main drug for opioid addiction, buprenorphine, requires a special license to prescribe, even though it is far safer than other opioids that any physician can prescribe. This requirement has been weakened, but it should be removed entirely.

Moreover, the DEA conducts regular audits of buprenorphine prescribers in an effort to prevent diversion, discouraging doctors from prescribing it. This despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overdose on buprenorphine alone, and a study suggests that diversion of buprenorphine is associated with a lower overdose risk in a community by making the medication available to more people who can benefit.

Treatment is not the only way we can help people using drugs. Naloxone, an overdose rescue drug, should be available in every first aid kit and free at pharmacies without a prescription. Clean needles and pipes for people who use can help prevent infections, potentially mitigating the severity of outbreaks. Overdose prevention sites, where people can safely use, should be opened across the country.

We need accessible drug testing so people do not accidentally overdose and so they can know what they are using. We should stop sending people to jail for drug use when we know that it is too often tantamount to a death sentence, and offer effective medical treatment to anyone who is incarcerated.

All these interventions remain controversial within medicine and in the larger culture. If our metric, however, is lives saved and harm avoided, these are sure-fire approaches.

Right now, I am focused on clinical care and changing the culture of medicine, where we have opportunities to help but too often do harm instead. The impact of a shift in mentality would be huge, because we would realize there is no one we cannot help, only millions of people we do not listen to. But this is a national crisis and requires a national response. Until we are clear that our goal should and must be to stem the mounting deaths and harms above all else, we will continue to fail.

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures.

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

The first in what have come to be known as the “wrong stitches” cases has been settled, a story in The Ledger reports.

The former plaintiff in the now-settled suit is Carrie Monk, a Lakeland, Fla., resident who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center several years ago. (The medical center is managed by Lakeland Regional Health Systems.) During that procedure, Ms. Monk claimed, her doctors used permanent rather than absorbable sutures to close her incisions. As a result, over the next 19 months, she experienced abdominal pain and constant bleeding, which in turn affected her personal life as well as her work as a nurse in the intensive care unit. She underwent follow-up surgery to have the permanent sutures removed, but two could not be identified and excised.

In July 2020, Ms. Monk filed a medical malpractice claim against Lakeland Regional Health, its medical center, and the ob-gyns who had performed her surgery. She was among the first of the women who had received the permanent sutures to do so.

On February 28, 2021, The Ledger ran a story on Ms. Monk’s suit. Less than 2 weeks later, Lakeland Regional Health sent letters to patients who had undergone “wrong stitch” surgeries, cautioning of possible postsurgical complications. The company reportedly kept secret how many letters it had sent out.

Since then, at least nine similar suits have been filed against Lakeland Regional Health, bringing the total number of such suits to 12. Four of these suits have been settled, including Ms. Monk’s. Of the remaining eight cases, several are in various pretrial stages.

Under the terms of her settlement, neither Ms. Monk nor her attorney may disclose what financial compensation or other awards she’s received. The attorney, however, referred to the settlement as “amicable.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

The first in what have come to be known as the “wrong stitches” cases has been settled, a story in The Ledger reports.

The former plaintiff in the now-settled suit is Carrie Monk, a Lakeland, Fla., resident who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center several years ago. (The medical center is managed by Lakeland Regional Health Systems.) During that procedure, Ms. Monk claimed, her doctors used permanent rather than absorbable sutures to close her incisions. As a result, over the next 19 months, she experienced abdominal pain and constant bleeding, which in turn affected her personal life as well as her work as a nurse in the intensive care unit. She underwent follow-up surgery to have the permanent sutures removed, but two could not be identified and excised.

In July 2020, Ms. Monk filed a medical malpractice claim against Lakeland Regional Health, its medical center, and the ob-gyns who had performed her surgery. She was among the first of the women who had received the permanent sutures to do so.

On February 28, 2021, The Ledger ran a story on Ms. Monk’s suit. Less than 2 weeks later, Lakeland Regional Health sent letters to patients who had undergone “wrong stitch” surgeries, cautioning of possible postsurgical complications. The company reportedly kept secret how many letters it had sent out.

Since then, at least nine similar suits have been filed against Lakeland Regional Health, bringing the total number of such suits to 12. Four of these suits have been settled, including Ms. Monk’s. Of the remaining eight cases, several are in various pretrial stages.

Under the terms of her settlement, neither Ms. Monk nor her attorney may disclose what financial compensation or other awards she’s received. The attorney, however, referred to the settlement as “amicable.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

The first in what have come to be known as the “wrong stitches” cases has been settled, a story in The Ledger reports.

The former plaintiff in the now-settled suit is Carrie Monk, a Lakeland, Fla., resident who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center several years ago. (The medical center is managed by Lakeland Regional Health Systems.) During that procedure, Ms. Monk claimed, her doctors used permanent rather than absorbable sutures to close her incisions. As a result, over the next 19 months, she experienced abdominal pain and constant bleeding, which in turn affected her personal life as well as her work as a nurse in the intensive care unit. She underwent follow-up surgery to have the permanent sutures removed, but two could not be identified and excised.

In July 2020, Ms. Monk filed a medical malpractice claim against Lakeland Regional Health, its medical center, and the ob-gyns who had performed her surgery. She was among the first of the women who had received the permanent sutures to do so.

On February 28, 2021, The Ledger ran a story on Ms. Monk’s suit. Less than 2 weeks later, Lakeland Regional Health sent letters to patients who had undergone “wrong stitch” surgeries, cautioning of possible postsurgical complications. The company reportedly kept secret how many letters it had sent out.

Since then, at least nine similar suits have been filed against Lakeland Regional Health, bringing the total number of such suits to 12. Four of these suits have been settled, including Ms. Monk’s. Of the remaining eight cases, several are in various pretrial stages.

Under the terms of her settlement, neither Ms. Monk nor her attorney may disclose what financial compensation or other awards she’s received. The attorney, however, referred to the settlement as “amicable.”

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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