Business of Medicine

Anyone who practices Mohs micrographic surgery is likely to know the name Hugh Greenway, MD, the longtime head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, who was also recently selected as program director for cutaneous oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. He is also a former president of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

After earning his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, in 1974, Dr. Greenway was fellowship trained in Mohs skin cancer surgery by Frederic E. Mohs, MD, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He completed his dermatology residency at the Naval Medical Center San Diego and joined Scripps Clinic in 1983, where he launched the institution’s first Mohs surgery program, as well as a popular annual intensive course in superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery that bears his name. He was also the first physician in the world to use interferon as a nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma.

Courtesy Scripps Clinic

To date, Dr. Greenway has performed more than 41,000 Mohs surgery cases and has trained 61 fellows who practice in academic and clinical settings. In 2017, he received the Frederic E. Mohs Award from the ACMS at the college’s annual meeting. He is also a past CEO of Scripps Clinic. In this Q&A, Dr. Greenway opens up about what it was like to train with Dr. Mohs, what makes a good Mohs surgeon, and why he’s excited about the future of dermatology.
 

I understand that you first became interested in a medical career after meeting Dr. Carl Jones, a friend of your father who was your Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts in Georgia. What about Dr. Jones inspired you to pursue a career in medicine?

Dr. Jones was an internist/allergist in Atlanta, where I grew up. His three sons and I were friends. My dad had dealt with several medical problems being injured in World War II and subsequently undergoing a couple of kidney transplantations, so I developed an interest in medicine personally. Even though Dr. Jones was a specialist, he started out as a family doctor like I did, so he was interested in the whole person and all of his or her medical problems as opposed to those related to his specialty only. I traveled with the Boy Scouts to camp at places like Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Jones was involved with the medical set-ups of those large events. That also contributed to my interest in medicine.

As part of your 9-year service in the U.S. Navy, you spent 2 years as the flight surgeon at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base. What was your most memorable experience from that assignment?

Dobbins is a large facility with two Lockheed plants, and the Air Force had built the medical clinic, which was staffed by the Navy. Getting to know some of the active-duty members of the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard, and their commitment to our country, was memorable. Jimmy Carter was the president in those days. When he would fly in Dobbins, one of my jobs as the flight surgeon was to be on base when Air Force One landed or departed. One night, we had a DC-9 commercial aircraft coming from Huntsville, Ala., to Atlanta that got caught in a thunderstorm a little above 30,000 feet. Both engines went out and the aircraft essentially became a glider. The pilots tried to land on our runway but unfortunately, they ended up 4 miles short. We were heavily involved in responding to the crash, which was a tragic event. I also learned to fly (second seat) different types of aircraft during my assignment at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base, everything from the large C-5s to Navy fighter jets and helicopters. Coincidentally, Dr. Jones was involved with a couple of free health clinics in Atlanta when I was stationed there. Every Tuesday night, my wife (who is a nurse) and I would volunteer at a clinic in Cabbagetown, which was one of the poorer areas of Atlanta. It was a chance to give back to a group of people who didn’t have a whole lot.

In the middle your dermatology residency at Naval Medical Center San Diego, you were selected by Dr. Mohs for fellowship training in Mohs skin cancer surgery at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. What do you remember most about your training with Dr. Mohs?

Dr. Mohs was a kind, humble man who had this great idea about skin cancer. He was not a dermatologist; he was a general surgeon. The technique he developed was originally called chemosurgery because he put a chemical onto the skin. This was known as the fixed-tissue technique. Then we had a fresh-tissue technique, where we did not use the chemical, but we were able to use local anesthesia right away. That developed into the Mohs surgery we know today. Dr. Mohs did not name it that; he was very humble, but he was very proud of his technique. He was also a very hard worker. On the first day of my fellowship, I started at 7 in the morning and ended at 7 at night. It was the same for the last day of my fellowship. He also had an excellent office staff, many of whom had worked with him for many years. Patients with difficult skin cancers traveled to Madison from all over the world because there weren’t that many Mohs surgery clinics in those days. During the latter part of my fellowship, Michael McCall, MD, and I had the opportunity to remove a skin cancer from the nose of Dr. Mohs. We presented the case at a national conference, and I titled the talk “Mohs Surgery for Mohs’ Nose.”

Early in your career Dr. Mohs asked you to take over his practice, but you accepted an offer to establish the first Mohs surgery office at Scripps in San Diego instead. What convinced you to head West?

After my fellowship, I returned to San Diego to complete my residency with the Navy, where we opened a Mohs surgery clinic. Dr. Mohs came out for the ribbon cutting. During that time, I was taking care of several patients that he had treated in Wisconsin. Through that my wife and I ended up going to dinner with Cecil and Ida Green, philanthropists who made several financial gifts to Scripps Clinic – and for whom Scripps Green Hospital is named. Cecil cofounded Texas Instruments and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. During dinner, he suggested that I stay in San Diego for a year and work at Scripps after my residency assignment with the Navy. I agreed and have been here ever since.

What do you find most interesting about Mohs surgery?

In Mohs surgery, you’re able to provide not only surgical care to eliminate the tumor, but also the pathology and the reconstruction. That was interesting to me. Dr. Mohs was not that interested in reconstruction. He was more focused on the tumor, in part because with the original fixed-tissue technique you could not do the reconstruction. You had to wait for an extra layer of tissue to separate. But with the fresh-tissue technique, you were able to provide the reconstruction that day. Mohs surgery deals with a subset of tumors that are challenging to treat. That also spiked my academic and clinical interest.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in Mohs surgery to date?

In recent years, immunology has come into play, so now we have teams of clinicians in dermatology, medical oncology, surgery, and other subspecialties providing patients the best of care. In the arena of Mohs surgery itself, in the 1980s, the American College of Mohs Surgery developed a 1-year fellowship program, which enabled us to train many men and women to practice Mohs surgery. Most of them are dermatologists.

Please complete the sentence: “You can tell a good Mohs surgeon by the way he/she ...”

Treats patients, is willing to spend time with them, and shows an interest in them. One of the things we should strive for is to let patients know that they as a person are important; it’s not just the melanoma on their nose. We’re not only dealing with a skin cancer; we’re dealing with a patient who has skin cancer.

For the past 39 years, you have led Hugh Greenway’s Superficial Anatomy and Cutaneous Surgery course, which takes place every January in San Diego. What’s been key to sustaining this training course for nearly 4 decades?

There have been many people involved in its success, so it’s not just me. When I first started my practice, there really was not a focus on anatomy in the general dermatologic community. Dermatologic surgery textbooks contained very little content on surgical anatomy so I developed an interest a putting together a course that would cover some of this material. I met with Terence Davidson, MD, an otolaryngologist who was dean of continuing medical education at the University of California, San Diego. The course includes lectures from experts in many subspecialties and hands-on laboratories using cadavers to work on anatomy and surgical techniques. After about 16 years of doing the course Dr. Davidson told me: “When we started this course, as a group, the head and neck surgeons were the best to do the reconstructions on the face with skin flaps and grafts and layered closures. But now, as a group, the dermatologists are best at doing that.” That’s what we want to hear in medical education.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint?

I’m fortunate to practice at a place like Scripps, where there are many resources to look at what was happening with COVID-19. Clinically, we had to put a lot of things on hold, but we tried our best to keep our cancer patients in particular in the forefront of care. It has been a challenge, but fortunately we have been able to take care of patients after a brief timeout. Many of us remember the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Having worked overseas and at missionary hospital where we had children die of measles because they were not vaccinated gave me a larger appreciation for the importance of vaccines. I recommend all young physicians who work with me to read, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” by John M. Barry, which recounts the 1918 flu epidemic.

Who inspires you most in your work today?

I don’t view what I do as work. Dr. Jones and Dr. Mohs continue to inspire me with what they accomplished during their careers. You have to love people and love patients. Every patient who comes to see me has a story, so I try to understand their story. One of the things I really enjoy is training the young fellows. We train three Mohs fellows per year at Scripps, and it’s a great challenge every day.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dermatology will continue to evolve just like all other medical specialties. We’re going to see a large growth in telemedicine, and immunotherapy is playing a key role in dermatologic oncology. What excites me the most in medicine is the young people who enter the field willing to contribute their lives to helping others.

Anyone who practices Mohs micrographic surgery is likely to know the name Hugh Greenway, MD, the longtime head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, who was also recently selected as program director for cutaneous oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. He is also a former president of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

After earning his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, in 1974, Dr. Greenway was fellowship trained in Mohs skin cancer surgery by Frederic E. Mohs, MD, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He completed his dermatology residency at the Naval Medical Center San Diego and joined Scripps Clinic in 1983, where he launched the institution’s first Mohs surgery program, as well as a popular annual intensive course in superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery that bears his name. He was also the first physician in the world to use interferon as a nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma.

Courtesy Scripps Clinic

To date, Dr. Greenway has performed more than 41,000 Mohs surgery cases and has trained 61 fellows who practice in academic and clinical settings. In 2017, he received the Frederic E. Mohs Award from the ACMS at the college’s annual meeting. He is also a past CEO of Scripps Clinic. In this Q&A, Dr. Greenway opens up about what it was like to train with Dr. Mohs, what makes a good Mohs surgeon, and why he’s excited about the future of dermatology.
 

I understand that you first became interested in a medical career after meeting Dr. Carl Jones, a friend of your father who was your Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts in Georgia. What about Dr. Jones inspired you to pursue a career in medicine?

Dr. Jones was an internist/allergist in Atlanta, where I grew up. His three sons and I were friends. My dad had dealt with several medical problems being injured in World War II and subsequently undergoing a couple of kidney transplantations, so I developed an interest in medicine personally. Even though Dr. Jones was a specialist, he started out as a family doctor like I did, so he was interested in the whole person and all of his or her medical problems as opposed to those related to his specialty only. I traveled with the Boy Scouts to camp at places like Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Jones was involved with the medical set-ups of those large events. That also contributed to my interest in medicine.

As part of your 9-year service in the U.S. Navy, you spent 2 years as the flight surgeon at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base. What was your most memorable experience from that assignment?

Dobbins is a large facility with two Lockheed plants, and the Air Force had built the medical clinic, which was staffed by the Navy. Getting to know some of the active-duty members of the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard, and their commitment to our country, was memorable. Jimmy Carter was the president in those days. When he would fly in Dobbins, one of my jobs as the flight surgeon was to be on base when Air Force One landed or departed. One night, we had a DC-9 commercial aircraft coming from Huntsville, Ala., to Atlanta that got caught in a thunderstorm a little above 30,000 feet. Both engines went out and the aircraft essentially became a glider. The pilots tried to land on our runway but unfortunately, they ended up 4 miles short. We were heavily involved in responding to the crash, which was a tragic event. I also learned to fly (second seat) different types of aircraft during my assignment at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base, everything from the large C-5s to Navy fighter jets and helicopters. Coincidentally, Dr. Jones was involved with a couple of free health clinics in Atlanta when I was stationed there. Every Tuesday night, my wife (who is a nurse) and I would volunteer at a clinic in Cabbagetown, which was one of the poorer areas of Atlanta. It was a chance to give back to a group of people who didn’t have a whole lot.

In the middle your dermatology residency at Naval Medical Center San Diego, you were selected by Dr. Mohs for fellowship training in Mohs skin cancer surgery at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. What do you remember most about your training with Dr. Mohs?

Dr. Mohs was a kind, humble man who had this great idea about skin cancer. He was not a dermatologist; he was a general surgeon. The technique he developed was originally called chemosurgery because he put a chemical onto the skin. This was known as the fixed-tissue technique. Then we had a fresh-tissue technique, where we did not use the chemical, but we were able to use local anesthesia right away. That developed into the Mohs surgery we know today. Dr. Mohs did not name it that; he was very humble, but he was very proud of his technique. He was also a very hard worker. On the first day of my fellowship, I started at 7 in the morning and ended at 7 at night. It was the same for the last day of my fellowship. He also had an excellent office staff, many of whom had worked with him for many years. Patients with difficult skin cancers traveled to Madison from all over the world because there weren’t that many Mohs surgery clinics in those days. During the latter part of my fellowship, Michael McCall, MD, and I had the opportunity to remove a skin cancer from the nose of Dr. Mohs. We presented the case at a national conference, and I titled the talk “Mohs Surgery for Mohs’ Nose.”

Early in your career Dr. Mohs asked you to take over his practice, but you accepted an offer to establish the first Mohs surgery office at Scripps in San Diego instead. What convinced you to head West?

After my fellowship, I returned to San Diego to complete my residency with the Navy, where we opened a Mohs surgery clinic. Dr. Mohs came out for the ribbon cutting. During that time, I was taking care of several patients that he had treated in Wisconsin. Through that my wife and I ended up going to dinner with Cecil and Ida Green, philanthropists who made several financial gifts to Scripps Clinic – and for whom Scripps Green Hospital is named. Cecil cofounded Texas Instruments and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. During dinner, he suggested that I stay in San Diego for a year and work at Scripps after my residency assignment with the Navy. I agreed and have been here ever since.

What do you find most interesting about Mohs surgery?

In Mohs surgery, you’re able to provide not only surgical care to eliminate the tumor, but also the pathology and the reconstruction. That was interesting to me. Dr. Mohs was not that interested in reconstruction. He was more focused on the tumor, in part because with the original fixed-tissue technique you could not do the reconstruction. You had to wait for an extra layer of tissue to separate. But with the fresh-tissue technique, you were able to provide the reconstruction that day. Mohs surgery deals with a subset of tumors that are challenging to treat. That also spiked my academic and clinical interest.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in Mohs surgery to date?

In recent years, immunology has come into play, so now we have teams of clinicians in dermatology, medical oncology, surgery, and other subspecialties providing patients the best of care. In the arena of Mohs surgery itself, in the 1980s, the American College of Mohs Surgery developed a 1-year fellowship program, which enabled us to train many men and women to practice Mohs surgery. Most of them are dermatologists.

Please complete the sentence: “You can tell a good Mohs surgeon by the way he/she ...”

Treats patients, is willing to spend time with them, and shows an interest in them. One of the things we should strive for is to let patients know that they as a person are important; it’s not just the melanoma on their nose. We’re not only dealing with a skin cancer; we’re dealing with a patient who has skin cancer.

For the past 39 years, you have led Hugh Greenway’s Superficial Anatomy and Cutaneous Surgery course, which takes place every January in San Diego. What’s been key to sustaining this training course for nearly 4 decades?

There have been many people involved in its success, so it’s not just me. When I first started my practice, there really was not a focus on anatomy in the general dermatologic community. Dermatologic surgery textbooks contained very little content on surgical anatomy so I developed an interest a putting together a course that would cover some of this material. I met with Terence Davidson, MD, an otolaryngologist who was dean of continuing medical education at the University of California, San Diego. The course includes lectures from experts in many subspecialties and hands-on laboratories using cadavers to work on anatomy and surgical techniques. After about 16 years of doing the course Dr. Davidson told me: “When we started this course, as a group, the head and neck surgeons were the best to do the reconstructions on the face with skin flaps and grafts and layered closures. But now, as a group, the dermatologists are best at doing that.” That’s what we want to hear in medical education.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint?

I’m fortunate to practice at a place like Scripps, where there are many resources to look at what was happening with COVID-19. Clinically, we had to put a lot of things on hold, but we tried our best to keep our cancer patients in particular in the forefront of care. It has been a challenge, but fortunately we have been able to take care of patients after a brief timeout. Many of us remember the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Having worked overseas and at missionary hospital where we had children die of measles because they were not vaccinated gave me a larger appreciation for the importance of vaccines. I recommend all young physicians who work with me to read, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” by John M. Barry, which recounts the 1918 flu epidemic.

Who inspires you most in your work today?

I don’t view what I do as work. Dr. Jones and Dr. Mohs continue to inspire me with what they accomplished during their careers. You have to love people and love patients. Every patient who comes to see me has a story, so I try to understand their story. One of the things I really enjoy is training the young fellows. We train three Mohs fellows per year at Scripps, and it’s a great challenge every day.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dermatology will continue to evolve just like all other medical specialties. We’re going to see a large growth in telemedicine, and immunotherapy is playing a key role in dermatologic oncology. What excites me the most in medicine is the young people who enter the field willing to contribute their lives to helping others.

Anyone who practices Mohs micrographic surgery is likely to know the name Hugh Greenway, MD, the longtime head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, who was also recently selected as program director for cutaneous oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. He is also a former president of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

After earning his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, in 1974, Dr. Greenway was fellowship trained in Mohs skin cancer surgery by Frederic E. Mohs, MD, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He completed his dermatology residency at the Naval Medical Center San Diego and joined Scripps Clinic in 1983, where he launched the institution’s first Mohs surgery program, as well as a popular annual intensive course in superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery that bears his name. He was also the first physician in the world to use interferon as a nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma.

Courtesy Scripps Clinic

To date, Dr. Greenway has performed more than 41,000 Mohs surgery cases and has trained 61 fellows who practice in academic and clinical settings. In 2017, he received the Frederic E. Mohs Award from the ACMS at the college’s annual meeting. He is also a past CEO of Scripps Clinic. In this Q&A, Dr. Greenway opens up about what it was like to train with Dr. Mohs, what makes a good Mohs surgeon, and why he’s excited about the future of dermatology.
 

I understand that you first became interested in a medical career after meeting Dr. Carl Jones, a friend of your father who was your Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts in Georgia. What about Dr. Jones inspired you to pursue a career in medicine?

Dr. Jones was an internist/allergist in Atlanta, where I grew up. His three sons and I were friends. My dad had dealt with several medical problems being injured in World War II and subsequently undergoing a couple of kidney transplantations, so I developed an interest in medicine personally. Even though Dr. Jones was a specialist, he started out as a family doctor like I did, so he was interested in the whole person and all of his or her medical problems as opposed to those related to his specialty only. I traveled with the Boy Scouts to camp at places like Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Jones was involved with the medical set-ups of those large events. That also contributed to my interest in medicine.

As part of your 9-year service in the U.S. Navy, you spent 2 years as the flight surgeon at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base. What was your most memorable experience from that assignment?

Dobbins is a large facility with two Lockheed plants, and the Air Force had built the medical clinic, which was staffed by the Navy. Getting to know some of the active-duty members of the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard, and their commitment to our country, was memorable. Jimmy Carter was the president in those days. When he would fly in Dobbins, one of my jobs as the flight surgeon was to be on base when Air Force One landed or departed. One night, we had a DC-9 commercial aircraft coming from Huntsville, Ala., to Atlanta that got caught in a thunderstorm a little above 30,000 feet. Both engines went out and the aircraft essentially became a glider. The pilots tried to land on our runway but unfortunately, they ended up 4 miles short. We were heavily involved in responding to the crash, which was a tragic event. I also learned to fly (second seat) different types of aircraft during my assignment at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base, everything from the large C-5s to Navy fighter jets and helicopters. Coincidentally, Dr. Jones was involved with a couple of free health clinics in Atlanta when I was stationed there. Every Tuesday night, my wife (who is a nurse) and I would volunteer at a clinic in Cabbagetown, which was one of the poorer areas of Atlanta. It was a chance to give back to a group of people who didn’t have a whole lot.

In the middle your dermatology residency at Naval Medical Center San Diego, you were selected by Dr. Mohs for fellowship training in Mohs skin cancer surgery at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. What do you remember most about your training with Dr. Mohs?

Dr. Mohs was a kind, humble man who had this great idea about skin cancer. He was not a dermatologist; he was a general surgeon. The technique he developed was originally called chemosurgery because he put a chemical onto the skin. This was known as the fixed-tissue technique. Then we had a fresh-tissue technique, where we did not use the chemical, but we were able to use local anesthesia right away. That developed into the Mohs surgery we know today. Dr. Mohs did not name it that; he was very humble, but he was very proud of his technique. He was also a very hard worker. On the first day of my fellowship, I started at 7 in the morning and ended at 7 at night. It was the same for the last day of my fellowship. He also had an excellent office staff, many of whom had worked with him for many years. Patients with difficult skin cancers traveled to Madison from all over the world because there weren’t that many Mohs surgery clinics in those days. During the latter part of my fellowship, Michael McCall, MD, and I had the opportunity to remove a skin cancer from the nose of Dr. Mohs. We presented the case at a national conference, and I titled the talk “Mohs Surgery for Mohs’ Nose.”

Early in your career Dr. Mohs asked you to take over his practice, but you accepted an offer to establish the first Mohs surgery office at Scripps in San Diego instead. What convinced you to head West?

After my fellowship, I returned to San Diego to complete my residency with the Navy, where we opened a Mohs surgery clinic. Dr. Mohs came out for the ribbon cutting. During that time, I was taking care of several patients that he had treated in Wisconsin. Through that my wife and I ended up going to dinner with Cecil and Ida Green, philanthropists who made several financial gifts to Scripps Clinic – and for whom Scripps Green Hospital is named. Cecil cofounded Texas Instruments and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. During dinner, he suggested that I stay in San Diego for a year and work at Scripps after my residency assignment with the Navy. I agreed and have been here ever since.

What do you find most interesting about Mohs surgery?

In Mohs surgery, you’re able to provide not only surgical care to eliminate the tumor, but also the pathology and the reconstruction. That was interesting to me. Dr. Mohs was not that interested in reconstruction. He was more focused on the tumor, in part because with the original fixed-tissue technique you could not do the reconstruction. You had to wait for an extra layer of tissue to separate. But with the fresh-tissue technique, you were able to provide the reconstruction that day. Mohs surgery deals with a subset of tumors that are challenging to treat. That also spiked my academic and clinical interest.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in Mohs surgery to date?

In recent years, immunology has come into play, so now we have teams of clinicians in dermatology, medical oncology, surgery, and other subspecialties providing patients the best of care. In the arena of Mohs surgery itself, in the 1980s, the American College of Mohs Surgery developed a 1-year fellowship program, which enabled us to train many men and women to practice Mohs surgery. Most of them are dermatologists.

Please complete the sentence: “You can tell a good Mohs surgeon by the way he/she ...”

Treats patients, is willing to spend time with them, and shows an interest in them. One of the things we should strive for is to let patients know that they as a person are important; it’s not just the melanoma on their nose. We’re not only dealing with a skin cancer; we’re dealing with a patient who has skin cancer.

For the past 39 years, you have led Hugh Greenway’s Superficial Anatomy and Cutaneous Surgery course, which takes place every January in San Diego. What’s been key to sustaining this training course for nearly 4 decades?

There have been many people involved in its success, so it’s not just me. When I first started my practice, there really was not a focus on anatomy in the general dermatologic community. Dermatologic surgery textbooks contained very little content on surgical anatomy so I developed an interest a putting together a course that would cover some of this material. I met with Terence Davidson, MD, an otolaryngologist who was dean of continuing medical education at the University of California, San Diego. The course includes lectures from experts in many subspecialties and hands-on laboratories using cadavers to work on anatomy and surgical techniques. After about 16 years of doing the course Dr. Davidson told me: “When we started this course, as a group, the head and neck surgeons were the best to do the reconstructions on the face with skin flaps and grafts and layered closures. But now, as a group, the dermatologists are best at doing that.” That’s what we want to hear in medical education.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint?

I’m fortunate to practice at a place like Scripps, where there are many resources to look at what was happening with COVID-19. Clinically, we had to put a lot of things on hold, but we tried our best to keep our cancer patients in particular in the forefront of care. It has been a challenge, but fortunately we have been able to take care of patients after a brief timeout. Many of us remember the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Having worked overseas and at missionary hospital where we had children die of measles because they were not vaccinated gave me a larger appreciation for the importance of vaccines. I recommend all young physicians who work with me to read, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” by John M. Barry, which recounts the 1918 flu epidemic.

Who inspires you most in your work today?

I don’t view what I do as work. Dr. Jones and Dr. Mohs continue to inspire me with what they accomplished during their careers. You have to love people and love patients. Every patient who comes to see me has a story, so I try to understand their story. One of the things I really enjoy is training the young fellows. We train three Mohs fellows per year at Scripps, and it’s a great challenge every day.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dermatology will continue to evolve just like all other medical specialties. We’re going to see a large growth in telemedicine, and immunotherapy is playing a key role in dermatologic oncology. What excites me the most in medicine is the young people who enter the field willing to contribute their lives to helping others.

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade could have far-reaching impacts on residents in ob.gyn. medical programs across the country, from learning simple procedures like ultrasounds to how to manage miscarriages.

On Monday, Politico published a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which declares Roe unconstitutional. The actual opinion is due at the end of June. If all the justices keep their positions for that vote, the 1973 court case that legalized abortion rights in the United States would no longer keep states from banning the procedure before viability, which is defined as 24-26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Loss of federal protections provided by Roe would leave a patchwork of states where providers would have to change reproductive health practices. Medical schools in those states would also have to curtail any abortion care training, experts told this news organization.

Constance Bohon, MD, co-chair of the Legislative and Liability Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said: “As a profession, we are concerned about the possibility that there will be ob.gyn. residents who graduate without the experience and training needed to care for a patient who has complications from an abortion or a missed abortion. We are very concerned that without adequate training and access to care for these patients, the maternal mortality rate will rise.”

The loss of Roe “means that sadly, and realistically, many residents just won’t get the training, or we will need to think about mitigation strategies, like providing simulation training,” said Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “I can assure you that without access to abortion training, the quality of ob.gyn. training will absolutely suffer.”

Twenty-two states, including large swaths of the south and Midwest, already have laws that would go into effect immediately to ban abortion in the absence of Roe. Four states, including Florida, Montana, and Indiana, would likely ban abortion, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

Almost 45% of ob.gyn. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in these states, totaling 2,638 residents as of 2022, according to a study published in April by researchers at the UCLA.

Most reproductive health care training lasts between 1-2 months during residency and includes instruction on ultrasounds, best practices in managing pregnancy complications, learning how to safely evacuate a uterus in the event of a stillbirth or miscarriage, and counseling for family planning options.
 

A glimpse at the future

The potential for a new reality is already playing out in Texas, where a law banning abortions after 6 weeks in pregnancy took effect last Sept. 1. The Ryan Program, a national initiative to teach abortion care to medical school residents, started a pilot to match resident physicians in Texas with hospital programs in other states without abortion restrictions.

The Ryan Program has matched over 40 residents since the law took effect, according to Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD, who oversees the Ryan Program at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Matching students is an arduous and timely process because students have hectic schedules, and state licensure and other regulatory issues must be worked out, she said.

“It will take a while to get systems in place to really support resident travel, and not every resident is going to be able to travel, so I’m just worried about the future impacts on patient care,” Dr. Steinauer told this news organization. “We have hundreds of residents who are not learning the skills they need, and they’re not going be able to provide evidence-based, patient-centered care.”

But Dr. Bohon expressed skepticism that the Ryan Program and other initiatives to provide training for travel residents would be sufficient. “Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this program will not be sufficient to provide training for all of the ob.gyn. residents who do not have access to abortion training because of the state where their residency is,” she said. “There are residency programs that have the capacity to have ob.gyns. get training at their programs, but there is a limited number of these positions available as well.”

She added that the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology is actively pursuing options to provide abortion training for residents for whom such training is not available. 
 

Spillover effect

Health care professionals in states without restrictive abortion laws will also see an increase in patients seeking abortion-related care. This spike already is happening in New Mexico, which borders not only Texas, but Oklahoma and Arizona – states that have severely restricted abortion rights.

“It’s difficult in the states that will be overloaded with additional abortion care to then incorporate learners on top of that,” said Eve Espey, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “Logistically, to fill that gap in care and train at the same time will be really challenging.”

Dr. Espey said the UNM Center for Reproductive Health has already seen patients from Texas who would likely fall under an exemption in that state’s law that allows abortions if a patient faces a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues.

“Providers are so afraid of these laws, and if they’re risk adverse, they’re always going to err on the side of not taking care of the patient if you think you can get in trouble,” Dr. Espey said, pointing to patients who presented with lethal fetal anomalies or ruptured fetal membranes early in pregnancy that might fall under the medical emergency exemption.

Dr. Steinauer with the Ryan Program said that many Texas residency program directors have told her they’ve heard from applicants who are giving low ranks to residency programs in the state.

“They’re saying, ‘if we want to be able to be trained as an ob.gyn., why would we want to go to a program with such significant restrictions?’” Dr. Steinauer said. “That is a real worry.”

Most ob.gyn. medical residency programs now provide built-in abortion training, which the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated in 1995. A small majority do not. According to a 2020 research letter from the ACOG, about 11% of ob.gyn. residents said their programs hypothetically offer training without a clear process to obtain it, and 8% reported that their programs offered no such training at all.

Residents can also opt out of abortion training, although students increasingly are choosing to only opt out of certain parts, such as training for abortions provided later in pregnancies, according to Dr. Steinauer.
 

A looming ‘pipeline problem’

There were about 3,550 abortion service clinicians in 2020, 72% of whom were ob.gyns., followed by family medicine doctors and advanced practice registered nurses, according to research published in March in JAMA Internal Medicine. This number is likely not an accurate tally, however, because the authors queried a national medical claims database that did not include self-pay patients.

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a senior research scientist at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the study, said states could create policies to broaden access to abortion for patients and training for medical residents.

Those include expanding laws to allow advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, allowing state Medicaid programs to opt-in for abortion payment, and establishing abortion care continuing medical education requirements for state boards of medicine for both ob.gyn. and primary care.

“Providers that practice in those restricted states will not only stop providing care there but also won’t be able to train the next generation of workforce to be able to provide that care,” Dr. Strasser said. “It’s a pipeline problem.”

States also could encourage their medical residency programs to not hold slots open for students who want to opt out of abortion care training. The University of Washington, Seattle, in 2000 eliminated slots it had been holding open for opt-out students because the state does not have restrictions on abortion.

As abortion becomes increasingly restricted across the country, Dr. Strasser said, for medical schools in “a state that continues to make abortion available, it’s essentially their duty to make that training available.”

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

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade could have far-reaching impacts on residents in ob.gyn. medical programs across the country, from learning simple procedures like ultrasounds to how to manage miscarriages.

On Monday, Politico published a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which declares Roe unconstitutional. The actual opinion is due at the end of June. If all the justices keep their positions for that vote, the 1973 court case that legalized abortion rights in the United States would no longer keep states from banning the procedure before viability, which is defined as 24-26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Loss of federal protections provided by Roe would leave a patchwork of states where providers would have to change reproductive health practices. Medical schools in those states would also have to curtail any abortion care training, experts told this news organization.

Constance Bohon, MD, co-chair of the Legislative and Liability Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said: “As a profession, we are concerned about the possibility that there will be ob.gyn. residents who graduate without the experience and training needed to care for a patient who has complications from an abortion or a missed abortion. We are very concerned that without adequate training and access to care for these patients, the maternal mortality rate will rise.”

The loss of Roe “means that sadly, and realistically, many residents just won’t get the training, or we will need to think about mitigation strategies, like providing simulation training,” said Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “I can assure you that without access to abortion training, the quality of ob.gyn. training will absolutely suffer.”

Twenty-two states, including large swaths of the south and Midwest, already have laws that would go into effect immediately to ban abortion in the absence of Roe. Four states, including Florida, Montana, and Indiana, would likely ban abortion, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

Almost 45% of ob.gyn. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in these states, totaling 2,638 residents as of 2022, according to a study published in April by researchers at the UCLA.

Most reproductive health care training lasts between 1-2 months during residency and includes instruction on ultrasounds, best practices in managing pregnancy complications, learning how to safely evacuate a uterus in the event of a stillbirth or miscarriage, and counseling for family planning options.
 

A glimpse at the future

The potential for a new reality is already playing out in Texas, where a law banning abortions after 6 weeks in pregnancy took effect last Sept. 1. The Ryan Program, a national initiative to teach abortion care to medical school residents, started a pilot to match resident physicians in Texas with hospital programs in other states without abortion restrictions.

The Ryan Program has matched over 40 residents since the law took effect, according to Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD, who oversees the Ryan Program at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Matching students is an arduous and timely process because students have hectic schedules, and state licensure and other regulatory issues must be worked out, she said.

“It will take a while to get systems in place to really support resident travel, and not every resident is going to be able to travel, so I’m just worried about the future impacts on patient care,” Dr. Steinauer told this news organization. “We have hundreds of residents who are not learning the skills they need, and they’re not going be able to provide evidence-based, patient-centered care.”

But Dr. Bohon expressed skepticism that the Ryan Program and other initiatives to provide training for travel residents would be sufficient. “Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this program will not be sufficient to provide training for all of the ob.gyn. residents who do not have access to abortion training because of the state where their residency is,” she said. “There are residency programs that have the capacity to have ob.gyns. get training at their programs, but there is a limited number of these positions available as well.”

She added that the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology is actively pursuing options to provide abortion training for residents for whom such training is not available. 
 

Spillover effect

Health care professionals in states without restrictive abortion laws will also see an increase in patients seeking abortion-related care. This spike already is happening in New Mexico, which borders not only Texas, but Oklahoma and Arizona – states that have severely restricted abortion rights.

“It’s difficult in the states that will be overloaded with additional abortion care to then incorporate learners on top of that,” said Eve Espey, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “Logistically, to fill that gap in care and train at the same time will be really challenging.”

Dr. Espey said the UNM Center for Reproductive Health has already seen patients from Texas who would likely fall under an exemption in that state’s law that allows abortions if a patient faces a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues.

“Providers are so afraid of these laws, and if they’re risk adverse, they’re always going to err on the side of not taking care of the patient if you think you can get in trouble,” Dr. Espey said, pointing to patients who presented with lethal fetal anomalies or ruptured fetal membranes early in pregnancy that might fall under the medical emergency exemption.

Dr. Steinauer with the Ryan Program said that many Texas residency program directors have told her they’ve heard from applicants who are giving low ranks to residency programs in the state.

“They’re saying, ‘if we want to be able to be trained as an ob.gyn., why would we want to go to a program with such significant restrictions?’” Dr. Steinauer said. “That is a real worry.”

Most ob.gyn. medical residency programs now provide built-in abortion training, which the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated in 1995. A small majority do not. According to a 2020 research letter from the ACOG, about 11% of ob.gyn. residents said their programs hypothetically offer training without a clear process to obtain it, and 8% reported that their programs offered no such training at all.

Residents can also opt out of abortion training, although students increasingly are choosing to only opt out of certain parts, such as training for abortions provided later in pregnancies, according to Dr. Steinauer.
 

A looming ‘pipeline problem’

There were about 3,550 abortion service clinicians in 2020, 72% of whom were ob.gyns., followed by family medicine doctors and advanced practice registered nurses, according to research published in March in JAMA Internal Medicine. This number is likely not an accurate tally, however, because the authors queried a national medical claims database that did not include self-pay patients.

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a senior research scientist at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the study, said states could create policies to broaden access to abortion for patients and training for medical residents.

Those include expanding laws to allow advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, allowing state Medicaid programs to opt-in for abortion payment, and establishing abortion care continuing medical education requirements for state boards of medicine for both ob.gyn. and primary care.

“Providers that practice in those restricted states will not only stop providing care there but also won’t be able to train the next generation of workforce to be able to provide that care,” Dr. Strasser said. “It’s a pipeline problem.”

States also could encourage their medical residency programs to not hold slots open for students who want to opt out of abortion care training. The University of Washington, Seattle, in 2000 eliminated slots it had been holding open for opt-out students because the state does not have restrictions on abortion.

As abortion becomes increasingly restricted across the country, Dr. Strasser said, for medical schools in “a state that continues to make abortion available, it’s essentially their duty to make that training available.”

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

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade could have far-reaching impacts on residents in ob.gyn. medical programs across the country, from learning simple procedures like ultrasounds to how to manage miscarriages.

On Monday, Politico published a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which declares Roe unconstitutional. The actual opinion is due at the end of June. If all the justices keep their positions for that vote, the 1973 court case that legalized abortion rights in the United States would no longer keep states from banning the procedure before viability, which is defined as 24-26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Loss of federal protections provided by Roe would leave a patchwork of states where providers would have to change reproductive health practices. Medical schools in those states would also have to curtail any abortion care training, experts told this news organization.

Constance Bohon, MD, co-chair of the Legislative and Liability Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said: “As a profession, we are concerned about the possibility that there will be ob.gyn. residents who graduate without the experience and training needed to care for a patient who has complications from an abortion or a missed abortion. We are very concerned that without adequate training and access to care for these patients, the maternal mortality rate will rise.”

The loss of Roe “means that sadly, and realistically, many residents just won’t get the training, or we will need to think about mitigation strategies, like providing simulation training,” said Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “I can assure you that without access to abortion training, the quality of ob.gyn. training will absolutely suffer.”

Twenty-two states, including large swaths of the south and Midwest, already have laws that would go into effect immediately to ban abortion in the absence of Roe. Four states, including Florida, Montana, and Indiana, would likely ban abortion, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

Almost 45% of ob.gyn. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in these states, totaling 2,638 residents as of 2022, according to a study published in April by researchers at the UCLA.

Most reproductive health care training lasts between 1-2 months during residency and includes instruction on ultrasounds, best practices in managing pregnancy complications, learning how to safely evacuate a uterus in the event of a stillbirth or miscarriage, and counseling for family planning options.
 

A glimpse at the future

The potential for a new reality is already playing out in Texas, where a law banning abortions after 6 weeks in pregnancy took effect last Sept. 1. The Ryan Program, a national initiative to teach abortion care to medical school residents, started a pilot to match resident physicians in Texas with hospital programs in other states without abortion restrictions.

The Ryan Program has matched over 40 residents since the law took effect, according to Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD, who oversees the Ryan Program at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Matching students is an arduous and timely process because students have hectic schedules, and state licensure and other regulatory issues must be worked out, she said.

“It will take a while to get systems in place to really support resident travel, and not every resident is going to be able to travel, so I’m just worried about the future impacts on patient care,” Dr. Steinauer told this news organization. “We have hundreds of residents who are not learning the skills they need, and they’re not going be able to provide evidence-based, patient-centered care.”

But Dr. Bohon expressed skepticism that the Ryan Program and other initiatives to provide training for travel residents would be sufficient. “Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this program will not be sufficient to provide training for all of the ob.gyn. residents who do not have access to abortion training because of the state where their residency is,” she said. “There are residency programs that have the capacity to have ob.gyns. get training at their programs, but there is a limited number of these positions available as well.”

She added that the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology is actively pursuing options to provide abortion training for residents for whom such training is not available. 
 

Spillover effect

Health care professionals in states without restrictive abortion laws will also see an increase in patients seeking abortion-related care. This spike already is happening in New Mexico, which borders not only Texas, but Oklahoma and Arizona – states that have severely restricted abortion rights.

“It’s difficult in the states that will be overloaded with additional abortion care to then incorporate learners on top of that,” said Eve Espey, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “Logistically, to fill that gap in care and train at the same time will be really challenging.”

Dr. Espey said the UNM Center for Reproductive Health has already seen patients from Texas who would likely fall under an exemption in that state’s law that allows abortions if a patient faces a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues.

“Providers are so afraid of these laws, and if they’re risk adverse, they’re always going to err on the side of not taking care of the patient if you think you can get in trouble,” Dr. Espey said, pointing to patients who presented with lethal fetal anomalies or ruptured fetal membranes early in pregnancy that might fall under the medical emergency exemption.

Dr. Steinauer with the Ryan Program said that many Texas residency program directors have told her they’ve heard from applicants who are giving low ranks to residency programs in the state.

“They’re saying, ‘if we want to be able to be trained as an ob.gyn., why would we want to go to a program with such significant restrictions?’” Dr. Steinauer said. “That is a real worry.”

Most ob.gyn. medical residency programs now provide built-in abortion training, which the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated in 1995. A small majority do not. According to a 2020 research letter from the ACOG, about 11% of ob.gyn. residents said their programs hypothetically offer training without a clear process to obtain it, and 8% reported that their programs offered no such training at all.

Residents can also opt out of abortion training, although students increasingly are choosing to only opt out of certain parts, such as training for abortions provided later in pregnancies, according to Dr. Steinauer.
 

A looming ‘pipeline problem’

There were about 3,550 abortion service clinicians in 2020, 72% of whom were ob.gyns., followed by family medicine doctors and advanced practice registered nurses, according to research published in March in JAMA Internal Medicine. This number is likely not an accurate tally, however, because the authors queried a national medical claims database that did not include self-pay patients.

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a senior research scientist at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the study, said states could create policies to broaden access to abortion for patients and training for medical residents.

Those include expanding laws to allow advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, allowing state Medicaid programs to opt-in for abortion payment, and establishing abortion care continuing medical education requirements for state boards of medicine for both ob.gyn. and primary care.

“Providers that practice in those restricted states will not only stop providing care there but also won’t be able to train the next generation of workforce to be able to provide that care,” Dr. Strasser said. “It’s a pipeline problem.”

States also could encourage their medical residency programs to not hold slots open for students who want to opt out of abortion care training. The University of Washington, Seattle, in 2000 eliminated slots it had been holding open for opt-out students because the state does not have restrictions on abortion.

As abortion becomes increasingly restricted across the country, Dr. Strasser said, for medical schools in “a state that continues to make abortion available, it’s essentially their duty to make that training available.”

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

Seven physicians were among 12 medical professionals charged today by the U.S. Department of Justice with opioid distribution offenses.

In coordination with federal and state law enforcement, the DOJ charged the defendants for their involvement in the illegal distribution of opioids. At the time that they were charged with the alleged offenses, 12 of the defendants were medical professionals.

The 12 persons in eight federal districts across the country distributed more than 115 million controlled substances, including buprenorphine, clonazepam, dextroamphetamine-amphetamine, hydrocodone, morphine sulfate, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and Suboxone, per the DOJ.

“Doctors and health care professionals are entrusted with prescribing medicine responsibly and in the best interests of their patients. Today’s takedown targets medical providers across the country whose greed drove them to abandon this responsibility in favor of criminal profits,” said Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
 

Medical professionals, others across six states charged

One former nurse, one business manager, and one individual who practiced medicine without a medical credential are among those listed in the indictment. These include the following:

• Eskender Getachew, MD, a Columbus, Ohio, sleep medicine specialist, was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances outside the use of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical practice.
• Charles Kistler, DO, an Upper Arlington, Ohio, family practice physician, was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances for unlawful prescribing at Midtown Family Practice Clinic in Columbus.
• Yogeshwar Gil, MBBS, a Manchester, Tenn., family medicine doctor and owner of a medical practice, was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances and maintaining a drug-involved premises. Dr. Gil was charged in connection with an alleged scheme to distribute opioids and Suboxone outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.
• Contessa Holley, RN, a Pulaski, Tenn., former nurse and clinical director, was charged with wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. She’s alleged to be connected with a scheme to unlawfully obtain opioids by filling fraudulent prescriptions in the names of current and former patients who were in hospice. The indictment alleged that Ms. Holley used the patients’ hospice benefits to cover the opioids’ costs while keeping the drugs for her own use and for further distribution.
• Francene Aretha Gayle, MD, an Orlando, Fla., physician, was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud, and several substantive counts of illegally issuing opioid prescriptions. Dr. Gayle was charged along with Schara Monique Davis, a Huntsville, Ala.–based business manager. Per the indictment, Dr. Gayle and Ms. Davis operated three medical clinics in Alabama, where Dr. Gayle was the sole physician. The medical clinics billed health insurers for millions of dollars in patient visits that Dr. Gayle had supposedly conducted but during which she was allegedly absent from the clinics; other staff members conducted the visits instead. It’s alleged that Dr. Gayle presigned prescriptions for opioids that were given to patients.
• Robert Taffet, MD, a Haddonfield, N.J., orthopedic surgeon and owner of a medical practice in Sicklerville, N.J., was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances. The indictment alleges that he falsified patient files to state that he interacted with patients when he didn’t and that he issued prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances without assessing the patients in person or by telemedicine. It’s alleged that Dr. Taffett issued prescriptions for more than 179,000 pills that were dispensed by New Jersey pharmacies between April 2020 and December 2021.
• Hau La, MD, a Brentwood, Tenn., family medicine physician and the operator of Absolute Medical Care in Smyrna, Tenn., was charged with sixteen counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. The physician is alleged to have unlawfully prescribed opioids to eight patients outside the usual course of practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.
• Frederick De Mesa, of War, W.Va., practiced as a physician and used a DEA registration number that allowed him to prescribe controlled substances. Mr. De Mesa prescribed these substances without a medical license and didn’t have an active DEA registration number, according to the indictment.
• Loey Kousa, a former internist from Paintsville, Ky., was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances, healthcare fraud, and making false statements in connection with the delivery of health care services. The indictment alleges that the former physician issued prescriptions for opioids outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose in his capacity as owner and operator of East KY Clinic in Paintsville. He is alleged to have issued the unlawful prescriptions for patients whose treatments were covered by taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicare and Medicaid; he also billed these programs for medically unnecessary procedures for these patients.

Also included in the indictment were Jay Sadrinia, DMD, a Villa Hills, Ky., dentist, who was charged with four counts of illegal distribution of oxycodone and morphine sulfate and one count of illegal distribution of morphine sulfate that resulted in death or serious bodily injury; and Casey Kelleher, an owner-operator of Neighborhood Pharmacy in Boynton Beach, Fla., who allegedly sold large amounts of oxycodone and hydromorphone on the black market.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Center for Program Integrity has taken six administrative actions against health care providers for their alleged involvement in these offenses, per the DOJ’s announcement.

“Patient care and safety are top priorities for us, and CMS has taken administrative action against six providers to protect critical resources entrusted to Medicare while also safeguarding people with Medicare,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

“These actions to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in our federal programs would not be possible without the close and successful partnership of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General,” she added.

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

Seven physicians were among 12 medical professionals charged today by the U.S. Department of Justice with opioid distribution offenses.

In coordination with federal and state law enforcement, the DOJ charged the defendants for their involvement in the illegal distribution of opioids. At the time that they were charged with the alleged offenses, 12 of the defendants were medical professionals.

The 12 persons in eight federal districts across the country distributed more than 115 million controlled substances, including buprenorphine, clonazepam, dextroamphetamine-amphetamine, hydrocodone, morphine sulfate, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and Suboxone, per the DOJ.

“Doctors and health care professionals are entrusted with prescribing medicine responsibly and in the best interests of their patients. Today’s takedown targets medical providers across the country whose greed drove them to abandon this responsibility in favor of criminal profits,” said Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
 

Medical professionals, others across six states charged

One former nurse, one business manager, and one individual who practiced medicine without a medical credential are among those listed in the indictment. These include the following:

• Eskender Getachew, MD, a Columbus, Ohio, sleep medicine specialist, was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances outside the use of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical practice.
• Charles Kistler, DO, an Upper Arlington, Ohio, family practice physician, was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances for unlawful prescribing at Midtown Family Practice Clinic in Columbus.
• Yogeshwar Gil, MBBS, a Manchester, Tenn., family medicine doctor and owner of a medical practice, was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances and maintaining a drug-involved premises. Dr. Gil was charged in connection with an alleged scheme to distribute opioids and Suboxone outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.
• Contessa Holley, RN, a Pulaski, Tenn., former nurse and clinical director, was charged with wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. She’s alleged to be connected with a scheme to unlawfully obtain opioids by filling fraudulent prescriptions in the names of current and former patients who were in hospice. The indictment alleged that Ms. Holley used the patients’ hospice benefits to cover the opioids’ costs while keeping the drugs for her own use and for further distribution.
• Francene Aretha Gayle, MD, an Orlando, Fla., physician, was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud, and several substantive counts of illegally issuing opioid prescriptions. Dr. Gayle was charged along with Schara Monique Davis, a Huntsville, Ala.–based business manager. Per the indictment, Dr. Gayle and Ms. Davis operated three medical clinics in Alabama, where Dr. Gayle was the sole physician. The medical clinics billed health insurers for millions of dollars in patient visits that Dr. Gayle had supposedly conducted but during which she was allegedly absent from the clinics; other staff members conducted the visits instead. It’s alleged that Dr. Gayle presigned prescriptions for opioids that were given to patients.
• Robert Taffet, MD, a Haddonfield, N.J., orthopedic surgeon and owner of a medical practice in Sicklerville, N.J., was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances. The indictment alleges that he falsified patient files to state that he interacted with patients when he didn’t and that he issued prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances without assessing the patients in person or by telemedicine. It’s alleged that Dr. Taffett issued prescriptions for more than 179,000 pills that were dispensed by New Jersey pharmacies between April 2020 and December 2021.
• Hau La, MD, a Brentwood, Tenn., family medicine physician and the operator of Absolute Medical Care in Smyrna, Tenn., was charged with sixteen counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. The physician is alleged to have unlawfully prescribed opioids to eight patients outside the usual course of practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.
• Frederick De Mesa, of War, W.Va., practiced as a physician and used a DEA registration number that allowed him to prescribe controlled substances. Mr. De Mesa prescribed these substances without a medical license and didn’t have an active DEA registration number, according to the indictment.
• Loey Kousa, a former internist from Paintsville, Ky., was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances, healthcare fraud, and making false statements in connection with the delivery of health care services. The indictment alleges that the former physician issued prescriptions for opioids outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose in his capacity as owner and operator of East KY Clinic in Paintsville. He is alleged to have issued the unlawful prescriptions for patients whose treatments were covered by taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicare and Medicaid; he also billed these programs for medically unnecessary procedures for these patients.

Also included in the indictment were Jay Sadrinia, DMD, a Villa Hills, Ky., dentist, who was charged with four counts of illegal distribution of oxycodone and morphine sulfate and one count of illegal distribution of morphine sulfate that resulted in death or serious bodily injury; and Casey Kelleher, an owner-operator of Neighborhood Pharmacy in Boynton Beach, Fla., who allegedly sold large amounts of oxycodone and hydromorphone on the black market.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Center for Program Integrity has taken six administrative actions against health care providers for their alleged involvement in these offenses, per the DOJ’s announcement.

“Patient care and safety are top priorities for us, and CMS has taken administrative action against six providers to protect critical resources entrusted to Medicare while also safeguarding people with Medicare,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

“These actions to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in our federal programs would not be possible without the close and successful partnership of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General,” she added.

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

Seven physicians were among 12 medical professionals charged today by the U.S. Department of Justice with opioid distribution offenses.

In coordination with federal and state law enforcement, the DOJ charged the defendants for their involvement in the illegal distribution of opioids. At the time that they were charged with the alleged offenses, 12 of the defendants were medical professionals.

The 12 persons in eight federal districts across the country distributed more than 115 million controlled substances, including buprenorphine, clonazepam, dextroamphetamine-amphetamine, hydrocodone, morphine sulfate, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and Suboxone, per the DOJ.

“Doctors and health care professionals are entrusted with prescribing medicine responsibly and in the best interests of their patients. Today’s takedown targets medical providers across the country whose greed drove them to abandon this responsibility in favor of criminal profits,” said Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
 

Medical professionals, others across six states charged

One former nurse, one business manager, and one individual who practiced medicine without a medical credential are among those listed in the indictment. These include the following:

• Eskender Getachew, MD, a Columbus, Ohio, sleep medicine specialist, was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances outside the use of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical practice.
• Charles Kistler, DO, an Upper Arlington, Ohio, family practice physician, was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances for unlawful prescribing at Midtown Family Practice Clinic in Columbus.
• Yogeshwar Gil, MBBS, a Manchester, Tenn., family medicine doctor and owner of a medical practice, was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances and maintaining a drug-involved premises. Dr. Gil was charged in connection with an alleged scheme to distribute opioids and Suboxone outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.
• Contessa Holley, RN, a Pulaski, Tenn., former nurse and clinical director, was charged with wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. She’s alleged to be connected with a scheme to unlawfully obtain opioids by filling fraudulent prescriptions in the names of current and former patients who were in hospice. The indictment alleged that Ms. Holley used the patients’ hospice benefits to cover the opioids’ costs while keeping the drugs for her own use and for further distribution.
• Francene Aretha Gayle, MD, an Orlando, Fla., physician, was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, health care fraud, and several substantive counts of illegally issuing opioid prescriptions. Dr. Gayle was charged along with Schara Monique Davis, a Huntsville, Ala.–based business manager. Per the indictment, Dr. Gayle and Ms. Davis operated three medical clinics in Alabama, where Dr. Gayle was the sole physician. The medical clinics billed health insurers for millions of dollars in patient visits that Dr. Gayle had supposedly conducted but during which she was allegedly absent from the clinics; other staff members conducted the visits instead. It’s alleged that Dr. Gayle presigned prescriptions for opioids that were given to patients.
• Robert Taffet, MD, a Haddonfield, N.J., orthopedic surgeon and owner of a medical practice in Sicklerville, N.J., was charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances. The indictment alleges that he falsified patient files to state that he interacted with patients when he didn’t and that he issued prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances without assessing the patients in person or by telemedicine. It’s alleged that Dr. Taffett issued prescriptions for more than 179,000 pills that were dispensed by New Jersey pharmacies between April 2020 and December 2021.
• Hau La, MD, a Brentwood, Tenn., family medicine physician and the operator of Absolute Medical Care in Smyrna, Tenn., was charged with sixteen counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. The physician is alleged to have unlawfully prescribed opioids to eight patients outside the usual course of practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.
• Frederick De Mesa, of War, W.Va., practiced as a physician and used a DEA registration number that allowed him to prescribe controlled substances. Mr. De Mesa prescribed these substances without a medical license and didn’t have an active DEA registration number, according to the indictment.
• Loey Kousa, a former internist from Paintsville, Ky., was charged with unlawful distribution of controlled substances, healthcare fraud, and making false statements in connection with the delivery of health care services. The indictment alleges that the former physician issued prescriptions for opioids outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose in his capacity as owner and operator of East KY Clinic in Paintsville. He is alleged to have issued the unlawful prescriptions for patients whose treatments were covered by taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicare and Medicaid; he also billed these programs for medically unnecessary procedures for these patients.

Also included in the indictment were Jay Sadrinia, DMD, a Villa Hills, Ky., dentist, who was charged with four counts of illegal distribution of oxycodone and morphine sulfate and one count of illegal distribution of morphine sulfate that resulted in death or serious bodily injury; and Casey Kelleher, an owner-operator of Neighborhood Pharmacy in Boynton Beach, Fla., who allegedly sold large amounts of oxycodone and hydromorphone on the black market.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Center for Program Integrity has taken six administrative actions against health care providers for their alleged involvement in these offenses, per the DOJ’s announcement.

“Patient care and safety are top priorities for us, and CMS has taken administrative action against six providers to protect critical resources entrusted to Medicare while also safeguarding people with Medicare,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

“These actions to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in our federal programs would not be possible without the close and successful partnership of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General,” she added.

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

CHICAGO – Geno Merli, MD, associate chief medical officer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, and long-time hospital medicine expert, recalled a recent situation at his center, during a panel discussion.

It involved a 70-year-old man who had a history of prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, and hernias. In January, he had a surgery for hernia repair. On the 3rd day after the procedure, he was transferred to the hospital medicine service at about 9 p.m. and was on a patient-controlled pump for pain and had abdominal drains. Because of the extensive surgery and because he had begun to walk shortly after the procedure, he wasn’t on thrombosis prevention medication, Dr. Merli explained at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The day after his transfer he was walking with a physical therapist when he became short of breath, his oxygen saturation dropped, and his heart rate soared. Bilateral pulmonary emboli were found, along with thrombosis in the right leg.

What was remarkable, Dr. Merli noted, was what the patient’s medical record was lacking.

He added, “I think if we start looking at this at our sites, we may find out that communication needs to be improved, and I believe standardized.”

This situation underscores the continuing need to refine handoffs between surgery and hospital medicine, a point in care that is primed for potential errors, the other panelists noted during the session.

Most important information is often not communicated

A 2010 study in pediatrics that looked at intern-to-intern handoffs found that the most important piece of information wasn’t communicated successfully 60% of the time – in other words, more often than not, the person on the receiving end didn’t really understand that crucial part of the scenario. Since then, the literature has been regularly populated with studies attempting to refine handoff procedures.

 Lily Ackermann, MD, hospitalist and clinical associate professor of medicine at Jefferson, said in the session that hospitalists need to be sure to reach out to surgery at important junctures in care.

 “I would say the No. 1 biggest mistake we make is not calling the surgery attending directly when clinical questions arise,” she said. “I think this is very important – attending [physician in hospital medicine] to attending [physician in surgery].”

 Murray Cohen, MD, director of acute care surgery at Jefferson, said he shared that concern.

“We want to be called, we want to be called for our patients,” he said in the session. “And we’re upset when you don’t call for our patients.”

Hospitalists should discuss blood loss, pain management, management of drains, deep vein thrombosis prevention, nutrition, infectious disease concerns, and timing of vaccines post procedure, Dr. Ackermann said during the presentation,

The panelists also emphasized that understanding the follow-up care that surgery was planning after a procedure is important, and to not just expect surgeons to actively follow a patient. They also reminded hospitalists to look at the wounds and make sure they understand how to handle the wounds going forward. Plus, when transferring a patient to surgery, hospitalists should understand when getting someone to surgery is urgent and not to order unnecessary tests as a formality when time is of the essence, they said.

IPASS: a formalized handoff process

The panelists all spoke highly of a formalized handoff process known as IPASS. This acronym reminds physicians to ask specific questions.

The I represents illness severity and calls for asking: “Is the patient stable or unstable?

The P stands for patient summary and is meant to prompt physicians to seek details about the procedure.

The A is for action list, which is meant to remind the physician to get the post-op plan for neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other areas.

The first S is for situational awareness, and calls for asking: What is the biggest concern over the next 24 hours?

The final S represents synthesis by the receiver, prompting a physician to summarize the information he or she has received about the patient.

Natalie Margules, MD, a clinical instructor and hospitalist at Jefferson who did not present in the session, reiterated the value of the IPASS system. Before it was used for handoffs, she said, “I was never taught anything formalized – basically, just ‘Tell them what’s important.’

Dr. Margules noted that she considers the framework’s call for the synthesis to be one of it most useful parts.

 Dr. Merli, Dr. Ackermann, and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Geno Merli, MD, associate chief medical officer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, and long-time hospital medicine expert, recalled a recent situation at his center, during a panel discussion.

It involved a 70-year-old man who had a history of prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, and hernias. In January, he had a surgery for hernia repair. On the 3rd day after the procedure, he was transferred to the hospital medicine service at about 9 p.m. and was on a patient-controlled pump for pain and had abdominal drains. Because of the extensive surgery and because he had begun to walk shortly after the procedure, he wasn’t on thrombosis prevention medication, Dr. Merli explained at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The day after his transfer he was walking with a physical therapist when he became short of breath, his oxygen saturation dropped, and his heart rate soared. Bilateral pulmonary emboli were found, along with thrombosis in the right leg.

What was remarkable, Dr. Merli noted, was what the patient’s medical record was lacking.

He added, “I think if we start looking at this at our sites, we may find out that communication needs to be improved, and I believe standardized.”

This situation underscores the continuing need to refine handoffs between surgery and hospital medicine, a point in care that is primed for potential errors, the other panelists noted during the session.

Most important information is often not communicated

A 2010 study in pediatrics that looked at intern-to-intern handoffs found that the most important piece of information wasn’t communicated successfully 60% of the time – in other words, more often than not, the person on the receiving end didn’t really understand that crucial part of the scenario. Since then, the literature has been regularly populated with studies attempting to refine handoff procedures.

 Lily Ackermann, MD, hospitalist and clinical associate professor of medicine at Jefferson, said in the session that hospitalists need to be sure to reach out to surgery at important junctures in care.

 “I would say the No. 1 biggest mistake we make is not calling the surgery attending directly when clinical questions arise,” she said. “I think this is very important – attending [physician in hospital medicine] to attending [physician in surgery].”

 Murray Cohen, MD, director of acute care surgery at Jefferson, said he shared that concern.

“We want to be called, we want to be called for our patients,” he said in the session. “And we’re upset when you don’t call for our patients.”

Hospitalists should discuss blood loss, pain management, management of drains, deep vein thrombosis prevention, nutrition, infectious disease concerns, and timing of vaccines post procedure, Dr. Ackermann said during the presentation,

The panelists also emphasized that understanding the follow-up care that surgery was planning after a procedure is important, and to not just expect surgeons to actively follow a patient. They also reminded hospitalists to look at the wounds and make sure they understand how to handle the wounds going forward. Plus, when transferring a patient to surgery, hospitalists should understand when getting someone to surgery is urgent and not to order unnecessary tests as a formality when time is of the essence, they said.

IPASS: a formalized handoff process

The panelists all spoke highly of a formalized handoff process known as IPASS. This acronym reminds physicians to ask specific questions.

The I represents illness severity and calls for asking: “Is the patient stable or unstable?

The P stands for patient summary and is meant to prompt physicians to seek details about the procedure.

The A is for action list, which is meant to remind the physician to get the post-op plan for neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other areas.

The first S is for situational awareness, and calls for asking: What is the biggest concern over the next 24 hours?

The final S represents synthesis by the receiver, prompting a physician to summarize the information he or she has received about the patient.

Natalie Margules, MD, a clinical instructor and hospitalist at Jefferson who did not present in the session, reiterated the value of the IPASS system. Before it was used for handoffs, she said, “I was never taught anything formalized – basically, just ‘Tell them what’s important.’

Dr. Margules noted that she considers the framework’s call for the synthesis to be one of it most useful parts.

 Dr. Merli, Dr. Ackermann, and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Geno Merli, MD, associate chief medical officer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, and long-time hospital medicine expert, recalled a recent situation at his center, during a panel discussion.

It involved a 70-year-old man who had a history of prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, and hernias. In January, he had a surgery for hernia repair. On the 3rd day after the procedure, he was transferred to the hospital medicine service at about 9 p.m. and was on a patient-controlled pump for pain and had abdominal drains. Because of the extensive surgery and because he had begun to walk shortly after the procedure, he wasn’t on thrombosis prevention medication, Dr. Merli explained at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The day after his transfer he was walking with a physical therapist when he became short of breath, his oxygen saturation dropped, and his heart rate soared. Bilateral pulmonary emboli were found, along with thrombosis in the right leg.

What was remarkable, Dr. Merli noted, was what the patient’s medical record was lacking.

He added, “I think if we start looking at this at our sites, we may find out that communication needs to be improved, and I believe standardized.”

This situation underscores the continuing need to refine handoffs between surgery and hospital medicine, a point in care that is primed for potential errors, the other panelists noted during the session.

Most important information is often not communicated

A 2010 study in pediatrics that looked at intern-to-intern handoffs found that the most important piece of information wasn’t communicated successfully 60% of the time – in other words, more often than not, the person on the receiving end didn’t really understand that crucial part of the scenario. Since then, the literature has been regularly populated with studies attempting to refine handoff procedures.

 Lily Ackermann, MD, hospitalist and clinical associate professor of medicine at Jefferson, said in the session that hospitalists need to be sure to reach out to surgery at important junctures in care.

 “I would say the No. 1 biggest mistake we make is not calling the surgery attending directly when clinical questions arise,” she said. “I think this is very important – attending [physician in hospital medicine] to attending [physician in surgery].”

 Murray Cohen, MD, director of acute care surgery at Jefferson, said he shared that concern.

“We want to be called, we want to be called for our patients,” he said in the session. “And we’re upset when you don’t call for our patients.”

Hospitalists should discuss blood loss, pain management, management of drains, deep vein thrombosis prevention, nutrition, infectious disease concerns, and timing of vaccines post procedure, Dr. Ackermann said during the presentation,

The panelists also emphasized that understanding the follow-up care that surgery was planning after a procedure is important, and to not just expect surgeons to actively follow a patient. They also reminded hospitalists to look at the wounds and make sure they understand how to handle the wounds going forward. Plus, when transferring a patient to surgery, hospitalists should understand when getting someone to surgery is urgent and not to order unnecessary tests as a formality when time is of the essence, they said.

IPASS: a formalized handoff process

The panelists all spoke highly of a formalized handoff process known as IPASS. This acronym reminds physicians to ask specific questions.

The I represents illness severity and calls for asking: “Is the patient stable or unstable?

The P stands for patient summary and is meant to prompt physicians to seek details about the procedure.

The A is for action list, which is meant to remind the physician to get the post-op plan for neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other areas.

The first S is for situational awareness, and calls for asking: What is the biggest concern over the next 24 hours?

The final S represents synthesis by the receiver, prompting a physician to summarize the information he or she has received about the patient.

Natalie Margules, MD, a clinical instructor and hospitalist at Jefferson who did not present in the session, reiterated the value of the IPASS system. Before it was used for handoffs, she said, “I was never taught anything formalized – basically, just ‘Tell them what’s important.’

Dr. Margules noted that she considers the framework’s call for the synthesis to be one of it most useful parts.

 Dr. Merli, Dr. Ackermann, and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Burnout in psychiatrists is “highly prevalent” across the globe, new research shows.

In a review and meta-analysis of 36 studies and more than 5,000 psychiatrists in European countries, as well as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, India, Turkey, and Thailand, results showed that 25% of respondents met criteria for burnout, as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) – and more than 50% qualified on the basis of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI).

“Our review showed that regardless of the identification method of burnout, its prevalence among psychiatrists is high and ranges from 25% to 50%,” lead author Kirill Bykov, MD, a PhD candidate at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation, told this news organization.

There was a “high heterogeneity of studies in terms of statistics, screening methods, burnout definitions, and cutoff points in the included studies, which necessitates the unification of future research methodology, but not to the detriment of the development of the theoretical background,” Dr. Bykov said.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.
 

‘Unresolved problem’

Although burnout is a serious and prevalent problem among health care workers, little research has focused on burnout in mental health workers compared with other professionals, the investigators noted.

A previous systematic review and meta-analysis that focused specifically on burnout in psychiatrists was limited by methodologic concerns, including that the only burnout screening instrument used in the included studies was the full-length (22-item) MBI.

The current researchers surmised that “the integration of different empirical studies of psychiatrists’ burnout prevalence [remained] an unresolved problem.”

Dr. Bykov noted the current review was “investigator-initiated” and was a part of his PhD dissertation.

“Studying the works devoted to the burnout of psychiatrists, I drew attention to the varying prevalence rates of this phenomenon among them. This prompted me to conduct a systematic review of the literature and summarize the available data,” he said.

Unlike the previous review, the current one “does not contain restrictions regarding the place of research, publication language, covered burnout concepts, definitions, and screening instruments. Thus, its results will be helpful for practitioners and scientists around the world,” Dr. Bykov added.

Among the inclusion criteria was that a study should be empirical and quantitative, contain at least 20 practicing psychiatrists as participants, use a valid and reliable burnout screening instrument, have at least one burnout metric extractable specifically with regard to psychiatrists, and have a national survey or a response rate among psychiatrists of 20% or greater.

Qualitative or review articles or studies consisting of psychiatric trainees (such as medical students or residents) or nonpracticing psychiatrists were excluded.
 

Pooled prevalence

The researchers included 36 studies that comprised 5,481 participants (51.3% were women; mean age, 46.7 years). All studies had from 20 to 1,157 participants. They were employed in an array of settings in 19 countries.

In 22 studies, survey years ranged from 1996 to 2018; 14 studies did not report the year of data collection.

Most studies (75%) used some version of the MBI, and 19 studies used the full-length 22-item MBI Human Service Survey (MBI-HSS) . The survey rates emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and low personal achievement (PA) on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“almost every day”).

Other instruments included the CBI, the 16-item Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, the 21-item Tedium Measure, the 30-item Professional Quality of Life measure, the Rohland et al. Single-Item Measure of Self-Perceived Burnout, and the 21-item Brief Burnout Questionnaire.

Only three studies were free of methodologic limitations. The remaining 33 studies had some problems, such as not reporting the response rate or comparability between responders and nonresponders.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of burnout, as measured by the MBI and the CBI, was 25.9% (range, 11.1%-40.75%) and 50.3% (range, 30.9%-69.8%), respectively.

The pooled prevalence for burnout components is shown in the table.

‘Carry the hope’

In a comment, Christine Crawford, MD, associate medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), said she was surprised the burnout numbers weren’t higher.

Many colleagues she interacts with “have been experiencing pretty significant burnout that has only been exacerbated by the pandemic and ever-growing demand for mental health providers, and there aren’t enough to meet that demand,” said Dr. Crawford, a psychiatrist at Boston Medical Center’s Outpatient Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic and at Codman Square Health Center. She was not involved with the current research.

Courtesy Boston Medical Center

Dr. Crawford noted that much of the data was from Europeans. Speaking to the experience of U.S.-based psychiatrists, she said there is a “greater appreciation for what we do as mental health providers, due to the growing conversations around mental health and normalizing mental health conditions.”

On the other hand, there is “a lack of parity in reimbursement rates. Although the general public values mental health, the medical system doesn’t value mental health providers in the same way as physicians in other specialties,” Dr. Crawford said. Feeling devalued can contribute to burnout, she added.

One way to counter burnout is to remember “that our role is to carry the hope. We can be hopeful for the patient that the treatment will work or the medications can provide some relief,” Dr. Crawford noted.

Psychiatrists “may need to hold on tightly to that hope because we may not receive that instant gratification from the patient or receive praise or see the change from the patient during that time, which can be challenging,” she said.

“But it’s important for us to keep in mind that, even in that moment when the patient can’t see it, we can work alongside the patient to create the vision of hope and what it will look like in the future,” said Dr. Crawford.

In the 2022 Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report, an annual online survey of Medscape member physicians, 47% of respondents reported burnout – which was up from 42% the previous year.

The investigators received no funding for this work. They and Dr. Crawford report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Burnout in psychiatrists is “highly prevalent” across the globe, new research shows.

In a review and meta-analysis of 36 studies and more than 5,000 psychiatrists in European countries, as well as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, India, Turkey, and Thailand, results showed that 25% of respondents met criteria for burnout, as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) – and more than 50% qualified on the basis of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI).

“Our review showed that regardless of the identification method of burnout, its prevalence among psychiatrists is high and ranges from 25% to 50%,” lead author Kirill Bykov, MD, a PhD candidate at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation, told this news organization.

There was a “high heterogeneity of studies in terms of statistics, screening methods, burnout definitions, and cutoff points in the included studies, which necessitates the unification of future research methodology, but not to the detriment of the development of the theoretical background,” Dr. Bykov said.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.
 

‘Unresolved problem’

Although burnout is a serious and prevalent problem among health care workers, little research has focused on burnout in mental health workers compared with other professionals, the investigators noted.

A previous systematic review and meta-analysis that focused specifically on burnout in psychiatrists was limited by methodologic concerns, including that the only burnout screening instrument used in the included studies was the full-length (22-item) MBI.

The current researchers surmised that “the integration of different empirical studies of psychiatrists’ burnout prevalence [remained] an unresolved problem.”

Dr. Bykov noted the current review was “investigator-initiated” and was a part of his PhD dissertation.

“Studying the works devoted to the burnout of psychiatrists, I drew attention to the varying prevalence rates of this phenomenon among them. This prompted me to conduct a systematic review of the literature and summarize the available data,” he said.

Unlike the previous review, the current one “does not contain restrictions regarding the place of research, publication language, covered burnout concepts, definitions, and screening instruments. Thus, its results will be helpful for practitioners and scientists around the world,” Dr. Bykov added.

Among the inclusion criteria was that a study should be empirical and quantitative, contain at least 20 practicing psychiatrists as participants, use a valid and reliable burnout screening instrument, have at least one burnout metric extractable specifically with regard to psychiatrists, and have a national survey or a response rate among psychiatrists of 20% or greater.

Qualitative or review articles or studies consisting of psychiatric trainees (such as medical students or residents) or nonpracticing psychiatrists were excluded.
 

Pooled prevalence

The researchers included 36 studies that comprised 5,481 participants (51.3% were women; mean age, 46.7 years). All studies had from 20 to 1,157 participants. They were employed in an array of settings in 19 countries.

In 22 studies, survey years ranged from 1996 to 2018; 14 studies did not report the year of data collection.

Most studies (75%) used some version of the MBI, and 19 studies used the full-length 22-item MBI Human Service Survey (MBI-HSS) . The survey rates emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and low personal achievement (PA) on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“almost every day”).

Other instruments included the CBI, the 16-item Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, the 21-item Tedium Measure, the 30-item Professional Quality of Life measure, the Rohland et al. Single-Item Measure of Self-Perceived Burnout, and the 21-item Brief Burnout Questionnaire.

Only three studies were free of methodologic limitations. The remaining 33 studies had some problems, such as not reporting the response rate or comparability between responders and nonresponders.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of burnout, as measured by the MBI and the CBI, was 25.9% (range, 11.1%-40.75%) and 50.3% (range, 30.9%-69.8%), respectively.

The pooled prevalence for burnout components is shown in the table.

‘Carry the hope’

In a comment, Christine Crawford, MD, associate medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), said she was surprised the burnout numbers weren’t higher.

Many colleagues she interacts with “have been experiencing pretty significant burnout that has only been exacerbated by the pandemic and ever-growing demand for mental health providers, and there aren’t enough to meet that demand,” said Dr. Crawford, a psychiatrist at Boston Medical Center’s Outpatient Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic and at Codman Square Health Center. She was not involved with the current research.

Courtesy Boston Medical Center

Dr. Crawford noted that much of the data was from Europeans. Speaking to the experience of U.S.-based psychiatrists, she said there is a “greater appreciation for what we do as mental health providers, due to the growing conversations around mental health and normalizing mental health conditions.”

On the other hand, there is “a lack of parity in reimbursement rates. Although the general public values mental health, the medical system doesn’t value mental health providers in the same way as physicians in other specialties,” Dr. Crawford said. Feeling devalued can contribute to burnout, she added.

One way to counter burnout is to remember “that our role is to carry the hope. We can be hopeful for the patient that the treatment will work or the medications can provide some relief,” Dr. Crawford noted.

Psychiatrists “may need to hold on tightly to that hope because we may not receive that instant gratification from the patient or receive praise or see the change from the patient during that time, which can be challenging,” she said.

“But it’s important for us to keep in mind that, even in that moment when the patient can’t see it, we can work alongside the patient to create the vision of hope and what it will look like in the future,” said Dr. Crawford.

In the 2022 Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report, an annual online survey of Medscape member physicians, 47% of respondents reported burnout – which was up from 42% the previous year.

The investigators received no funding for this work. They and Dr. Crawford report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Burnout in psychiatrists is “highly prevalent” across the globe, new research shows.

In a review and meta-analysis of 36 studies and more than 5,000 psychiatrists in European countries, as well as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, India, Turkey, and Thailand, results showed that 25% of respondents met criteria for burnout, as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) – and more than 50% qualified on the basis of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI).

“Our review showed that regardless of the identification method of burnout, its prevalence among psychiatrists is high and ranges from 25% to 50%,” lead author Kirill Bykov, MD, a PhD candidate at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation, told this news organization.

There was a “high heterogeneity of studies in terms of statistics, screening methods, burnout definitions, and cutoff points in the included studies, which necessitates the unification of future research methodology, but not to the detriment of the development of the theoretical background,” Dr. Bykov said.

The findings were published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.
 

‘Unresolved problem’

Although burnout is a serious and prevalent problem among health care workers, little research has focused on burnout in mental health workers compared with other professionals, the investigators noted.

A previous systematic review and meta-analysis that focused specifically on burnout in psychiatrists was limited by methodologic concerns, including that the only burnout screening instrument used in the included studies was the full-length (22-item) MBI.

The current researchers surmised that “the integration of different empirical studies of psychiatrists’ burnout prevalence [remained] an unresolved problem.”

Dr. Bykov noted the current review was “investigator-initiated” and was a part of his PhD dissertation.

“Studying the works devoted to the burnout of psychiatrists, I drew attention to the varying prevalence rates of this phenomenon among them. This prompted me to conduct a systematic review of the literature and summarize the available data,” he said.

Unlike the previous review, the current one “does not contain restrictions regarding the place of research, publication language, covered burnout concepts, definitions, and screening instruments. Thus, its results will be helpful for practitioners and scientists around the world,” Dr. Bykov added.

Among the inclusion criteria was that a study should be empirical and quantitative, contain at least 20 practicing psychiatrists as participants, use a valid and reliable burnout screening instrument, have at least one burnout metric extractable specifically with regard to psychiatrists, and have a national survey or a response rate among psychiatrists of 20% or greater.

Qualitative or review articles or studies consisting of psychiatric trainees (such as medical students or residents) or nonpracticing psychiatrists were excluded.
 

Pooled prevalence

The researchers included 36 studies that comprised 5,481 participants (51.3% were women; mean age, 46.7 years). All studies had from 20 to 1,157 participants. They were employed in an array of settings in 19 countries.

In 22 studies, survey years ranged from 1996 to 2018; 14 studies did not report the year of data collection.

Most studies (75%) used some version of the MBI, and 19 studies used the full-length 22-item MBI Human Service Survey (MBI-HSS) . The survey rates emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and low personal achievement (PA) on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“almost every day”).

Other instruments included the CBI, the 16-item Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, the 21-item Tedium Measure, the 30-item Professional Quality of Life measure, the Rohland et al. Single-Item Measure of Self-Perceived Burnout, and the 21-item Brief Burnout Questionnaire.

Only three studies were free of methodologic limitations. The remaining 33 studies had some problems, such as not reporting the response rate or comparability between responders and nonresponders.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of burnout, as measured by the MBI and the CBI, was 25.9% (range, 11.1%-40.75%) and 50.3% (range, 30.9%-69.8%), respectively.

The pooled prevalence for burnout components is shown in the table.

‘Carry the hope’

In a comment, Christine Crawford, MD, associate medical director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), said she was surprised the burnout numbers weren’t higher.

Many colleagues she interacts with “have been experiencing pretty significant burnout that has only been exacerbated by the pandemic and ever-growing demand for mental health providers, and there aren’t enough to meet that demand,” said Dr. Crawford, a psychiatrist at Boston Medical Center’s Outpatient Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic and at Codman Square Health Center. She was not involved with the current research.

Courtesy Boston Medical Center

Dr. Crawford noted that much of the data was from Europeans. Speaking to the experience of U.S.-based psychiatrists, she said there is a “greater appreciation for what we do as mental health providers, due to the growing conversations around mental health and normalizing mental health conditions.”

On the other hand, there is “a lack of parity in reimbursement rates. Although the general public values mental health, the medical system doesn’t value mental health providers in the same way as physicians in other specialties,” Dr. Crawford said. Feeling devalued can contribute to burnout, she added.

One way to counter burnout is to remember “that our role is to carry the hope. We can be hopeful for the patient that the treatment will work or the medications can provide some relief,” Dr. Crawford noted.

Psychiatrists “may need to hold on tightly to that hope because we may not receive that instant gratification from the patient or receive praise or see the change from the patient during that time, which can be challenging,” she said.

“But it’s important for us to keep in mind that, even in that moment when the patient can’t see it, we can work alongside the patient to create the vision of hope and what it will look like in the future,” said Dr. Crawford.

In the 2022 Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report, an annual online survey of Medscape member physicians, 47% of respondents reported burnout – which was up from 42% the previous year.

The investigators received no funding for this work. They and Dr. Crawford report no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOZEMAN, Mont. – In a busy downtown coffee shop, a drawing of a ski lift with intrauterine devices for chairs draws the eyes of sleepy customers getting their morning underway with a caffeine jolt.

The flyer touts the services of Bridgercare, a nonprofit reproductive health clinic a few miles up the road. The clinic offers wellness exams, birth control, and LGBTQ+ services – and, starting in April, it oversees the state’s multimillion-dollar share of federal family planning program funding.

In March, Bridgercare beat out the state health department to become administrator of Montana’s $2.3 million Title X program, which helps pay for family planning and preventive health services. The organization applied for the grant because its leaders were concerned about a new state law that sought to restrict which local providers are funded.

What is happening in Montana is the latest example of an ongoing power struggle between nonprofits and conservative-leaning states over who receives federal family planning money. That has intensified in recent years as the Title X program has increasingly become entangled with the politics of abortion.

This year, the federal government set aside $257 million for family planning and preventive care. The providers that get that funding often serve families with low incomes, and Title X is one of the few federal programs in which people without legal permission to be in the United States can participate.

“The program permeates into communities that otherwise would be unreached by public health efforts,” said Rebecca Kreitzer, an associate professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services controlled the distribution of the state’s Title X funds for decades. Bridgercare sought the administrator role to circumvent a Republican-sponsored law passed last year that required the state to prioritize the money for local health departments and federally qualified health centers. That would have put the nonprofit – which doesn’t provide abortion procedures – and similar organizations at the bottom of the list. The law also banned clinics that perform abortions from receiving Title X funds from the state health department.

Bridgercare Executive Director Stephanie McDowell said the group applied for the grant to try to protect the program from decisions coming out of the state capitol. “Because of the politicization of Title X, we’re seeing how it’s run, swinging back and forth based on partisan leadership,” Ms. McDowell said.

A U.S. Department of Health & Human Services spokesperson, Tara Broido, didn’t answer a question about whether the agency intentionally awarded grants to nonprofits to avoid state politics. Instead, she said in a statement that applicants were evaluated in a competitive process by a panel of independent reviewers based on criteria to deliver high-quality, client-centered services.

Federal law prohibits the money from being used to perform abortions. But it can cover other services provided by groups that offer abortions – the largest and best-known by far is Planned Parenthood. In recent years, conservative politicians have tried to keep such providers from receiving Title X funding.

In some cases, contraception has entered the debate around which family planning services government should help fund. Some abortion opponents have raised concerns that long-lasting forms of birth control, such as IUDs, lead to abortions. Those claims are disputed by reproductive health experts.

In 2019, the Trump administration introduced several new rules for Title X, including disqualifying from receiving the funding family planning clinics that also offered abortion services or referrals. Many clinics across the nation left the program instead of conforming to the rules. Simultaneously, the spread of COVID-19 interrupted routine care. The number of patients served by Title X plummeted.

The Biden administration reversed most of those rules, including allowing providers with abortion services back into the Title X program. States also try to influence the funding’s reach, either through legislation or budget rules.

The current Title X funding cycle is 5 years, and the amount of money available each year could shift based on the state’s network of providers or federal budget changes. Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson for the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, didn’t answer when asked whether the state planned to reapply to administer the funding in 2027. He said the department was disappointed with the Biden administration’s “refusal” to renew the state’s funding.

“We recognize, however, that recent proabortion federal rule changes have distorted Title X and conflict with Montana law,” he said.

Conservative states have been tangling with nonprofits and the federal government over Title X funding for more than a decade. In 2011, during the Obama administration, Texas whittled down the state’s family planning spending and prioritized sending the federal money to general primary care providers over reproductive health clinics. As a result, 25% of family planning clinics in Texas closed. In 2013, a nonprofit now called Every Body Texas joined the competition to distribute the state’s Title X dollars and won.

“Filling and rebuilding those holes have taken this last decade, essentially,” said Berna Mason, director of service delivery improvement for Every Body Texas.

In 2019, the governor of Nebraska proposed a budget that would have prohibited the money from going to any organization that provided abortions or referred patients for abortions outside of an emergency. It also would have required that funding recipients be legally and financially separate from such clinics, a restriction that would have gone further than the Trump administration’s rules. Afterward, a family planning council won the right to administer Title X money.

In 2017, the nonprofit Arizona Family Health Partnership lost its status as that state’s only Title X administrator when the state health department was given 25% of the funding to deliver to providers. That came after Arizona lawmakers ordered the department to apply for the funds and distribute them first to state- or county-owned clinics, with the remaining money going to primary care facilities. The change was backed by groups that were opposed to abortion, and reproductive health care providers saw it as an attempt to weaken clinics that offer abortion services.

However, the state left nearly all the money it received untouched, and although it’s still required by law to apply for Title X funding, it hasn’t received a portion of the grant since.

Bré Thomas, CEO of Arizona Family Health Partnership, said that, even though the nonprofit is the sole administrator of the Title X funding again, the threat remains that some or all could be taken away because of politics. “We’re at the will of who’s in charge,” Ms. Thomas said.

Nonprofits say they have an advantage over state agencies in expanding services because they have more flexibility in fundraising and fewer administrative hurdles.

In April, Mississippi nonprofit Converge took over administration of Title X funds, a role the state had held for decades. The organization’s founders said they weren’t worried that conservative politicians would restrict access to services but simply believed they could do a better job. “Service quality was very low, and it was very hard to get appointments,” said cofounder Danielle Lampton.

A Mississippi State Department of Health spokesperson, Liz Sharlot, said the agency looks forward to working with Converge.

In Montana, Bridgercare plans to restore funding to Planned Parenthood clinics that have been cut off from the program since 2019, recruit more health centers to participate, and expand the program’s reach in rural, frontier, and tribal communities using telehealth services, Ms. McDowell said.

The organization’s goal is to increase the number of patients benefiting from the federal program by at least 10% in each year of the 5-year grant cycle. The clinic also plans to apply to keep its Title X role beyond this grant.

“In 5 years, our grant application should be a clear front-runner for funding,” she said. “It’s less about ‘How do we beat someone in 5 years?’ And more about ‘How do we grow this program to serve patients?’”
 

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

BOZEMAN, Mont. – In a busy downtown coffee shop, a drawing of a ski lift with intrauterine devices for chairs draws the eyes of sleepy customers getting their morning underway with a caffeine jolt.

The flyer touts the services of Bridgercare, a nonprofit reproductive health clinic a few miles up the road. The clinic offers wellness exams, birth control, and LGBTQ+ services – and, starting in April, it oversees the state’s multimillion-dollar share of federal family planning program funding.

In March, Bridgercare beat out the state health department to become administrator of Montana’s $2.3 million Title X program, which helps pay for family planning and preventive health services. The organization applied for the grant because its leaders were concerned about a new state law that sought to restrict which local providers are funded.

What is happening in Montana is the latest example of an ongoing power struggle between nonprofits and conservative-leaning states over who receives federal family planning money. That has intensified in recent years as the Title X program has increasingly become entangled with the politics of abortion.

This year, the federal government set aside $257 million for family planning and preventive care. The providers that get that funding often serve families with low incomes, and Title X is one of the few federal programs in which people without legal permission to be in the United States can participate.

“The program permeates into communities that otherwise would be unreached by public health efforts,” said Rebecca Kreitzer, an associate professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services controlled the distribution of the state’s Title X funds for decades. Bridgercare sought the administrator role to circumvent a Republican-sponsored law passed last year that required the state to prioritize the money for local health departments and federally qualified health centers. That would have put the nonprofit – which doesn’t provide abortion procedures – and similar organizations at the bottom of the list. The law also banned clinics that perform abortions from receiving Title X funds from the state health department.

Bridgercare Executive Director Stephanie McDowell said the group applied for the grant to try to protect the program from decisions coming out of the state capitol. “Because of the politicization of Title X, we’re seeing how it’s run, swinging back and forth based on partisan leadership,” Ms. McDowell said.

A U.S. Department of Health & Human Services spokesperson, Tara Broido, didn’t answer a question about whether the agency intentionally awarded grants to nonprofits to avoid state politics. Instead, she said in a statement that applicants were evaluated in a competitive process by a panel of independent reviewers based on criteria to deliver high-quality, client-centered services.

Federal law prohibits the money from being used to perform abortions. But it can cover other services provided by groups that offer abortions – the largest and best-known by far is Planned Parenthood. In recent years, conservative politicians have tried to keep such providers from receiving Title X funding.

In some cases, contraception has entered the debate around which family planning services government should help fund. Some abortion opponents have raised concerns that long-lasting forms of birth control, such as IUDs, lead to abortions. Those claims are disputed by reproductive health experts.

In 2019, the Trump administration introduced several new rules for Title X, including disqualifying from receiving the funding family planning clinics that also offered abortion services or referrals. Many clinics across the nation left the program instead of conforming to the rules. Simultaneously, the spread of COVID-19 interrupted routine care. The number of patients served by Title X plummeted.

The Biden administration reversed most of those rules, including allowing providers with abortion services back into the Title X program. States also try to influence the funding’s reach, either through legislation or budget rules.

The current Title X funding cycle is 5 years, and the amount of money available each year could shift based on the state’s network of providers or federal budget changes. Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson for the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, didn’t answer when asked whether the state planned to reapply to administer the funding in 2027. He said the department was disappointed with the Biden administration’s “refusal” to renew the state’s funding.

“We recognize, however, that recent proabortion federal rule changes have distorted Title X and conflict with Montana law,” he said.

Conservative states have been tangling with nonprofits and the federal government over Title X funding for more than a decade. In 2011, during the Obama administration, Texas whittled down the state’s family planning spending and prioritized sending the federal money to general primary care providers over reproductive health clinics. As a result, 25% of family planning clinics in Texas closed. In 2013, a nonprofit now called Every Body Texas joined the competition to distribute the state’s Title X dollars and won.

“Filling and rebuilding those holes have taken this last decade, essentially,” said Berna Mason, director of service delivery improvement for Every Body Texas.

In 2019, the governor of Nebraska proposed a budget that would have prohibited the money from going to any organization that provided abortions or referred patients for abortions outside of an emergency. It also would have required that funding recipients be legally and financially separate from such clinics, a restriction that would have gone further than the Trump administration’s rules. Afterward, a family planning council won the right to administer Title X money.

In 2017, the nonprofit Arizona Family Health Partnership lost its status as that state’s only Title X administrator when the state health department was given 25% of the funding to deliver to providers. That came after Arizona lawmakers ordered the department to apply for the funds and distribute them first to state- or county-owned clinics, with the remaining money going to primary care facilities. The change was backed by groups that were opposed to abortion, and reproductive health care providers saw it as an attempt to weaken clinics that offer abortion services.

However, the state left nearly all the money it received untouched, and although it’s still required by law to apply for Title X funding, it hasn’t received a portion of the grant since.

Bré Thomas, CEO of Arizona Family Health Partnership, said that, even though the nonprofit is the sole administrator of the Title X funding again, the threat remains that some or all could be taken away because of politics. “We’re at the will of who’s in charge,” Ms. Thomas said.

Nonprofits say they have an advantage over state agencies in expanding services because they have more flexibility in fundraising and fewer administrative hurdles.

In April, Mississippi nonprofit Converge took over administration of Title X funds, a role the state had held for decades. The organization’s founders said they weren’t worried that conservative politicians would restrict access to services but simply believed they could do a better job. “Service quality was very low, and it was very hard to get appointments,” said cofounder Danielle Lampton.

A Mississippi State Department of Health spokesperson, Liz Sharlot, said the agency looks forward to working with Converge.

In Montana, Bridgercare plans to restore funding to Planned Parenthood clinics that have been cut off from the program since 2019, recruit more health centers to participate, and expand the program’s reach in rural, frontier, and tribal communities using telehealth services, Ms. McDowell said.

The organization’s goal is to increase the number of patients benefiting from the federal program by at least 10% in each year of the 5-year grant cycle. The clinic also plans to apply to keep its Title X role beyond this grant.

“In 5 years, our grant application should be a clear front-runner for funding,” she said. “It’s less about ‘How do we beat someone in 5 years?’ And more about ‘How do we grow this program to serve patients?’”
 

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

BOZEMAN, Mont. – In a busy downtown coffee shop, a drawing of a ski lift with intrauterine devices for chairs draws the eyes of sleepy customers getting their morning underway with a caffeine jolt.

The flyer touts the services of Bridgercare, a nonprofit reproductive health clinic a few miles up the road. The clinic offers wellness exams, birth control, and LGBTQ+ services – and, starting in April, it oversees the state’s multimillion-dollar share of federal family planning program funding.

In March, Bridgercare beat out the state health department to become administrator of Montana’s $2.3 million Title X program, which helps pay for family planning and preventive health services. The organization applied for the grant because its leaders were concerned about a new state law that sought to restrict which local providers are funded.

What is happening in Montana is the latest example of an ongoing power struggle between nonprofits and conservative-leaning states over who receives federal family planning money. That has intensified in recent years as the Title X program has increasingly become entangled with the politics of abortion.

This year, the federal government set aside $257 million for family planning and preventive care. The providers that get that funding often serve families with low incomes, and Title X is one of the few federal programs in which people without legal permission to be in the United States can participate.

“The program permeates into communities that otherwise would be unreached by public health efforts,” said Rebecca Kreitzer, an associate professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services controlled the distribution of the state’s Title X funds for decades. Bridgercare sought the administrator role to circumvent a Republican-sponsored law passed last year that required the state to prioritize the money for local health departments and federally qualified health centers. That would have put the nonprofit – which doesn’t provide abortion procedures – and similar organizations at the bottom of the list. The law also banned clinics that perform abortions from receiving Title X funds from the state health department.

Bridgercare Executive Director Stephanie McDowell said the group applied for the grant to try to protect the program from decisions coming out of the state capitol. “Because of the politicization of Title X, we’re seeing how it’s run, swinging back and forth based on partisan leadership,” Ms. McDowell said.

A U.S. Department of Health & Human Services spokesperson, Tara Broido, didn’t answer a question about whether the agency intentionally awarded grants to nonprofits to avoid state politics. Instead, she said in a statement that applicants were evaluated in a competitive process by a panel of independent reviewers based on criteria to deliver high-quality, client-centered services.

Federal law prohibits the money from being used to perform abortions. But it can cover other services provided by groups that offer abortions – the largest and best-known by far is Planned Parenthood. In recent years, conservative politicians have tried to keep such providers from receiving Title X funding.

In some cases, contraception has entered the debate around which family planning services government should help fund. Some abortion opponents have raised concerns that long-lasting forms of birth control, such as IUDs, lead to abortions. Those claims are disputed by reproductive health experts.

In 2019, the Trump administration introduced several new rules for Title X, including disqualifying from receiving the funding family planning clinics that also offered abortion services or referrals. Many clinics across the nation left the program instead of conforming to the rules. Simultaneously, the spread of COVID-19 interrupted routine care. The number of patients served by Title X plummeted.

The Biden administration reversed most of those rules, including allowing providers with abortion services back into the Title X program. States also try to influence the funding’s reach, either through legislation or budget rules.

The current Title X funding cycle is 5 years, and the amount of money available each year could shift based on the state’s network of providers or federal budget changes. Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson for the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, didn’t answer when asked whether the state planned to reapply to administer the funding in 2027. He said the department was disappointed with the Biden administration’s “refusal” to renew the state’s funding.

“We recognize, however, that recent proabortion federal rule changes have distorted Title X and conflict with Montana law,” he said.

Conservative states have been tangling with nonprofits and the federal government over Title X funding for more than a decade. In 2011, during the Obama administration, Texas whittled down the state’s family planning spending and prioritized sending the federal money to general primary care providers over reproductive health clinics. As a result, 25% of family planning clinics in Texas closed. In 2013, a nonprofit now called Every Body Texas joined the competition to distribute the state’s Title X dollars and won.

“Filling and rebuilding those holes have taken this last decade, essentially,” said Berna Mason, director of service delivery improvement for Every Body Texas.

In 2019, the governor of Nebraska proposed a budget that would have prohibited the money from going to any organization that provided abortions or referred patients for abortions outside of an emergency. It also would have required that funding recipients be legally and financially separate from such clinics, a restriction that would have gone further than the Trump administration’s rules. Afterward, a family planning council won the right to administer Title X money.

In 2017, the nonprofit Arizona Family Health Partnership lost its status as that state’s only Title X administrator when the state health department was given 25% of the funding to deliver to providers. That came after Arizona lawmakers ordered the department to apply for the funds and distribute them first to state- or county-owned clinics, with the remaining money going to primary care facilities. The change was backed by groups that were opposed to abortion, and reproductive health care providers saw it as an attempt to weaken clinics that offer abortion services.

However, the state left nearly all the money it received untouched, and although it’s still required by law to apply for Title X funding, it hasn’t received a portion of the grant since.

Bré Thomas, CEO of Arizona Family Health Partnership, said that, even though the nonprofit is the sole administrator of the Title X funding again, the threat remains that some or all could be taken away because of politics. “We’re at the will of who’s in charge,” Ms. Thomas said.

Nonprofits say they have an advantage over state agencies in expanding services because they have more flexibility in fundraising and fewer administrative hurdles.

In April, Mississippi nonprofit Converge took over administration of Title X funds, a role the state had held for decades. The organization’s founders said they weren’t worried that conservative politicians would restrict access to services but simply believed they could do a better job. “Service quality was very low, and it was very hard to get appointments,” said cofounder Danielle Lampton.

A Mississippi State Department of Health spokesperson, Liz Sharlot, said the agency looks forward to working with Converge.

In Montana, Bridgercare plans to restore funding to Planned Parenthood clinics that have been cut off from the program since 2019, recruit more health centers to participate, and expand the program’s reach in rural, frontier, and tribal communities using telehealth services, Ms. McDowell said.

The organization’s goal is to increase the number of patients benefiting from the federal program by at least 10% in each year of the 5-year grant cycle. The clinic also plans to apply to keep its Title X role beyond this grant.

“In 5 years, our grant application should be a clear front-runner for funding,” she said. “It’s less about ‘How do we beat someone in 5 years?’ And more about ‘How do we grow this program to serve patients?’”
 

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

The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the cusp of overturning 50 years of American abortion law, according to a draft opinion in a Mississippi case that was leaked to the news outlet Politico.

The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, outlines ways a presumed majority of the nine justices believes the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade was incorrect. If signed by a majority of the court, the ruling would eliminate the protections for abortion rights that Roe provided and give the 50 states the power to legislate abortion.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in the draft. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

While a final ruling was not expected from the court until June, the leaked draft – a nearly unprecedented breach of the court’s internal workings – gives a strong signal of the court’s five most conservative members’ decisions. During oral arguments in the case in December, conservative justices appeared prepared to undo at least part of the country’s abortion protections.

President Joe Biden said his administration was already preparing for a potential ruling that struck down federal abortion protections.

The White House, he said in a statement, is working on a “response to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes in the cases pending before the Supreme Court. We will be ready when any ruling is issued.”

But if the draft opinion becomes final, he said the fight will move to the states.

“It will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” he said. “And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.”

With more pro-abortion rights members of Congress, it would be possible to pass federal legislation protecting abortion rights, “which I will work to pass and sign into law.”

Should the Alito draft become law, its first impact would be to allow a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks to take effect.

But quickly after that, abortions would become illegal in many states. Several conservative-leaning states, mostly in the South and Midwest, have already passed laws severely restricting abortions well beyond what Roe allowed. Should Roe be overturned then, those laws would take effect without the threat of lengthy lawsuits or rulings from lower-court judges who have blocked them.

Nearly half of the states, mostly in the Northeast and West, would likely allow abortion to continue in some way. In fact, several states, including Colorado and Vermont, have already passed laws granting the right to an abortion into state law.

The leaked draft, however, is still a draft, meaning it remains possible Roe survives. Anthony Kreis, PhD, a professor of law at Georgia State University, says that could have been the point of whoever leaked the draft.

“It suggests to me that whoever leaked it knew that public outrage was the last resort to stopping the court from overturning Roe v. Wade and letting states ban all abortions,” Dr. Kreis said. “The danger that abortions won’t be legal in most of the country is very real.”

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

This article was updated 5/3/22.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the cusp of overturning 50 years of American abortion law, according to a draft opinion in a Mississippi case that was leaked to the news outlet Politico.

The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, outlines ways a presumed majority of the nine justices believes the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade was incorrect. If signed by a majority of the court, the ruling would eliminate the protections for abortion rights that Roe provided and give the 50 states the power to legislate abortion.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in the draft. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

While a final ruling was not expected from the court until June, the leaked draft – a nearly unprecedented breach of the court’s internal workings – gives a strong signal of the court’s five most conservative members’ decisions. During oral arguments in the case in December, conservative justices appeared prepared to undo at least part of the country’s abortion protections.

President Joe Biden said his administration was already preparing for a potential ruling that struck down federal abortion protections.

The White House, he said in a statement, is working on a “response to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes in the cases pending before the Supreme Court. We will be ready when any ruling is issued.”

But if the draft opinion becomes final, he said the fight will move to the states.

“It will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” he said. “And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.”

With more pro-abortion rights members of Congress, it would be possible to pass federal legislation protecting abortion rights, “which I will work to pass and sign into law.”

Should the Alito draft become law, its first impact would be to allow a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks to take effect.

But quickly after that, abortions would become illegal in many states. Several conservative-leaning states, mostly in the South and Midwest, have already passed laws severely restricting abortions well beyond what Roe allowed. Should Roe be overturned then, those laws would take effect without the threat of lengthy lawsuits or rulings from lower-court judges who have blocked them.

Nearly half of the states, mostly in the Northeast and West, would likely allow abortion to continue in some way. In fact, several states, including Colorado and Vermont, have already passed laws granting the right to an abortion into state law.

The leaked draft, however, is still a draft, meaning it remains possible Roe survives. Anthony Kreis, PhD, a professor of law at Georgia State University, says that could have been the point of whoever leaked the draft.

“It suggests to me that whoever leaked it knew that public outrage was the last resort to stopping the court from overturning Roe v. Wade and letting states ban all abortions,” Dr. Kreis said. “The danger that abortions won’t be legal in most of the country is very real.”

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

This article was updated 5/3/22.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the cusp of overturning 50 years of American abortion law, according to a draft opinion in a Mississippi case that was leaked to the news outlet Politico.

The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, outlines ways a presumed majority of the nine justices believes the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade was incorrect. If signed by a majority of the court, the ruling would eliminate the protections for abortion rights that Roe provided and give the 50 states the power to legislate abortion.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in the draft. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

While a final ruling was not expected from the court until June, the leaked draft – a nearly unprecedented breach of the court’s internal workings – gives a strong signal of the court’s five most conservative members’ decisions. During oral arguments in the case in December, conservative justices appeared prepared to undo at least part of the country’s abortion protections.

President Joe Biden said his administration was already preparing for a potential ruling that struck down federal abortion protections.

The White House, he said in a statement, is working on a “response to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes in the cases pending before the Supreme Court. We will be ready when any ruling is issued.”

But if the draft opinion becomes final, he said the fight will move to the states.

“It will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” he said. “And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.”

With more pro-abortion rights members of Congress, it would be possible to pass federal legislation protecting abortion rights, “which I will work to pass and sign into law.”

Should the Alito draft become law, its first impact would be to allow a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks to take effect.

But quickly after that, abortions would become illegal in many states. Several conservative-leaning states, mostly in the South and Midwest, have already passed laws severely restricting abortions well beyond what Roe allowed. Should Roe be overturned then, those laws would take effect without the threat of lengthy lawsuits or rulings from lower-court judges who have blocked them.

Nearly half of the states, mostly in the Northeast and West, would likely allow abortion to continue in some way. In fact, several states, including Colorado and Vermont, have already passed laws granting the right to an abortion into state law.

The leaked draft, however, is still a draft, meaning it remains possible Roe survives. Anthony Kreis, PhD, a professor of law at Georgia State University, says that could have been the point of whoever leaked the draft.

“It suggests to me that whoever leaked it knew that public outrage was the last resort to stopping the court from overturning Roe v. Wade and letting states ban all abortions,” Dr. Kreis said. “The danger that abortions won’t be legal in most of the country is very real.”

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

This article was updated 5/3/22.

“It was my wife’s walker, and I’ve never used one before. Sorry that I keep bumping into things.”

He was in his early 70s, recently widowed. He hadn’t needed a walker until yesterday, and his son had gotten it out of the garage where they’d just stowed it away. I showed him how to change the height setting on it so he didn’t have to lean so far over.

His daughter was a longstanding patient of mine, and now she and her brother were worried about their dad. He’d been so healthy for years, taking care of their mother as she declined with cancer. Now, 2 months since her death, he’d started going downhill. He’d been, understandably, depressed and had lost some weight. A few weeks ago he’d had some nonspecific upper respiratory crud, and now they were worried he wasn’t eating. He’d gotten progressively weaker in the last few days, leading to their getting out the walker.

I knew my patient for several years. She wasn’t given to panicking, and was worried about her dad. By this time, I was too. Twenty-eight years of neurology training and practice puts you on the edge for some things. The “Spidey Sense,” as I’ve always called it, was tingling.

It took a very quick neurologic exam to find what I needed. He was indeed weak, had decreased distal sensation, and was completely areflexic. It was time to take the most-dreaded outpatient neurology gamble: The direct office-to-ER admission.

I told his daughter to take him to the nearby ER and scribbled a note that said “Probable Guillain-Barré. Needs urgent workup.” They were somewhat taken aback, as they had dinner plans that night, but his daughter knew me well enough to know that I don’t pull fire alarms for fun.

As soon as they’d left I called the ER doctor and told her what was coming. My hospital days ended 2 years ago, but I wanted to do everything I could to make sure the right ball was rolling.

Then my part was over. I had other patients waiting, tests to review, phone calls to make.

This is where the anxiety began. Nobody wants to be the person who cries wolf, or admits “dumps.” I’ve been on both sides of admissions, and bashing outpatient docs for unnecessary hospital referrals is a perennial pastime of inpatient care.

I was sure of my actions, but as the hours crept by some doubt came in. What if he got to the hospital and suddenly wasn’t weak? Or it was all from a medication error he’d made at home?

No one wants to claim they saw a flare when there wasn’t one, or get the reputation of being past their game. I was worried about the patient, but also began to worry I’d screwed up and missed something else.

I finished the day and went home. After closing out my usual end-of-the-day stuff I logged into the hospital system to see what was going on.

Normal cervical spine MRI. Spinal fluid had zero cells and elevated protein.

I breathed a sigh of relief and relaxed back into my chair. I’d made the right call. The hospital neurologist had ordered IVIG. The patient would hopefully recover. No one would think I’d screwed up a potentially serious case. And, somewhere in the back of my mind, the Sherlock Holmes inside every neurologist tipped his deerstalker cap at me and gave a slight nod.

There’s the relief of having done the right thing for the patient, having made the correct diagnosis, and, at the end of the day, being reassured that (some days at least) I still know what I’m doing.

It’s those feelings that brought me here and still keep me going.

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

“It was my wife’s walker, and I’ve never used one before. Sorry that I keep bumping into things.”

He was in his early 70s, recently widowed. He hadn’t needed a walker until yesterday, and his son had gotten it out of the garage where they’d just stowed it away. I showed him how to change the height setting on it so he didn’t have to lean so far over.

His daughter was a longstanding patient of mine, and now she and her brother were worried about their dad. He’d been so healthy for years, taking care of their mother as she declined with cancer. Now, 2 months since her death, he’d started going downhill. He’d been, understandably, depressed and had lost some weight. A few weeks ago he’d had some nonspecific upper respiratory crud, and now they were worried he wasn’t eating. He’d gotten progressively weaker in the last few days, leading to their getting out the walker.

I knew my patient for several years. She wasn’t given to panicking, and was worried about her dad. By this time, I was too. Twenty-eight years of neurology training and practice puts you on the edge for some things. The “Spidey Sense,” as I’ve always called it, was tingling.

It took a very quick neurologic exam to find what I needed. He was indeed weak, had decreased distal sensation, and was completely areflexic. It was time to take the most-dreaded outpatient neurology gamble: The direct office-to-ER admission.

I told his daughter to take him to the nearby ER and scribbled a note that said “Probable Guillain-Barré. Needs urgent workup.” They were somewhat taken aback, as they had dinner plans that night, but his daughter knew me well enough to know that I don’t pull fire alarms for fun.

As soon as they’d left I called the ER doctor and told her what was coming. My hospital days ended 2 years ago, but I wanted to do everything I could to make sure the right ball was rolling.

Then my part was over. I had other patients waiting, tests to review, phone calls to make.

This is where the anxiety began. Nobody wants to be the person who cries wolf, or admits “dumps.” I’ve been on both sides of admissions, and bashing outpatient docs for unnecessary hospital referrals is a perennial pastime of inpatient care.

I was sure of my actions, but as the hours crept by some doubt came in. What if he got to the hospital and suddenly wasn’t weak? Or it was all from a medication error he’d made at home?

No one wants to claim they saw a flare when there wasn’t one, or get the reputation of being past their game. I was worried about the patient, but also began to worry I’d screwed up and missed something else.

I finished the day and went home. After closing out my usual end-of-the-day stuff I logged into the hospital system to see what was going on.

Normal cervical spine MRI. Spinal fluid had zero cells and elevated protein.

I breathed a sigh of relief and relaxed back into my chair. I’d made the right call. The hospital neurologist had ordered IVIG. The patient would hopefully recover. No one would think I’d screwed up a potentially serious case. And, somewhere in the back of my mind, the Sherlock Holmes inside every neurologist tipped his deerstalker cap at me and gave a slight nod.

There’s the relief of having done the right thing for the patient, having made the correct diagnosis, and, at the end of the day, being reassured that (some days at least) I still know what I’m doing.

It’s those feelings that brought me here and still keep me going.

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

“It was my wife’s walker, and I’ve never used one before. Sorry that I keep bumping into things.”

He was in his early 70s, recently widowed. He hadn’t needed a walker until yesterday, and his son had gotten it out of the garage where they’d just stowed it away. I showed him how to change the height setting on it so he didn’t have to lean so far over.

His daughter was a longstanding patient of mine, and now she and her brother were worried about their dad. He’d been so healthy for years, taking care of their mother as she declined with cancer. Now, 2 months since her death, he’d started going downhill. He’d been, understandably, depressed and had lost some weight. A few weeks ago he’d had some nonspecific upper respiratory crud, and now they were worried he wasn’t eating. He’d gotten progressively weaker in the last few days, leading to their getting out the walker.

I knew my patient for several years. She wasn’t given to panicking, and was worried about her dad. By this time, I was too. Twenty-eight years of neurology training and practice puts you on the edge for some things. The “Spidey Sense,” as I’ve always called it, was tingling.

It took a very quick neurologic exam to find what I needed. He was indeed weak, had decreased distal sensation, and was completely areflexic. It was time to take the most-dreaded outpatient neurology gamble: The direct office-to-ER admission.

I told his daughter to take him to the nearby ER and scribbled a note that said “Probable Guillain-Barré. Needs urgent workup.” They were somewhat taken aback, as they had dinner plans that night, but his daughter knew me well enough to know that I don’t pull fire alarms for fun.

As soon as they’d left I called the ER doctor and told her what was coming. My hospital days ended 2 years ago, but I wanted to do everything I could to make sure the right ball was rolling.

Then my part was over. I had other patients waiting, tests to review, phone calls to make.

This is where the anxiety began. Nobody wants to be the person who cries wolf, or admits “dumps.” I’ve been on both sides of admissions, and bashing outpatient docs for unnecessary hospital referrals is a perennial pastime of inpatient care.

I was sure of my actions, but as the hours crept by some doubt came in. What if he got to the hospital and suddenly wasn’t weak? Or it was all from a medication error he’d made at home?

No one wants to claim they saw a flare when there wasn’t one, or get the reputation of being past their game. I was worried about the patient, but also began to worry I’d screwed up and missed something else.

I finished the day and went home. After closing out my usual end-of-the-day stuff I logged into the hospital system to see what was going on.

Normal cervical spine MRI. Spinal fluid had zero cells and elevated protein.

I breathed a sigh of relief and relaxed back into my chair. I’d made the right call. The hospital neurologist had ordered IVIG. The patient would hopefully recover. No one would think I’d screwed up a potentially serious case. And, somewhere in the back of my mind, the Sherlock Holmes inside every neurologist tipped his deerstalker cap at me and gave a slight nod.

There’s the relief of having done the right thing for the patient, having made the correct diagnosis, and, at the end of the day, being reassured that (some days at least) I still know what I’m doing.

It’s those feelings that brought me here and still keep me going.

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

The health care sector is not immune from cybersecurity attacks (malicious attempts to access or damage a computer or network system). Between October 2019 and October 2021, 857 data breaches were reported to the United States Department of Health and Human Services.¹ The 3 main types of breaches reported were theft, hacking/IT incident, or unauthorized access/disclosure.¹ Health care has become a common target due to the availability of valuable patient information (health, personal, and financial), the industry’s financial stability and resource capacity, and network susceptibility.² The top 2 cybersecurity threats facing physician practices are:

• ransomware attacks, in which an external party uses a type of malicious software (malware) that prevents you from accessing your computer files, systems, or networks, and demands you pay a ransom for their return.
• employee-related threats, such as the theft or destruction of sensitive information by a disgruntled employee.³

The financial implications of health care–related cybersecurity threats coupled with exposure to potential litigation associated with breaches of confidentiality result in a need to “cybersecure” your practice.² In this article, I outline steps to take to protect your practice against such threats. Although the recommendations I provide will increase your practice’s cybersecurity fortification, they are not exhaustive, and you may need to consult with an IT specialist to help protect your data and network.

Improve your network protection. A broadband internet connection is always operating, which makes it continuously susceptible to cybersecurity attacks. Install a firewall (a network security system that monitors and controls network traffic and permits or blocks traffic based on a defined set of rules) between your practice’s internal computer network and the internet.⁴ For maximum protection, enable all available firewall settings in your operating software.² Prevent unauthorized access by ensuring that all network passwords are strong (ie, they include a combination of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols). Consider using different networks for online communication and for storing sensitive information.² Create separate Wi-Fi networks for your practice and for your patients, and use unique passwords for each that are not easily guessed.⁴ If you or your employees use a virtual private network (VPN) to remotely access your practice’s network, ensure that all devices used to do so (cell phones, tablets, etc) are encrypted and secured with strong passwords.

Reduce employee-related threats. Not every employee in your practice will need to access to your patients’ clinical or financial data. Limiting employee access to sensitive clinical or financial data can reduce the risks of employee-related cybersecurity threats.³ In addition, restrict an employee’s ability to install software on computers and other devices that belong to your practice.²

Frequently incorporate cybersecurity training, such as teaching your employees about the risks of clicking on links and attachments in emails and how to identify phishing attacks (in which an individual sends a fraudulent communication that appears to come from a reputable source in order to trick the recipient into revealing financial information, system credentials, or other sensitive data).^2,3 Use multifactor authentication to verify an employee’s login identity, and change passwords often. Reinforce these policies at staff meetings and educate new employees about this process.³ If you need to fire an employee, consider deploying cybersurveillance software to monitor the behavior of all employees before the employee is terminated.³ Once the employee has been terminated, change all logins and passwords.

The health care sector is not immune from cybersecurity attacks (malicious attempts to access or damage a computer or network system). Between October 2019 and October 2021, 857 data breaches were reported to the United States Department of Health and Human Services.¹ The 3 main types of breaches reported were theft, hacking/IT incident, or unauthorized access/disclosure.¹ Health care has become a common target due to the availability of valuable patient information (health, personal, and financial), the industry’s financial stability and resource capacity, and network susceptibility.² The top 2 cybersecurity threats facing physician practices are:

• ransomware attacks, in which an external party uses a type of malicious software (malware) that prevents you from accessing your computer files, systems, or networks, and demands you pay a ransom for their return.
• employee-related threats, such as the theft or destruction of sensitive information by a disgruntled employee.³

The financial implications of health care–related cybersecurity threats coupled with exposure to potential litigation associated with breaches of confidentiality result in a need to “cybersecure” your practice.² In this article, I outline steps to take to protect your practice against such threats. Although the recommendations I provide will increase your practice’s cybersecurity fortification, they are not exhaustive, and you may need to consult with an IT specialist to help protect your data and network.

Improve your network protection. A broadband internet connection is always operating, which makes it continuously susceptible to cybersecurity attacks. Install a firewall (a network security system that monitors and controls network traffic and permits or blocks traffic based on a defined set of rules) between your practice’s internal computer network and the internet.⁴ For maximum protection, enable all available firewall settings in your operating software.² Prevent unauthorized access by ensuring that all network passwords are strong (ie, they include a combination of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols). Consider using different networks for online communication and for storing sensitive information.² Create separate Wi-Fi networks for your practice and for your patients, and use unique passwords for each that are not easily guessed.⁴ If you or your employees use a virtual private network (VPN) to remotely access your practice’s network, ensure that all devices used to do so (cell phones, tablets, etc) are encrypted and secured with strong passwords.

Reduce employee-related threats. Not every employee in your practice will need to access to your patients’ clinical or financial data. Limiting employee access to sensitive clinical or financial data can reduce the risks of employee-related cybersecurity threats.³ In addition, restrict an employee’s ability to install software on computers and other devices that belong to your practice.²

Frequently incorporate cybersecurity training, such as teaching your employees about the risks of clicking on links and attachments in emails and how to identify phishing attacks (in which an individual sends a fraudulent communication that appears to come from a reputable source in order to trick the recipient into revealing financial information, system credentials, or other sensitive data).^2,3 Use multifactor authentication to verify an employee’s login identity, and change passwords often. Reinforce these policies at staff meetings and educate new employees about this process.³ If you need to fire an employee, consider deploying cybersurveillance software to monitor the behavior of all employees before the employee is terminated.³ Once the employee has been terminated, change all logins and passwords.

The health care sector is not immune from cybersecurity attacks (malicious attempts to access or damage a computer or network system). Between October 2019 and October 2021, 857 data breaches were reported to the United States Department of Health and Human Services.¹ The 3 main types of breaches reported were theft, hacking/IT incident, or unauthorized access/disclosure.¹ Health care has become a common target due to the availability of valuable patient information (health, personal, and financial), the industry’s financial stability and resource capacity, and network susceptibility.² The top 2 cybersecurity threats facing physician practices are:

• ransomware attacks, in which an external party uses a type of malicious software (malware) that prevents you from accessing your computer files, systems, or networks, and demands you pay a ransom for their return.
• employee-related threats, such as the theft or destruction of sensitive information by a disgruntled employee.³

The financial implications of health care–related cybersecurity threats coupled with exposure to potential litigation associated with breaches of confidentiality result in a need to “cybersecure” your practice.² In this article, I outline steps to take to protect your practice against such threats. Although the recommendations I provide will increase your practice’s cybersecurity fortification, they are not exhaustive, and you may need to consult with an IT specialist to help protect your data and network.

Improve your network protection. A broadband internet connection is always operating, which makes it continuously susceptible to cybersecurity attacks. Install a firewall (a network security system that monitors and controls network traffic and permits or blocks traffic based on a defined set of rules) between your practice’s internal computer network and the internet.⁴ For maximum protection, enable all available firewall settings in your operating software.² Prevent unauthorized access by ensuring that all network passwords are strong (ie, they include a combination of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols). Consider using different networks for online communication and for storing sensitive information.² Create separate Wi-Fi networks for your practice and for your patients, and use unique passwords for each that are not easily guessed.⁴ If you or your employees use a virtual private network (VPN) to remotely access your practice’s network, ensure that all devices used to do so (cell phones, tablets, etc) are encrypted and secured with strong passwords.

Reduce employee-related threats. Not every employee in your practice will need to access to your patients’ clinical or financial data. Limiting employee access to sensitive clinical or financial data can reduce the risks of employee-related cybersecurity threats.³ In addition, restrict an employee’s ability to install software on computers and other devices that belong to your practice.²

Frequently incorporate cybersecurity training, such as teaching your employees about the risks of clicking on links and attachments in emails and how to identify phishing attacks (in which an individual sends a fraudulent communication that appears to come from a reputable source in order to trick the recipient into revealing financial information, system credentials, or other sensitive data).^2,3 Use multifactor authentication to verify an employee’s login identity, and change passwords often. Reinforce these policies at staff meetings and educate new employees about this process.³ If you need to fire an employee, consider deploying cybersurveillance software to monitor the behavior of all employees before the employee is terminated.³ Once the employee has been terminated, change all logins and passwords.

CHICAGO – The COVID pandemic left hospitalist Ngozi Nwankwo, MD, with the most difficult patient interactions she had ever experienced.

“At my hospital, it was such a big thing to make sure that families are called,” said Dr. Nwankwo, in an interview following a session on compassionate communication at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. “So you have 19 patients, and you have to call almost every family to update them. And then you call, and they say, ‘Call this person as well.’ You feel like you’re at your wit’s end a lot of times.”

Sometimes, she has had to dig deep to find the empathy for patients that she knows her patients deserve.

“You really want to care by thinking about where is this patient coming from? What’s going on in their lives? And not just label them a difficult patient,” she said.

Become curious

Auguste Fortin, MD, MPH, offered advice for handling patient interactions under these kinds of circumstances, while serving as a moderator during the session.

“When the going gets tough, turn to wonder.” Become curious about why a patient might be feeling the way they are, he said.

Dr. Fortin, professor of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said using the ADOBE acronym, has helped him more effectively communicate with his patients. This tool cues him to keep the following in mind: acknowledge, discover, opportunity, boundary setting, and extend.

He went on to explain to the audience why thinking about these terms is useful when interacting with patients.

First, acknowledge the feelings of the patient. Noting that a patient is angry, perhaps counterintuitively, helps, he said. In fact, not acknowledging the anger “throws gasoline on the fire.”

Then, discover the cause of their emotion. Saying "tell me more" and "help me understand" can be powerful tools, he noted.

Next, take this as an opportunity for empathy – especially important to remember when you’re being verbally attacked.

Boundary setting is important, because it lets the patient know that the conversation won’t continue unless they show the same respect the physician is showing, he said.

Finally, physicians can extend the system of support by asking others – such as colleagues or security – for help.

Use the NURS guide to show empathy

Dr. Fortin said he uses the “NURS” guide or calling to mind “name, express, respect, and support” to show empathy:

This involves naming a patient’s emotion; expressing understanding, with phrases like "I can see how you could be …"; showing respect, acknowledging a patient is going through a lot; and offering support, by saying something like, "Let’s see what we can do together to get to the bottom of this," he explained.

“My lived experience in using [these] in this order is that by the end of it, the patient cannot stay mad at me,” Dr. Fortin said.

“It’s really quite remarkable,” he added.

Steps for nonviolent communication

Rebecca Andrews, MD, MS, another moderator for the session, offered these steps for “nonviolent communication”:

• Observing the situation without blame or judgment.
• Telling the person how this situation makes you feel.
• Connecting with a need of the other person.
• Making a request that is specific and based on action, rather than a request not to do something, such as "Would you be willing to … ?"

Dr. Andrews, who is professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, said this approach has worked well for her, both in interactions with patients and in her personal life.

“It is evidence based that compassion actually makes care better,” she noted.

Varun Jain, MD, a member of the audience, expressed gratitude to the session’s speakers for teaching him something that he had not learned in medical school or residency.

“Every week you will have one or two people who will be labeled as ‘difficult,’ ” and it was nice to have some proven advice on how to handle these tough interactions, said the hospitalist at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Conn.

“We never got any actual training on this, and we were expected to know this because we are just physicians, and physicians are expected to be compassionate,” Dr. Jain said. “No one taught us how to have compassion.”

Dr. Fortin and Dr. Andrews disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

CHICAGO – The COVID pandemic left hospitalist Ngozi Nwankwo, MD, with the most difficult patient interactions she had ever experienced.

“At my hospital, it was such a big thing to make sure that families are called,” said Dr. Nwankwo, in an interview following a session on compassionate communication at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. “So you have 19 patients, and you have to call almost every family to update them. And then you call, and they say, ‘Call this person as well.’ You feel like you’re at your wit’s end a lot of times.”

Sometimes, she has had to dig deep to find the empathy for patients that she knows her patients deserve.

“You really want to care by thinking about where is this patient coming from? What’s going on in their lives? And not just label them a difficult patient,” she said.

Become curious

Auguste Fortin, MD, MPH, offered advice for handling patient interactions under these kinds of circumstances, while serving as a moderator during the session.

“When the going gets tough, turn to wonder.” Become curious about why a patient might be feeling the way they are, he said.

Dr. Fortin, professor of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said using the ADOBE acronym, has helped him more effectively communicate with his patients. This tool cues him to keep the following in mind: acknowledge, discover, opportunity, boundary setting, and extend.

He went on to explain to the audience why thinking about these terms is useful when interacting with patients.

First, acknowledge the feelings of the patient. Noting that a patient is angry, perhaps counterintuitively, helps, he said. In fact, not acknowledging the anger “throws gasoline on the fire.”

Then, discover the cause of their emotion. Saying "tell me more" and "help me understand" can be powerful tools, he noted.

Next, take this as an opportunity for empathy – especially important to remember when you’re being verbally attacked.

Boundary setting is important, because it lets the patient know that the conversation won’t continue unless they show the same respect the physician is showing, he said.

Finally, physicians can extend the system of support by asking others – such as colleagues or security – for help.

Use the NURS guide to show empathy

Dr. Fortin said he uses the “NURS” guide or calling to mind “name, express, respect, and support” to show empathy:

This involves naming a patient’s emotion; expressing understanding, with phrases like "I can see how you could be …"; showing respect, acknowledging a patient is going through a lot; and offering support, by saying something like, "Let’s see what we can do together to get to the bottom of this," he explained.

“My lived experience in using [these] in this order is that by the end of it, the patient cannot stay mad at me,” Dr. Fortin said.

“It’s really quite remarkable,” he added.

Steps for nonviolent communication

Rebecca Andrews, MD, MS, another moderator for the session, offered these steps for “nonviolent communication”:

• Observing the situation without blame or judgment.
• Telling the person how this situation makes you feel.
• Connecting with a need of the other person.
• Making a request that is specific and based on action, rather than a request not to do something, such as "Would you be willing to … ?"

Dr. Andrews, who is professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, said this approach has worked well for her, both in interactions with patients and in her personal life.

“It is evidence based that compassion actually makes care better,” she noted.

Varun Jain, MD, a member of the audience, expressed gratitude to the session’s speakers for teaching him something that he had not learned in medical school or residency.

“Every week you will have one or two people who will be labeled as ‘difficult,’ ” and it was nice to have some proven advice on how to handle these tough interactions, said the hospitalist at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Conn.

“We never got any actual training on this, and we were expected to know this because we are just physicians, and physicians are expected to be compassionate,” Dr. Jain said. “No one taught us how to have compassion.”

Dr. Fortin and Dr. Andrews disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

CHICAGO – The COVID pandemic left hospitalist Ngozi Nwankwo, MD, with the most difficult patient interactions she had ever experienced.

“At my hospital, it was such a big thing to make sure that families are called,” said Dr. Nwankwo, in an interview following a session on compassionate communication at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. “So you have 19 patients, and you have to call almost every family to update them. And then you call, and they say, ‘Call this person as well.’ You feel like you’re at your wit’s end a lot of times.”

Sometimes, she has had to dig deep to find the empathy for patients that she knows her patients deserve.

“You really want to care by thinking about where is this patient coming from? What’s going on in their lives? And not just label them a difficult patient,” she said.

Become curious

Auguste Fortin, MD, MPH, offered advice for handling patient interactions under these kinds of circumstances, while serving as a moderator during the session.

“When the going gets tough, turn to wonder.” Become curious about why a patient might be feeling the way they are, he said.

Dr. Fortin, professor of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said using the ADOBE acronym, has helped him more effectively communicate with his patients. This tool cues him to keep the following in mind: acknowledge, discover, opportunity, boundary setting, and extend.

He went on to explain to the audience why thinking about these terms is useful when interacting with patients.

First, acknowledge the feelings of the patient. Noting that a patient is angry, perhaps counterintuitively, helps, he said. In fact, not acknowledging the anger “throws gasoline on the fire.”

Then, discover the cause of their emotion. Saying "tell me more" and "help me understand" can be powerful tools, he noted.

Next, take this as an opportunity for empathy – especially important to remember when you’re being verbally attacked.

Boundary setting is important, because it lets the patient know that the conversation won’t continue unless they show the same respect the physician is showing, he said.

Finally, physicians can extend the system of support by asking others – such as colleagues or security – for help.

Use the NURS guide to show empathy

Dr. Fortin said he uses the “NURS” guide or calling to mind “name, express, respect, and support” to show empathy:

This involves naming a patient’s emotion; expressing understanding, with phrases like "I can see how you could be …"; showing respect, acknowledging a patient is going through a lot; and offering support, by saying something like, "Let’s see what we can do together to get to the bottom of this," he explained.

“My lived experience in using [these] in this order is that by the end of it, the patient cannot stay mad at me,” Dr. Fortin said.

“It’s really quite remarkable,” he added.

Steps for nonviolent communication

Rebecca Andrews, MD, MS, another moderator for the session, offered these steps for “nonviolent communication”:

• Observing the situation without blame or judgment.
• Telling the person how this situation makes you feel.
• Connecting with a need of the other person.
• Making a request that is specific and based on action, rather than a request not to do something, such as "Would you be willing to … ?"

Dr. Andrews, who is professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, said this approach has worked well for her, both in interactions with patients and in her personal life.

“It is evidence based that compassion actually makes care better,” she noted.

Varun Jain, MD, a member of the audience, expressed gratitude to the session’s speakers for teaching him something that he had not learned in medical school or residency.

“Every week you will have one or two people who will be labeled as ‘difficult,’ ” and it was nice to have some proven advice on how to handle these tough interactions, said the hospitalist at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Conn.

“We never got any actual training on this, and we were expected to know this because we are just physicians, and physicians are expected to be compassionate,” Dr. Jain said. “No one taught us how to have compassion.”

Dr. Fortin and Dr. Andrews disclosed no relevant financial relationships.