Business of Medicine

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.

The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.

Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.

Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
 

Buried in paperwork

In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.

When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.

Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.

About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.

Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.

“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.

The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.

Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.

Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
 

Seeking better work-life balance

More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).

About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).

About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.

Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).

To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).

Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.

Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.

Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).

About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).

Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.

Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.

The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.

Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.

Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
 

Buried in paperwork

In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.

When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.

Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.

About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.

Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.

“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.

The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.

Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.

Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
 

Seeking better work-life balance

More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).

About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).

About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.

Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).

To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).

Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.

Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.

Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).

About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).

Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.

Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many segments of the population, but especially those in the health care field, including gastroenterologists.

The newly released Medscape Gastroenterologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022 explores gastroenterologists’ level of happiness in their personal and professional lives and how they maintain their mental and physical health.

Prior to the global pandemic, 8 in 10 (80%) gastroenterologists said they were “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work, similar to physicians overall (81%).

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of stress and strain on those in the health care field.

Now, the percentage of gastroenterologists who say they are currently “very” or “somewhat” happy outside of work has dropped to 60%, about the same as physicians overall (59%).
 

Buried in paperwork

In 2021’s report, 42% of gastroenterologists reported burnout; that’s risen to 47% this year.

When it comes to burnout, gastroenterologists remain in the middle range of burned-out physicians.

Perhaps not surprising given the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, burnout rates are highest among emergency medicine and critical care specialists.

About half of gastroenterologists (52%) report being more burned out now than during the initial quarantine months of the pandemic, similar to physicians overall (55%). About 4 in 10 (39%) said their burnout was the same.

Female gastroenterologists report burnout at a greater rate than their male colleagues – 57% versus 46%.

“There’s no question that women have reported far more role strain during the pandemic than men,” said Carol A. Bernstein, MD, a psychiatrist at Montefiore Health System and professor and vice chair for faculty development and well-being at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

“Often women assumed more of the childcare and home-schooling responsibilities in their households. As [a] result, we know that more women dropped out of the workforce. Also, past studies indicate that women are more likely to report feelings of burnout than men,” Dr. Bernstein noted.

The volume of bureaucratic tasks is the main driver of gastroenterologist burnout, similar to that for physicians overall. Lack of respect from colleagues and more time devoted to electronic health records were also selected as major factors in this year’s report.

Gastroenterologists’ top ways to quell burnout are reducing their hours on the job (24%), changing workflow or staffing to ease their workload (23%), and taking advantage of meditation or other stress-reduction methods (18%) – similar to physicians overall.

Roughly one-third (34%) of gastroenterologists feel that their personality type contributes to their burnout, similar to physicians overall. Six in 10 gastroenterologists (60%) say burnout affects their relationships, similar to physicians overall (68%).
 

Seeking better work-life balance

More than half of gastroenterologists (57%) said they are willing to take a cut in pay in order to achieve a better work-life balance or have more free time – similar among physicians overall (55%).

About 16% of gastroenterologists reported clinical depression (severe depression lasting some time and not caused by grief), while 71% reported colloquial depression (feeling down, blue, sad).

About half (53%) of depressed gastroenterologists said their depression does not have an impact on relationships with patients.

Among those who saw an impact, the major behaviors they reported included being easily exasperated with patients (44%) and feeling less motivated to take patient notes carefully (20%).

To maintain well-being, gastroenterologists often choose to spend their time with their loved ones (59%), do the things they enjoy (58%), exercise (57%), get plenty of sleep (42%), and eat right (35%).

Perhaps not surprisingly, more gastroenterologists were happy with their work-life balance before the pandemic than now (70% vs. 44%). The same holds for physicians overall.

Before the pandemic, 22% of gastroenterologists reported being unhappy with their work-life balance. That has risen to 39% this year.

Most gastroenterologists are currently in a committed relationship, with 90% either married or living with a partner, a somewhat higher percentage than physicians overall (83%).

About 83% of gastroenterologists say they are in a “very good” or “good” marriage. This is down somewhat from the 2021 report (89%).

Nearly 6 in 10 gastroenterologists have partners who do not work in medicine. This is similar to the proportion among all physicians.

Findings from Medscape’s latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 13,069 Medscape member physicians (61% male) practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between June 29, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2021. Most respondents were between 35 and 64 years old.

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

Ahead of its official release on March 18, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is in the form of a textbook, is already drawing some criticism.

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) which is not a full revision, only includes one new condition, prolonged grief disorder.

It also includes symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, clarifying modifications to criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, including autism spectrum disorder; changes in terminology for gender dysphoria; and a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders.

The Text Revision is a compilation of iterative changes that have been made online on a rolling basis since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

“The goal of the Text Revision was to allow a thorough revision of the text, not the criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, chair of the APA’s DSM steering committee, told this news organization.

For the Text Revision, some 200 experts across a variety of APA working groups recommended changes to the text based on a comprehensive literature review, said Appelbaum, who is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University, New York.

However, there’s not a lot that’s new, in part, because there have been few therapeutic advances.
 

Money maker?

Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-4 task force and professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the APA is publishing the Text Revision “just to make money. They’re very anxious to do anything that will increase sales and having a revision forces some people, especially in institutions, to buy the book, even though it may not have anything substantive to add to the original.”

Dr. Frances told this news organization that when the APA published the first DSM in the late 1970s, “it became an instantaneous best-seller, to everyone’s surprise.”

The APA would not comment on how many of the $170 (list price) volumes it sells or how much those sales contribute to its budget.

Dr. Appelbaum acknowledged, “at any point in time, the canonical version is the online version.” However, it’s clear from DSM-5 sales “that many people still value having a hard copy of the DSM available to them.”  
 

Prolonged grief: Timely or overkill?

Persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) was listed as a “condition for further study” in DSM-5. After a 2019 workshop aimed at getting consensus for diagnosis criteria, the APA board approved the new prolonged grief disorder in October 2020, and the APA assembly approved the new disorder in November 2020. 

Given the 950,000 deaths from COVID-19 over the past 2 years, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM-5 may arrive at just the right time.

The diagnostic criteria for PCBD include:

• The development of a persistent grief response (longer than a year for adults and 6 months for children and adolescents) characterized by one or both of the following symptoms, which have been present most days to a clinically significant degree, and have occurred nearly every day for at least the last month: intense yearning/longing for the deceased person; preoccupation with thoughts or memories of the deceased person.
• Since the death, at least three symptoms present most days to a clinically significant degree, and occurring nearly every day for at least the last month, including identity disruption, marked sense of disbelief about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain related to the death, difficulty reintegrating into one’s relationships and activities after the death, emotional numbness, feeling that life is meaningless as a result of the death, and intense loneliness as a result of the death.
• The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.
• The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) or PTSD, and are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

Dr. Frances said he believes creating a new diagnosis pathologizes grief. In DSM-3 and DSM-4, an exception was made under the diagnosis of MDD for individuals who had recently lost a loved one. “We wanted to have at least an opportunity for people to grieve without being stigmatized, mislabeled, and overtreated with medication.”

DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion. After 2 weeks, people who are grieving and have particular symptoms could receive a diagnosis of MDD, said Dr. Frances. He believes the exclusion should have been broadened to cover anyone experiencing a major loss – such as a job loss or divorce. If someone is having prolonged symptoms that interfere with functioning, they should get an MDD diagnosis.

The new disorder “doesn’t solve anything, it just adds to the confusion and stigmatization, and it’s part of a kind of creeping medical imperialization of everyday life, where everything has to have a mental disorder label,” Dr. Frances said.

However, Dr. Appelbaum countered that “the criteria for prolonged grief disorder are constructed in such a way as to make every effort to exclude people who are going through a normal grieving process.”

“Part of the purpose of the data analyses was to ensure the criteria that were adopted would, in fact, effectively distinguish between what anybody goes through, say when someone close to you dies, and this unusual prolonged grieving process without end that affects a much smaller number of people but which really can be crippling for them,” he added.

The Text Revision adds new symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, which appear in the chapter, “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

“Both suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury seem pretty persuasively to fall into that category – something a clinician would want to know about, pay attention to, and factor into treatment planning, although they are behaviors that cross many diagnostic categories,” he added.

Codes also provide a systematic way of ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of such behaviors, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Changes to gender terminology

The Text Revision also tweaks some terminology with respect to transgender individuals. The term “desired gender” is now “experienced gender”, the term “cross-sex medical procedure” is now “gender-affirming medical procedure”, and the terms “natal male/natal female” are now “individual assigned male/female at birth”.

Dr. Frances said that the existence of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has been a matter of controversy ever since it was first included.

“The transgender community has had mixed feelings on whether there should be anything at all in the manual,” he said. On one hand is the argument that gender dysphoria should be removed because it’s not really a psychiatric issue.

“We seriously considered eliminating it altogether in DSM-4,” said Dr. Frances.

However, an argument in favor of keeping it was that if the diagnosis was removed, it would mean that people could not receive treatment. “There’s no right argument for this dilemma,” he said.

Dr. Frances, who has been a frequent critic of DSM-5, said he believes the manual continues to miss opportunities to tighten criteria for many diagnoses, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.

“There’s a consistent pattern of taking behaviors and symptoms of behaviors that are on the border with normality and expanding the definition of mental disorder and reducing the realm of normality,” he said.

That has consequences, Dr. Frances added. “When someone gets a diagnosis that they need to get, it’s the beginning of a much better future. When someone gets a diagnosis that’s a mislabel that they don’t need, it has all harms and no benefits. It’s stigmatizing, leads to too much treatment, the wrong treatment, and it’s much more harmful than helpful.”

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

Ahead of its official release on March 18, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is in the form of a textbook, is already drawing some criticism.

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) which is not a full revision, only includes one new condition, prolonged grief disorder.

It also includes symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, clarifying modifications to criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, including autism spectrum disorder; changes in terminology for gender dysphoria; and a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders.

The Text Revision is a compilation of iterative changes that have been made online on a rolling basis since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

“The goal of the Text Revision was to allow a thorough revision of the text, not the criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, chair of the APA’s DSM steering committee, told this news organization.

For the Text Revision, some 200 experts across a variety of APA working groups recommended changes to the text based on a comprehensive literature review, said Appelbaum, who is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University, New York.

However, there’s not a lot that’s new, in part, because there have been few therapeutic advances.
 

Money maker?

Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-4 task force and professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the APA is publishing the Text Revision “just to make money. They’re very anxious to do anything that will increase sales and having a revision forces some people, especially in institutions, to buy the book, even though it may not have anything substantive to add to the original.”

Dr. Frances told this news organization that when the APA published the first DSM in the late 1970s, “it became an instantaneous best-seller, to everyone’s surprise.”

The APA would not comment on how many of the $170 (list price) volumes it sells or how much those sales contribute to its budget.

Dr. Appelbaum acknowledged, “at any point in time, the canonical version is the online version.” However, it’s clear from DSM-5 sales “that many people still value having a hard copy of the DSM available to them.”  
 

Prolonged grief: Timely or overkill?

Persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) was listed as a “condition for further study” in DSM-5. After a 2019 workshop aimed at getting consensus for diagnosis criteria, the APA board approved the new prolonged grief disorder in October 2020, and the APA assembly approved the new disorder in November 2020. 

Given the 950,000 deaths from COVID-19 over the past 2 years, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM-5 may arrive at just the right time.

The diagnostic criteria for PCBD include:

• The development of a persistent grief response (longer than a year for adults and 6 months for children and adolescents) characterized by one or both of the following symptoms, which have been present most days to a clinically significant degree, and have occurred nearly every day for at least the last month: intense yearning/longing for the deceased person; preoccupation with thoughts or memories of the deceased person.
• Since the death, at least three symptoms present most days to a clinically significant degree, and occurring nearly every day for at least the last month, including identity disruption, marked sense of disbelief about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain related to the death, difficulty reintegrating into one’s relationships and activities after the death, emotional numbness, feeling that life is meaningless as a result of the death, and intense loneliness as a result of the death.
• The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.
• The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) or PTSD, and are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

Dr. Frances said he believes creating a new diagnosis pathologizes grief. In DSM-3 and DSM-4, an exception was made under the diagnosis of MDD for individuals who had recently lost a loved one. “We wanted to have at least an opportunity for people to grieve without being stigmatized, mislabeled, and overtreated with medication.”

DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion. After 2 weeks, people who are grieving and have particular symptoms could receive a diagnosis of MDD, said Dr. Frances. He believes the exclusion should have been broadened to cover anyone experiencing a major loss – such as a job loss or divorce. If someone is having prolonged symptoms that interfere with functioning, they should get an MDD diagnosis.

The new disorder “doesn’t solve anything, it just adds to the confusion and stigmatization, and it’s part of a kind of creeping medical imperialization of everyday life, where everything has to have a mental disorder label,” Dr. Frances said.

However, Dr. Appelbaum countered that “the criteria for prolonged grief disorder are constructed in such a way as to make every effort to exclude people who are going through a normal grieving process.”

“Part of the purpose of the data analyses was to ensure the criteria that were adopted would, in fact, effectively distinguish between what anybody goes through, say when someone close to you dies, and this unusual prolonged grieving process without end that affects a much smaller number of people but which really can be crippling for them,” he added.

The Text Revision adds new symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, which appear in the chapter, “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

“Both suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury seem pretty persuasively to fall into that category – something a clinician would want to know about, pay attention to, and factor into treatment planning, although they are behaviors that cross many diagnostic categories,” he added.

Codes also provide a systematic way of ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of such behaviors, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Changes to gender terminology

The Text Revision also tweaks some terminology with respect to transgender individuals. The term “desired gender” is now “experienced gender”, the term “cross-sex medical procedure” is now “gender-affirming medical procedure”, and the terms “natal male/natal female” are now “individual assigned male/female at birth”.

Dr. Frances said that the existence of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has been a matter of controversy ever since it was first included.

“The transgender community has had mixed feelings on whether there should be anything at all in the manual,” he said. On one hand is the argument that gender dysphoria should be removed because it’s not really a psychiatric issue.

“We seriously considered eliminating it altogether in DSM-4,” said Dr. Frances.

However, an argument in favor of keeping it was that if the diagnosis was removed, it would mean that people could not receive treatment. “There’s no right argument for this dilemma,” he said.

Dr. Frances, who has been a frequent critic of DSM-5, said he believes the manual continues to miss opportunities to tighten criteria for many diagnoses, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.

“There’s a consistent pattern of taking behaviors and symptoms of behaviors that are on the border with normality and expanding the definition of mental disorder and reducing the realm of normality,” he said.

That has consequences, Dr. Frances added. “When someone gets a diagnosis that they need to get, it’s the beginning of a much better future. When someone gets a diagnosis that’s a mislabel that they don’t need, it has all harms and no benefits. It’s stigmatizing, leads to too much treatment, the wrong treatment, and it’s much more harmful than helpful.”

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

Ahead of its official release on March 18, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is in the form of a textbook, is already drawing some criticism.

The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5-TR (Text Revision) which is not a full revision, only includes one new condition, prolonged grief disorder.

It also includes symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, clarifying modifications to criteria sets for more than 70 disorders, including autism spectrum disorder; changes in terminology for gender dysphoria; and a comprehensive review of the impact of racism and discrimination on the diagnosis and manifestations of mental disorders.

The Text Revision is a compilation of iterative changes that have been made online on a rolling basis since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

“The goal of the Text Revision was to allow a thorough revision of the text, not the criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, chair of the APA’s DSM steering committee, told this news organization.

For the Text Revision, some 200 experts across a variety of APA working groups recommended changes to the text based on a comprehensive literature review, said Appelbaum, who is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law, and director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University, New York.

However, there’s not a lot that’s new, in part, because there have been few therapeutic advances.
 

Money maker?

Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-4 task force and professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the APA is publishing the Text Revision “just to make money. They’re very anxious to do anything that will increase sales and having a revision forces some people, especially in institutions, to buy the book, even though it may not have anything substantive to add to the original.”

Dr. Frances told this news organization that when the APA published the first DSM in the late 1970s, “it became an instantaneous best-seller, to everyone’s surprise.”

The APA would not comment on how many of the $170 (list price) volumes it sells or how much those sales contribute to its budget.

Dr. Appelbaum acknowledged, “at any point in time, the canonical version is the online version.” However, it’s clear from DSM-5 sales “that many people still value having a hard copy of the DSM available to them.”  
 

Prolonged grief: Timely or overkill?

Persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) was listed as a “condition for further study” in DSM-5. After a 2019 workshop aimed at getting consensus for diagnosis criteria, the APA board approved the new prolonged grief disorder in October 2020, and the APA assembly approved the new disorder in November 2020. 

Given the 950,000 deaths from COVID-19 over the past 2 years, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM-5 may arrive at just the right time.

The diagnostic criteria for PCBD include:

• The development of a persistent grief response (longer than a year for adults and 6 months for children and adolescents) characterized by one or both of the following symptoms, which have been present most days to a clinically significant degree, and have occurred nearly every day for at least the last month: intense yearning/longing for the deceased person; preoccupation with thoughts or memories of the deceased person.
• Since the death, at least three symptoms present most days to a clinically significant degree, and occurring nearly every day for at least the last month, including identity disruption, marked sense of disbelief about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain related to the death, difficulty reintegrating into one’s relationships and activities after the death, emotional numbness, feeling that life is meaningless as a result of the death, and intense loneliness as a result of the death.
• The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
• The duration and severity of the bereavement reaction clearly exceed expected social, cultural, or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.
• The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder, such as major depressive disorder (MDD) or PTSD, and are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

Dr. Frances said he believes creating a new diagnosis pathologizes grief. In DSM-3 and DSM-4, an exception was made under the diagnosis of MDD for individuals who had recently lost a loved one. “We wanted to have at least an opportunity for people to grieve without being stigmatized, mislabeled, and overtreated with medication.”

DSM-5 removed the bereavement exclusion. After 2 weeks, people who are grieving and have particular symptoms could receive a diagnosis of MDD, said Dr. Frances. He believes the exclusion should have been broadened to cover anyone experiencing a major loss – such as a job loss or divorce. If someone is having prolonged symptoms that interfere with functioning, they should get an MDD diagnosis.

The new disorder “doesn’t solve anything, it just adds to the confusion and stigmatization, and it’s part of a kind of creeping medical imperialization of everyday life, where everything has to have a mental disorder label,” Dr. Frances said.

However, Dr. Appelbaum countered that “the criteria for prolonged grief disorder are constructed in such a way as to make every effort to exclude people who are going through a normal grieving process.”

“Part of the purpose of the data analyses was to ensure the criteria that were adopted would, in fact, effectively distinguish between what anybody goes through, say when someone close to you dies, and this unusual prolonged grieving process without end that affects a much smaller number of people but which really can be crippling for them,” he added.

The Text Revision adds new symptom codes for suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury, which appear in the chapter, “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

“Both suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury seem pretty persuasively to fall into that category – something a clinician would want to know about, pay attention to, and factor into treatment planning, although they are behaviors that cross many diagnostic categories,” he added.

Codes also provide a systematic way of ascertaining the incidence and prevalence of such behaviors, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Changes to gender terminology

The Text Revision also tweaks some terminology with respect to transgender individuals. The term “desired gender” is now “experienced gender”, the term “cross-sex medical procedure” is now “gender-affirming medical procedure”, and the terms “natal male/natal female” are now “individual assigned male/female at birth”.

Dr. Frances said that the existence of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has been a matter of controversy ever since it was first included.

“The transgender community has had mixed feelings on whether there should be anything at all in the manual,” he said. On one hand is the argument that gender dysphoria should be removed because it’s not really a psychiatric issue.

“We seriously considered eliminating it altogether in DSM-4,” said Dr. Frances.

However, an argument in favor of keeping it was that if the diagnosis was removed, it would mean that people could not receive treatment. “There’s no right argument for this dilemma,” he said.

Dr. Frances, who has been a frequent critic of DSM-5, said he believes the manual continues to miss opportunities to tighten criteria for many diagnoses, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.

“There’s a consistent pattern of taking behaviors and symptoms of behaviors that are on the border with normality and expanding the definition of mental disorder and reducing the realm of normality,” he said.

That has consequences, Dr. Frances added. “When someone gets a diagnosis that they need to get, it’s the beginning of a much better future. When someone gets a diagnosis that’s a mislabel that they don’t need, it has all harms and no benefits. It’s stigmatizing, leads to too much treatment, the wrong treatment, and it’s much more harmful than helpful.”

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

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

In the field of lung cancer, and more broadly in oncology, many of our biggest advances in 2021 have come as clinically meaningful improvements in surrogate endpoints – disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and sometimes even pathologic complete response rate.

I have historically been most compelled to consider new findings to be practice-changing when they improve overall survival or quality of life – the endpoints that translate to direct benefits for patients. However, I also feel it is appropriate to call surrogate endpoints practice-changing when they can predict improvements in overall survival or quality of life.

Take the PACIFIC trial, which assessed maintenance durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Back in 2017, I was initially unconvinced by the interim phase 3 data that were presented in a press release that highlighted the disease-free survival benefit. However, after examining additional data more closely, I saw the dramatic improvement in time to distant relapse or death was overwhelmingly likely to predict an improvement in overall survival – a benefit that the data subsequently bore out.

More recently, the disease-free survival results for adjuvant osimertinib in resected endothelial growth factor receptor mutation–positive NSCLC and adjuvant atezolizumab in resected programmed death-ligand 1–positive stage II-IIIA NSCLC have led to excitement about Food and Drug Administration approvals for these therapies. Although there is reason to be cautious about the likelihood of an overall survival benefit with either therapy – particularly for patients with low programmed death-ligand 1 who receive atezolizumab – I think that the results are promising enough to discuss these treatment options with appropriate patients.

Some argue, however, that overall survival is not necessarily a critical goal and that certain surrogate endpoints are inherently beneficial. Patients and oncologists may, for instance, view delaying disease progression as a win, even if overall survival remains the same.

I appreciate the view that favorable scan results are an achievement, even without a survival benefit. Patients appreciate the good news, and it is gratifying for us to deliver it. However, what remains unspoken is whether the benefit can be provided at a reasonable value given the financial costs associated with the new treatment.

In the United States, we consider the physician-patient relationship to be autonomous and even revered, but we conveniently ignore the fact that both are deciding on treatments that are funded by people who are not represented in the room. And in a health care system that fails to cover basic cancer care needs as well as other critical, high-value interventions for both the uninsured and underinsured, we should acknowledge that our decisions redirect limited resources from others.

Is it the best use of $10,000 per month for a new drug that improves disease-free survival but not overall survival? Given the cost of so many of these newer treatments, we should expect more than indirect, inferred benefits for patients.

At the same time, we also have to remain vigilant and reflect on whether we are echoing the marketing messages of the companies selling these treatments. Having recently watched the excellent Hulu series Dopesick, which realistically portrays the medical community’s egregious overuse of Oxycontin at the behest of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, it is striking to see how effectively the pharmaceutical industry can co-opt stakeholders. Very few physicians or patients have expertise in health care policy with broad societal perspective, yet subspecialists offer edicts as if society should dedicate unlimited resources first and foremost to our career focus or personal cause.

I certainly appreciate the appeal of surrogate endpoints in a world in which we hope to offer novel therapies to patients in a timely fashion. In the next few years, some of our most promising data in oncology will demand that we consider whether surrogate endpoints are practice-changing. We are facing a fundamental question: Are we using these surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival or quality of life or do these endpoints stand on their own as practice-changing metrics?

We need to acknowledge that our primary clinical focus is not the only one that deserves our attention, particularly when our treatment decisions are, in fact, spending other people’s money. We should be asking not whether we prefer to deliver good news after a scan, but whether that alone is enough to justify the high cost of a new treatment without an overall survival benefit.

Dr. West disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and Merck; serving as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Genentech/Roche; and receiving income from Eli Lilly. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the field of lung cancer, and more broadly in oncology, many of our biggest advances in 2021 have come as clinically meaningful improvements in surrogate endpoints – disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and sometimes even pathologic complete response rate.

I have historically been most compelled to consider new findings to be practice-changing when they improve overall survival or quality of life – the endpoints that translate to direct benefits for patients. However, I also feel it is appropriate to call surrogate endpoints practice-changing when they can predict improvements in overall survival or quality of life.

Take the PACIFIC trial, which assessed maintenance durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Back in 2017, I was initially unconvinced by the interim phase 3 data that were presented in a press release that highlighted the disease-free survival benefit. However, after examining additional data more closely, I saw the dramatic improvement in time to distant relapse or death was overwhelmingly likely to predict an improvement in overall survival – a benefit that the data subsequently bore out.

More recently, the disease-free survival results for adjuvant osimertinib in resected endothelial growth factor receptor mutation–positive NSCLC and adjuvant atezolizumab in resected programmed death-ligand 1–positive stage II-IIIA NSCLC have led to excitement about Food and Drug Administration approvals for these therapies. Although there is reason to be cautious about the likelihood of an overall survival benefit with either therapy – particularly for patients with low programmed death-ligand 1 who receive atezolizumab – I think that the results are promising enough to discuss these treatment options with appropriate patients.

Some argue, however, that overall survival is not necessarily a critical goal and that certain surrogate endpoints are inherently beneficial. Patients and oncologists may, for instance, view delaying disease progression as a win, even if overall survival remains the same.

I appreciate the view that favorable scan results are an achievement, even without a survival benefit. Patients appreciate the good news, and it is gratifying for us to deliver it. However, what remains unspoken is whether the benefit can be provided at a reasonable value given the financial costs associated with the new treatment.

In the United States, we consider the physician-patient relationship to be autonomous and even revered, but we conveniently ignore the fact that both are deciding on treatments that are funded by people who are not represented in the room. And in a health care system that fails to cover basic cancer care needs as well as other critical, high-value interventions for both the uninsured and underinsured, we should acknowledge that our decisions redirect limited resources from others.

Is it the best use of $10,000 per month for a new drug that improves disease-free survival but not overall survival? Given the cost of so many of these newer treatments, we should expect more than indirect, inferred benefits for patients.

At the same time, we also have to remain vigilant and reflect on whether we are echoing the marketing messages of the companies selling these treatments. Having recently watched the excellent Hulu series Dopesick, which realistically portrays the medical community’s egregious overuse of Oxycontin at the behest of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, it is striking to see how effectively the pharmaceutical industry can co-opt stakeholders. Very few physicians or patients have expertise in health care policy with broad societal perspective, yet subspecialists offer edicts as if society should dedicate unlimited resources first and foremost to our career focus or personal cause.

I certainly appreciate the appeal of surrogate endpoints in a world in which we hope to offer novel therapies to patients in a timely fashion. In the next few years, some of our most promising data in oncology will demand that we consider whether surrogate endpoints are practice-changing. We are facing a fundamental question: Are we using these surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival or quality of life or do these endpoints stand on their own as practice-changing metrics?

We need to acknowledge that our primary clinical focus is not the only one that deserves our attention, particularly when our treatment decisions are, in fact, spending other people’s money. We should be asking not whether we prefer to deliver good news after a scan, but whether that alone is enough to justify the high cost of a new treatment without an overall survival benefit.

Dr. West disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and Merck; serving as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Genentech/Roche; and receiving income from Eli Lilly. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the field of lung cancer, and more broadly in oncology, many of our biggest advances in 2021 have come as clinically meaningful improvements in surrogate endpoints – disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and sometimes even pathologic complete response rate.

I have historically been most compelled to consider new findings to be practice-changing when they improve overall survival or quality of life – the endpoints that translate to direct benefits for patients. However, I also feel it is appropriate to call surrogate endpoints practice-changing when they can predict improvements in overall survival or quality of life.

Take the PACIFIC trial, which assessed maintenance durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Back in 2017, I was initially unconvinced by the interim phase 3 data that were presented in a press release that highlighted the disease-free survival benefit. However, after examining additional data more closely, I saw the dramatic improvement in time to distant relapse or death was overwhelmingly likely to predict an improvement in overall survival – a benefit that the data subsequently bore out.

More recently, the disease-free survival results for adjuvant osimertinib in resected endothelial growth factor receptor mutation–positive NSCLC and adjuvant atezolizumab in resected programmed death-ligand 1–positive stage II-IIIA NSCLC have led to excitement about Food and Drug Administration approvals for these therapies. Although there is reason to be cautious about the likelihood of an overall survival benefit with either therapy – particularly for patients with low programmed death-ligand 1 who receive atezolizumab – I think that the results are promising enough to discuss these treatment options with appropriate patients.

Some argue, however, that overall survival is not necessarily a critical goal and that certain surrogate endpoints are inherently beneficial. Patients and oncologists may, for instance, view delaying disease progression as a win, even if overall survival remains the same.

I appreciate the view that favorable scan results are an achievement, even without a survival benefit. Patients appreciate the good news, and it is gratifying for us to deliver it. However, what remains unspoken is whether the benefit can be provided at a reasonable value given the financial costs associated with the new treatment.

In the United States, we consider the physician-patient relationship to be autonomous and even revered, but we conveniently ignore the fact that both are deciding on treatments that are funded by people who are not represented in the room. And in a health care system that fails to cover basic cancer care needs as well as other critical, high-value interventions for both the uninsured and underinsured, we should acknowledge that our decisions redirect limited resources from others.

Is it the best use of $10,000 per month for a new drug that improves disease-free survival but not overall survival? Given the cost of so many of these newer treatments, we should expect more than indirect, inferred benefits for patients.

At the same time, we also have to remain vigilant and reflect on whether we are echoing the marketing messages of the companies selling these treatments. Having recently watched the excellent Hulu series Dopesick, which realistically portrays the medical community’s egregious overuse of Oxycontin at the behest of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, it is striking to see how effectively the pharmaceutical industry can co-opt stakeholders. Very few physicians or patients have expertise in health care policy with broad societal perspective, yet subspecialists offer edicts as if society should dedicate unlimited resources first and foremost to our career focus or personal cause.

I certainly appreciate the appeal of surrogate endpoints in a world in which we hope to offer novel therapies to patients in a timely fashion. In the next few years, some of our most promising data in oncology will demand that we consider whether surrogate endpoints are practice-changing. We are facing a fundamental question: Are we using these surrogate endpoints to predict overall survival or quality of life or do these endpoints stand on their own as practice-changing metrics?

We need to acknowledge that our primary clinical focus is not the only one that deserves our attention, particularly when our treatment decisions are, in fact, spending other people’s money. We should be asking not whether we prefer to deliver good news after a scan, but whether that alone is enough to justify the high cost of a new treatment without an overall survival benefit.

Dr. West disclosed serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Ariad/Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and Merck; serving as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Ariad/Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Genentech/Roche; and receiving income from Eli Lilly. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Infectious disease specialist and humanitarian, Paul Edward Farmer, MD, PhD, who cofounded Partners In Health, died suddenly on Feb. 21. To celebrate his life, this news organization interviewed Serena Koenig, MD, MPH, who met Dr. Farmer when she was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Koenig had worked closely with Dr. Farmer ever since they met.

Q. Can you please share one of your best memories of Dr. Farmer?

Dr. Serena Koenig: There are so many memories it is hard to choose. One that was very formative for me occurred during one of my first trips to Haiti, in 2001. Paul and some other incredible colleagues at Partners IN Health (PIH) had started the HIV Equity Initiative, which was one of the first programs in the world to provide free, comprehensive treatment for HIV. This was at the time when millions of people in Africa were dying of HIV and many experts said it was not feasible to treat HIV in a poor country, because it was too complicated and expensive. Paul took me on some home visits with patients who had what he called the Lazarus effect, coming back from death’s door from advanced AIDS to vigorous health on antiretroviral therapy. I had just started working in Haiti with Paul and PIH, and I felt the enormous magnitude of what he was doing.

Q. What aspects of him and his work do you find most admirable?

Dr. Koenig: I most admired Paul’s humanity, his belief that every person matters and has the right to high-quality health care, and his vision of global health equity.

He said: “The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.” Paul lived this philosophy. He has spoken extensively about harms of socialization for scarcity on behalf of those who are poor, leading policy makers to decisions regarding the feasibility of treating some diseases, but not others.

He said in an interview with the Harvard Gazette in 2018: “The most compelling thing to fight socialization for scarcity on behalf of others is health system strengthening. Health systems that integrate prevention and quality care.”

A few weeks ago, I asked him his thoughts about the high-level resources we have invested in some patients who have needed specialty care over the years, and he said: “No way that we should waste all of our emotional energy responding only to those constant, nagging critics that it’s not cost effective, not feasible, not sustainable, not even prudent. Because you know what they would have done if it was their child or family member.”
 

Q. When did you first meet Dr. Farmer, and what inspired you to work with him?

Dr. Koenig: When I was an internal medicine resident at the Brigham, Paul and I bonded over the care of one of my clinic patients who I followed very closely, and who was admitted to his inpatient service.

Like everyone else who has worked with Paul, I was touched by his kindness and warmth.

A couple of years later, he asked me to help him raise money to bring a young man named Wilnot from Haiti to the Brigham for an aortic valve replacement. After we raised the money, he asked me to go to Haiti to help Wilnot get his medical visa and to escort him to Boston.

That short trip to Haiti had an enormous impact on my life. I was shattered to see the poverty that the people of Haiti were enduring – and in a country a short plane flight from Miami.

Shortly after this, Paul asked me to help him find treatment for another patient, a young boy named John, who presented with neck masses that were later diagnosed as nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

It took us some time to make the diagnosis and then to arrange free care at Mass General.

When I returned to Haiti with two PIH colleagues to help John get a visa and escort him back to Boston, we found that John’s condition was much worse. We ended up medically evacuating him to Boston, because he was too sick for a commercial flight.

Tracy Kidder wrote about this heartbreaking experience in the book “Mountains Beyond Mountains.”

Throughout all of these experiences, I was deeply impressed with Paul’s commitment to do whatever it took to provide the best care for patients, as if they were members of his own family. He said “Tout Moun Se Moun” (Haitian Creole for “every person is a person”), and I could tell that he meant it.
 

Q. How did you collaborate with him professionally?

Dr. Koenig: I spent the first few years after residency working with Paul and Partners In Health. Initially, I served as a liaison between PIH in Haiti and the Brigham, bringing several more patients to Boston for care, and arranging specialty surgical trips to Haiti.

Later, when HIV funding became available from the Global Fund for HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, I moved to rural Haiti to provide treatment for patients with HIV and/or TB at one of the first PIH expansion sites. We treated many patients with advanced stages of HIV and/or TB, and many of them recovered remarkably quickly with antiretroviral therapy.

When I returned to Boston to complete an infectious disease fellowship I switched my focus to conducting clinical research to improve HIV and TB treatment outcomes. Paul emailed his mentor and friend, Jean “Bill” Pape, the director of a Haitian NGO called GHESKIO (Haitian Group for the Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections), which is an internationally celebrated center of excellence in HIV-related research and clinical care, to ask if I could collaborate with them.

Ever since that time, I have been based between the Brigham’s division of global health equity, which was led by Paul, and GHESKIO.

Paul was very supportive of our research, which aims to improve health service delivery and treatment regimens for HIV and TB.
 

Q. What lessons do you think other physicians can learn from him?

Dr. Koenig: As Joia Mukherjee, chief medical officer of Partners In Health, has said, Paul left us a roadmap. He wrote many books, and he was very eloquent in expressing his philosophy about equity and justice in numerous interviews. This is relevant not only for international sites, but in the United States as well, with our major disparities in health outcomes by race, geography, and socioeconomic status.

No one will be able to replace Paul, but he left us with a vision of what is achievable.

Dr. Koenig is associate physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, with faculty appointments in the divisions of global health equity and infectious diseases. She is also associate professor at Harvard Medical School.

Infectious disease specialist and humanitarian, Paul Edward Farmer, MD, PhD, who cofounded Partners In Health, died suddenly on Feb. 21. To celebrate his life, this news organization interviewed Serena Koenig, MD, MPH, who met Dr. Farmer when she was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Koenig had worked closely with Dr. Farmer ever since they met.

Q. Can you please share one of your best memories of Dr. Farmer?

Dr. Serena Koenig: There are so many memories it is hard to choose. One that was very formative for me occurred during one of my first trips to Haiti, in 2001. Paul and some other incredible colleagues at Partners IN Health (PIH) had started the HIV Equity Initiative, which was one of the first programs in the world to provide free, comprehensive treatment for HIV. This was at the time when millions of people in Africa were dying of HIV and many experts said it was not feasible to treat HIV in a poor country, because it was too complicated and expensive. Paul took me on some home visits with patients who had what he called the Lazarus effect, coming back from death’s door from advanced AIDS to vigorous health on antiretroviral therapy. I had just started working in Haiti with Paul and PIH, and I felt the enormous magnitude of what he was doing.

Q. What aspects of him and his work do you find most admirable?

Dr. Koenig: I most admired Paul’s humanity, his belief that every person matters and has the right to high-quality health care, and his vision of global health equity.

He said: “The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.” Paul lived this philosophy. He has spoken extensively about harms of socialization for scarcity on behalf of those who are poor, leading policy makers to decisions regarding the feasibility of treating some diseases, but not others.

He said in an interview with the Harvard Gazette in 2018: “The most compelling thing to fight socialization for scarcity on behalf of others is health system strengthening. Health systems that integrate prevention and quality care.”

A few weeks ago, I asked him his thoughts about the high-level resources we have invested in some patients who have needed specialty care over the years, and he said: “No way that we should waste all of our emotional energy responding only to those constant, nagging critics that it’s not cost effective, not feasible, not sustainable, not even prudent. Because you know what they would have done if it was their child or family member.”
 

Q. When did you first meet Dr. Farmer, and what inspired you to work with him?

Dr. Koenig: When I was an internal medicine resident at the Brigham, Paul and I bonded over the care of one of my clinic patients who I followed very closely, and who was admitted to his inpatient service.

Like everyone else who has worked with Paul, I was touched by his kindness and warmth.

A couple of years later, he asked me to help him raise money to bring a young man named Wilnot from Haiti to the Brigham for an aortic valve replacement. After we raised the money, he asked me to go to Haiti to help Wilnot get his medical visa and to escort him to Boston.

That short trip to Haiti had an enormous impact on my life. I was shattered to see the poverty that the people of Haiti were enduring – and in a country a short plane flight from Miami.

Shortly after this, Paul asked me to help him find treatment for another patient, a young boy named John, who presented with neck masses that were later diagnosed as nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

It took us some time to make the diagnosis and then to arrange free care at Mass General.

When I returned to Haiti with two PIH colleagues to help John get a visa and escort him back to Boston, we found that John’s condition was much worse. We ended up medically evacuating him to Boston, because he was too sick for a commercial flight.

Tracy Kidder wrote about this heartbreaking experience in the book “Mountains Beyond Mountains.”

Throughout all of these experiences, I was deeply impressed with Paul’s commitment to do whatever it took to provide the best care for patients, as if they were members of his own family. He said “Tout Moun Se Moun” (Haitian Creole for “every person is a person”), and I could tell that he meant it.
 

Q. How did you collaborate with him professionally?

Dr. Koenig: I spent the first few years after residency working with Paul and Partners In Health. Initially, I served as a liaison between PIH in Haiti and the Brigham, bringing several more patients to Boston for care, and arranging specialty surgical trips to Haiti.

Later, when HIV funding became available from the Global Fund for HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, I moved to rural Haiti to provide treatment for patients with HIV and/or TB at one of the first PIH expansion sites. We treated many patients with advanced stages of HIV and/or TB, and many of them recovered remarkably quickly with antiretroviral therapy.

When I returned to Boston to complete an infectious disease fellowship I switched my focus to conducting clinical research to improve HIV and TB treatment outcomes. Paul emailed his mentor and friend, Jean “Bill” Pape, the director of a Haitian NGO called GHESKIO (Haitian Group for the Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections), which is an internationally celebrated center of excellence in HIV-related research and clinical care, to ask if I could collaborate with them.

Ever since that time, I have been based between the Brigham’s division of global health equity, which was led by Paul, and GHESKIO.

Paul was very supportive of our research, which aims to improve health service delivery and treatment regimens for HIV and TB.
 

Q. What lessons do you think other physicians can learn from him?

Dr. Koenig: As Joia Mukherjee, chief medical officer of Partners In Health, has said, Paul left us a roadmap. He wrote many books, and he was very eloquent in expressing his philosophy about equity and justice in numerous interviews. This is relevant not only for international sites, but in the United States as well, with our major disparities in health outcomes by race, geography, and socioeconomic status.

No one will be able to replace Paul, but he left us with a vision of what is achievable.

Dr. Koenig is associate physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, with faculty appointments in the divisions of global health equity and infectious diseases. She is also associate professor at Harvard Medical School.

Infectious disease specialist and humanitarian, Paul Edward Farmer, MD, PhD, who cofounded Partners In Health, died suddenly on Feb. 21. To celebrate his life, this news organization interviewed Serena Koenig, MD, MPH, who met Dr. Farmer when she was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Koenig had worked closely with Dr. Farmer ever since they met.

Q. Can you please share one of your best memories of Dr. Farmer?

Dr. Serena Koenig: There are so many memories it is hard to choose. One that was very formative for me occurred during one of my first trips to Haiti, in 2001. Paul and some other incredible colleagues at Partners IN Health (PIH) had started the HIV Equity Initiative, which was one of the first programs in the world to provide free, comprehensive treatment for HIV. This was at the time when millions of people in Africa were dying of HIV and many experts said it was not feasible to treat HIV in a poor country, because it was too complicated and expensive. Paul took me on some home visits with patients who had what he called the Lazarus effect, coming back from death’s door from advanced AIDS to vigorous health on antiretroviral therapy. I had just started working in Haiti with Paul and PIH, and I felt the enormous magnitude of what he was doing.

Q. What aspects of him and his work do you find most admirable?

Dr. Koenig: I most admired Paul’s humanity, his belief that every person matters and has the right to high-quality health care, and his vision of global health equity.

He said: “The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.” Paul lived this philosophy. He has spoken extensively about harms of socialization for scarcity on behalf of those who are poor, leading policy makers to decisions regarding the feasibility of treating some diseases, but not others.

He said in an interview with the Harvard Gazette in 2018: “The most compelling thing to fight socialization for scarcity on behalf of others is health system strengthening. Health systems that integrate prevention and quality care.”

A few weeks ago, I asked him his thoughts about the high-level resources we have invested in some patients who have needed specialty care over the years, and he said: “No way that we should waste all of our emotional energy responding only to those constant, nagging critics that it’s not cost effective, not feasible, not sustainable, not even prudent. Because you know what they would have done if it was their child or family member.”
 

Q. When did you first meet Dr. Farmer, and what inspired you to work with him?

Dr. Koenig: When I was an internal medicine resident at the Brigham, Paul and I bonded over the care of one of my clinic patients who I followed very closely, and who was admitted to his inpatient service.

Like everyone else who has worked with Paul, I was touched by his kindness and warmth.

A couple of years later, he asked me to help him raise money to bring a young man named Wilnot from Haiti to the Brigham for an aortic valve replacement. After we raised the money, he asked me to go to Haiti to help Wilnot get his medical visa and to escort him to Boston.

That short trip to Haiti had an enormous impact on my life. I was shattered to see the poverty that the people of Haiti were enduring – and in a country a short plane flight from Miami.

Shortly after this, Paul asked me to help him find treatment for another patient, a young boy named John, who presented with neck masses that were later diagnosed as nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

It took us some time to make the diagnosis and then to arrange free care at Mass General.

When I returned to Haiti with two PIH colleagues to help John get a visa and escort him back to Boston, we found that John’s condition was much worse. We ended up medically evacuating him to Boston, because he was too sick for a commercial flight.

Tracy Kidder wrote about this heartbreaking experience in the book “Mountains Beyond Mountains.”

Throughout all of these experiences, I was deeply impressed with Paul’s commitment to do whatever it took to provide the best care for patients, as if they were members of his own family. He said “Tout Moun Se Moun” (Haitian Creole for “every person is a person”), and I could tell that he meant it.
 

Q. How did you collaborate with him professionally?

Dr. Koenig: I spent the first few years after residency working with Paul and Partners In Health. Initially, I served as a liaison between PIH in Haiti and the Brigham, bringing several more patients to Boston for care, and arranging specialty surgical trips to Haiti.

Later, when HIV funding became available from the Global Fund for HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, I moved to rural Haiti to provide treatment for patients with HIV and/or TB at one of the first PIH expansion sites. We treated many patients with advanced stages of HIV and/or TB, and many of them recovered remarkably quickly with antiretroviral therapy.

When I returned to Boston to complete an infectious disease fellowship I switched my focus to conducting clinical research to improve HIV and TB treatment outcomes. Paul emailed his mentor and friend, Jean “Bill” Pape, the director of a Haitian NGO called GHESKIO (Haitian Group for the Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections), which is an internationally celebrated center of excellence in HIV-related research and clinical care, to ask if I could collaborate with them.

Ever since that time, I have been based between the Brigham’s division of global health equity, which was led by Paul, and GHESKIO.

Paul was very supportive of our research, which aims to improve health service delivery and treatment regimens for HIV and TB.
 

Q. What lessons do you think other physicians can learn from him?

Dr. Koenig: As Joia Mukherjee, chief medical officer of Partners In Health, has said, Paul left us a roadmap. He wrote many books, and he was very eloquent in expressing his philosophy about equity and justice in numerous interviews. This is relevant not only for international sites, but in the United States as well, with our major disparities in health outcomes by race, geography, and socioeconomic status.

No one will be able to replace Paul, but he left us with a vision of what is achievable.

Dr. Koenig is associate physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, with faculty appointments in the divisions of global health equity and infectious diseases. She is also associate professor at Harvard Medical School.

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chocolate: Now part of a well-balanced diet

Asking if someone loves chocolate is like asking if they love breathing. It’s really not a question that needs to be asked. The thing with chocolate, however, is that most people who love chocolate actually love sugar, since your typical milk chocolate contains only about 30% cacao. The rest, of course, is sugar.

Now, dark chocolate is actually kind of good for you since it contains beneficial flavonoids and less sugar. But that healthiness comes at a cost: Dark chocolate is quite bitter, and gets more so as the cacao content rises, to the point where 100% cacao chocolate is very nearly inedible. That’s the chocolate conundrum, the healthier it is, the worse it tastes. But what if there’s another way? What if you can have tasty chocolate that’s good for you?

Sascha Luehr/Pixabay

That’s the question a group of researchers from Penn State University dared to ask. The secret, they discovered, is to subject the cacao beans to extra-intense roasting. We’re not sure how screaming insults at a bunch of beans will help, but if science says so ... YOU USELESS LUMP OF BARELY EDIBLE FOOD! HOW DARE YOU EXIST!

Oh, not that kind of roasting. Oops.

For their study, the researchers made 27 unsweetened chocolates, prepared using various cacao bean roasting times and temperatures, and served them to volunteers. Those volunteers reported that chocolates made with cacao beans roasted more intensely (such as 20 minutes at 340° F, 80 min at 275° F, and 54 min at 304° F) were far more acceptable than were chocolates prepared with raw or lightly roasted cacao beans.

The implications of healthy yet tasty chocolate are obvious: Master the chocolate and you’ll make millions. Imagine a future where parents say to their kids: “Don’t forget to eat your chocolate.” So, we’re off to do some cooking. Don’t want Hershey to make all the money off of this revelation.
 

The villain hiding in dairy for some MS patients

For some of us, lactose can be a real heartbreaker when it comes to dairy consumption, but for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) there’s another villain they may also have to face that can make their symptoms worse.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

Physicians at the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Bonn (Germany) were getting so many complaints from patients with MS about how much worse they felt about after having cheese, yogurt, and milk that they decided to get to the bottom of it. The culprit, it seems, is casein, a protein specifically found in cow’s milk.

The researchers injected mice with various proteins found in cow’s milk and found perforated myelin sheaths in those given casein. In MS, the patient’s own immune system destroys that sheath, which leads to paresthesia, vision problems, and movement disorders.

“The body’s defenses actually attack the casein, but in the process they also destroy proteins involved in the formation of myelin, “ said Rittika Chunder, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn. How? Apparently it’s all a big misunderstanding.

While looking at molecules needed for myelin production, the researchers came across MAG, which is very similar to casein, which is a problem when patients with MS are allergic to casein. After they have dairy products, the B-cell squad gets called in to clean up the evil twin, casein, but can’t differentiate it from the good twin, MAG, so it all gets a wash and the myelin sheath suffers.

Since this happens only to patients with MS who have a casein allergy, the researchers advise them to stay away from milk, yogurt, or cottage cheese while they work on a self-test to check if patients carry the antibodies.

A small price to pay, perhaps, to stop a villainous evil twin.
 

You would even say it glows

If you’re anything like us – and we think you are since you’re reading this – you’ve been asking yourself: Are there any common medications in my house that will make good radiation sensors?

Vnukko/Pixabay

Not that anyone needs to worry about excess radiation or anything. Far from it. We were just wondering.

It just so happens that Anna Mrozik and Paweł Bilski, both of the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland, were wondering the same thing: “During an uncontrolled release of radiation, it is highly unlikely that members of the public will be equipped with personal radiation dose monitors.”

People would need to use something they had lying around the house. A smartphone would work, the investigators explained in a statement from the IFJ PAN, but the process of converting one to radiation-sensor duty, which involves dismantling it and breaking the display glass, “is laborious and time-consuming [and] the destruction of a valuable and useful device does not seem to be the optimal solution.”

Naturally, they turned to drugs. The key, in this case, is optically stimulated luminescence. They needed to find materials that would glow with greater intensity as the radiation dose increased. Turns out that ibuprofen- and paracetamol-based painkillers fit the bill quite nicely, although aspirin also works.

It’s not known exactly which substance is causing the luminescence, but rest assured, the “physicists from the IFJ PAN intend to identify it.”
 

This is why you don’t interrupt someone using headphones

There’s nothing like taking a nice relaxing walk with your headphones. Whether you’re listening to a podcast or a song or talking on the phone, it’s an escape from reality that makes you feel like you’re completely in tune with what you’re listening to.

Weedezign/Thinkstock

According to a new study, headphones, as opposed to speakers, make people feel more connected to what they are listening to. Data collected from more than 4,000 people showed that listening with headphones makes more of an impact than listening to speakers.

“Headphones produce a phenomenon called in-head localization, which makes the speaker sound as if they’re inside your head,” study coauthor On Amir of the University of California, San Diego, said in a statement. Because of this, people feel like the speakers are close to them and there’s more of a sense of empathy for the speakers and the listener is more likely to be swayed toward the ideas of the speaker.

These findings could lead to more efficient training programs, online work, and advertising, the investigators suggested.

We now finally understand why people get so mad when they have to take out their headphones to answer or talk to us. We ruined a satisfying moment going on in their brains.

Chocolate: Now part of a well-balanced diet

Asking if someone loves chocolate is like asking if they love breathing. It’s really not a question that needs to be asked. The thing with chocolate, however, is that most people who love chocolate actually love sugar, since your typical milk chocolate contains only about 30% cacao. The rest, of course, is sugar.

Now, dark chocolate is actually kind of good for you since it contains beneficial flavonoids and less sugar. But that healthiness comes at a cost: Dark chocolate is quite bitter, and gets more so as the cacao content rises, to the point where 100% cacao chocolate is very nearly inedible. That’s the chocolate conundrum, the healthier it is, the worse it tastes. But what if there’s another way? What if you can have tasty chocolate that’s good for you?

Sascha Luehr/Pixabay

That’s the question a group of researchers from Penn State University dared to ask. The secret, they discovered, is to subject the cacao beans to extra-intense roasting. We’re not sure how screaming insults at a bunch of beans will help, but if science says so ... YOU USELESS LUMP OF BARELY EDIBLE FOOD! HOW DARE YOU EXIST!

Oh, not that kind of roasting. Oops.

For their study, the researchers made 27 unsweetened chocolates, prepared using various cacao bean roasting times and temperatures, and served them to volunteers. Those volunteers reported that chocolates made with cacao beans roasted more intensely (such as 20 minutes at 340° F, 80 min at 275° F, and 54 min at 304° F) were far more acceptable than were chocolates prepared with raw or lightly roasted cacao beans.

The implications of healthy yet tasty chocolate are obvious: Master the chocolate and you’ll make millions. Imagine a future where parents say to their kids: “Don’t forget to eat your chocolate.” So, we’re off to do some cooking. Don’t want Hershey to make all the money off of this revelation.
 

The villain hiding in dairy for some MS patients

For some of us, lactose can be a real heartbreaker when it comes to dairy consumption, but for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) there’s another villain they may also have to face that can make their symptoms worse.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

Physicians at the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Bonn (Germany) were getting so many complaints from patients with MS about how much worse they felt about after having cheese, yogurt, and milk that they decided to get to the bottom of it. The culprit, it seems, is casein, a protein specifically found in cow’s milk.

The researchers injected mice with various proteins found in cow’s milk and found perforated myelin sheaths in those given casein. In MS, the patient’s own immune system destroys that sheath, which leads to paresthesia, vision problems, and movement disorders.

“The body’s defenses actually attack the casein, but in the process they also destroy proteins involved in the formation of myelin, “ said Rittika Chunder, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn. How? Apparently it’s all a big misunderstanding.

While looking at molecules needed for myelin production, the researchers came across MAG, which is very similar to casein, which is a problem when patients with MS are allergic to casein. After they have dairy products, the B-cell squad gets called in to clean up the evil twin, casein, but can’t differentiate it from the good twin, MAG, so it all gets a wash and the myelin sheath suffers.

Since this happens only to patients with MS who have a casein allergy, the researchers advise them to stay away from milk, yogurt, or cottage cheese while they work on a self-test to check if patients carry the antibodies.

A small price to pay, perhaps, to stop a villainous evil twin.
 

You would even say it glows

If you’re anything like us – and we think you are since you’re reading this – you’ve been asking yourself: Are there any common medications in my house that will make good radiation sensors?

Vnukko/Pixabay

Not that anyone needs to worry about excess radiation or anything. Far from it. We were just wondering.

It just so happens that Anna Mrozik and Paweł Bilski, both of the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland, were wondering the same thing: “During an uncontrolled release of radiation, it is highly unlikely that members of the public will be equipped with personal radiation dose monitors.”

People would need to use something they had lying around the house. A smartphone would work, the investigators explained in a statement from the IFJ PAN, but the process of converting one to radiation-sensor duty, which involves dismantling it and breaking the display glass, “is laborious and time-consuming [and] the destruction of a valuable and useful device does not seem to be the optimal solution.”

Naturally, they turned to drugs. The key, in this case, is optically stimulated luminescence. They needed to find materials that would glow with greater intensity as the radiation dose increased. Turns out that ibuprofen- and paracetamol-based painkillers fit the bill quite nicely, although aspirin also works.

It’s not known exactly which substance is causing the luminescence, but rest assured, the “physicists from the IFJ PAN intend to identify it.”
 

This is why you don’t interrupt someone using headphones

There’s nothing like taking a nice relaxing walk with your headphones. Whether you’re listening to a podcast or a song or talking on the phone, it’s an escape from reality that makes you feel like you’re completely in tune with what you’re listening to.

Weedezign/Thinkstock

According to a new study, headphones, as opposed to speakers, make people feel more connected to what they are listening to. Data collected from more than 4,000 people showed that listening with headphones makes more of an impact than listening to speakers.

“Headphones produce a phenomenon called in-head localization, which makes the speaker sound as if they’re inside your head,” study coauthor On Amir of the University of California, San Diego, said in a statement. Because of this, people feel like the speakers are close to them and there’s more of a sense of empathy for the speakers and the listener is more likely to be swayed toward the ideas of the speaker.

These findings could lead to more efficient training programs, online work, and advertising, the investigators suggested.

We now finally understand why people get so mad when they have to take out their headphones to answer or talk to us. We ruined a satisfying moment going on in their brains.

Chocolate: Now part of a well-balanced diet

Asking if someone loves chocolate is like asking if they love breathing. It’s really not a question that needs to be asked. The thing with chocolate, however, is that most people who love chocolate actually love sugar, since your typical milk chocolate contains only about 30% cacao. The rest, of course, is sugar.

Now, dark chocolate is actually kind of good for you since it contains beneficial flavonoids and less sugar. But that healthiness comes at a cost: Dark chocolate is quite bitter, and gets more so as the cacao content rises, to the point where 100% cacao chocolate is very nearly inedible. That’s the chocolate conundrum, the healthier it is, the worse it tastes. But what if there’s another way? What if you can have tasty chocolate that’s good for you?

Sascha Luehr/Pixabay

That’s the question a group of researchers from Penn State University dared to ask. The secret, they discovered, is to subject the cacao beans to extra-intense roasting. We’re not sure how screaming insults at a bunch of beans will help, but if science says so ... YOU USELESS LUMP OF BARELY EDIBLE FOOD! HOW DARE YOU EXIST!

Oh, not that kind of roasting. Oops.

For their study, the researchers made 27 unsweetened chocolates, prepared using various cacao bean roasting times and temperatures, and served them to volunteers. Those volunteers reported that chocolates made with cacao beans roasted more intensely (such as 20 minutes at 340° F, 80 min at 275° F, and 54 min at 304° F) were far more acceptable than were chocolates prepared with raw or lightly roasted cacao beans.

The implications of healthy yet tasty chocolate are obvious: Master the chocolate and you’ll make millions. Imagine a future where parents say to their kids: “Don’t forget to eat your chocolate.” So, we’re off to do some cooking. Don’t want Hershey to make all the money off of this revelation.
 

The villain hiding in dairy for some MS patients

For some of us, lactose can be a real heartbreaker when it comes to dairy consumption, but for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) there’s another villain they may also have to face that can make their symptoms worse.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

Physicians at the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Bonn (Germany) were getting so many complaints from patients with MS about how much worse they felt about after having cheese, yogurt, and milk that they decided to get to the bottom of it. The culprit, it seems, is casein, a protein specifically found in cow’s milk.

The researchers injected mice with various proteins found in cow’s milk and found perforated myelin sheaths in those given casein. In MS, the patient’s own immune system destroys that sheath, which leads to paresthesia, vision problems, and movement disorders.

“The body’s defenses actually attack the casein, but in the process they also destroy proteins involved in the formation of myelin, “ said Rittika Chunder, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn. How? Apparently it’s all a big misunderstanding.

While looking at molecules needed for myelin production, the researchers came across MAG, which is very similar to casein, which is a problem when patients with MS are allergic to casein. After they have dairy products, the B-cell squad gets called in to clean up the evil twin, casein, but can’t differentiate it from the good twin, MAG, so it all gets a wash and the myelin sheath suffers.

Since this happens only to patients with MS who have a casein allergy, the researchers advise them to stay away from milk, yogurt, or cottage cheese while they work on a self-test to check if patients carry the antibodies.

A small price to pay, perhaps, to stop a villainous evil twin.
 

You would even say it glows

If you’re anything like us – and we think you are since you’re reading this – you’ve been asking yourself: Are there any common medications in my house that will make good radiation sensors?

Vnukko/Pixabay

Not that anyone needs to worry about excess radiation or anything. Far from it. We were just wondering.

It just so happens that Anna Mrozik and Paweł Bilski, both of the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland, were wondering the same thing: “During an uncontrolled release of radiation, it is highly unlikely that members of the public will be equipped with personal radiation dose monitors.”

People would need to use something they had lying around the house. A smartphone would work, the investigators explained in a statement from the IFJ PAN, but the process of converting one to radiation-sensor duty, which involves dismantling it and breaking the display glass, “is laborious and time-consuming [and] the destruction of a valuable and useful device does not seem to be the optimal solution.”

Naturally, they turned to drugs. The key, in this case, is optically stimulated luminescence. They needed to find materials that would glow with greater intensity as the radiation dose increased. Turns out that ibuprofen- and paracetamol-based painkillers fit the bill quite nicely, although aspirin also works.

It’s not known exactly which substance is causing the luminescence, but rest assured, the “physicists from the IFJ PAN intend to identify it.”
 

This is why you don’t interrupt someone using headphones

There’s nothing like taking a nice relaxing walk with your headphones. Whether you’re listening to a podcast or a song or talking on the phone, it’s an escape from reality that makes you feel like you’re completely in tune with what you’re listening to.

Weedezign/Thinkstock

According to a new study, headphones, as opposed to speakers, make people feel more connected to what they are listening to. Data collected from more than 4,000 people showed that listening with headphones makes more of an impact than listening to speakers.

“Headphones produce a phenomenon called in-head localization, which makes the speaker sound as if they’re inside your head,” study coauthor On Amir of the University of California, San Diego, said in a statement. Because of this, people feel like the speakers are close to them and there’s more of a sense of empathy for the speakers and the listener is more likely to be swayed toward the ideas of the speaker.

These findings could lead to more efficient training programs, online work, and advertising, the investigators suggested.

We now finally understand why people get so mad when they have to take out their headphones to answer or talk to us. We ruined a satisfying moment going on in their brains.

I was taught to think clinically first and legally second. There are moments when following every regulation is clearly detrimental to the well-being of both the patient and the medical community at large, and these challenges have been highlighted by issues with telemental health during the pandemic.

A friend emailed me with a problem: He has a son who is a traveling nurse and is currently in psychotherapy. The therapist has, in accordance with licensing requirements, told his son that she can not see him when assignments take him to any state where she is not licensed. The patient needs to physically be in the same state where the clinician holds a license, technically for every appointment. The nursing assignments last for 3 months and he will be going to a variety of states. Does he really need to get a new therapist every 90 days?

The logistics seem mind-boggling in a time when there is a shortage of mental health professionals, and there are often long wait lists to get care. And even if it was all easy, I’ll point out that working with a therapist is a bit different then going to an urgent care center to have sutures removed or to obtain antibiotics for strep throat: The relationship is not easily interchangeable, and I know of no one who would think it clinically optimal for anyone to change psychotherapists every 3 months. The traveling nurse does not just need to find a “provider” in each state, he needs to find one he is comfortable with and he will have to spend several sessions relaying his history and forming a new therapeutic alliance. And given the ambiguities of psychotherapy, he would optimally see therapists who do not make conflicting interpretations or recommendations. Mind-boggling. And while none of us are irreplaceable, it feels heartless to tell someone who is traveling to provide medical care to others during a pandemic that they can’t have mental health care when our technology would allow for it.

In the “old days” it was simpler: Patients came to the office and both the patient and the clinician were physically located in the same state, even if the patient resided in another state and commuted hours to the appointment. Telemental health was done in select rural areas or in military settings, and most physicians did not consider the option for video visits, much less full video treatment. For the average practitioner, issues of location were not relevant. The exception was for college students who might reside in one state and see a psychiatrist or therapist in another, but typically everyone was comfortable taking a break from therapy when the patient could not meet with the therapist in person. If psychiatrists were having phone or video sessions with out-of-state patients on an occasional basis, it may have been because there was less scrutiny and it was less obvious that this was not permitted.

When the pandemic forced treatment to go online, the issues changed. At the beginning, issues related to state licensing were waived. Now each state has a different requirement with regard to out-of-state physicians; some allow their residents to be seen, while others require the physician to get licensed in their state and the process may or may not be costly or arduous for the provider. The regulations change frequently, and can be quite confusing to follow. Since psychiatry is a shortage field, many psychiatrists are not looking to have more patients from other states and are not motivated to apply for extra licenses.

Life as a practicing psychiatrist has been a moving target: I reopened my practice for some in-person visits for vaccinated patients in June 2021, then closed it when the Omicron surge seemed too risky, and I’ll be reopening soon. Patients, too, have had unpredictable lives.

For the practitioner who is following the rules precisely, the issues can be sticky. It may be fine to have Zoom visits with a patient who lives across the street, but not with the elderly patient who has to drive 90 minutes across a state line, and it’s always fine to have a video session with a patient in Guam. If a patient signs on for a video visit with a doctor licensed in Maine and announces there will be a visit to a brother in Michigan, does the clinician abruptly end the session? Does he charge for the then missed appointment, and don’t we feel this is a waste of the psychiatrist’s time when appointments are limited?

If college students started with therapists in their home states when universities shut down in the spring of 2020, must they now try to get treatment in the states where their college campuses are located? What if the university has a long wait for services, there are no local psychiatrists taking on new patients, or the student feels he is making good progress with the doctor he is working with? And how do we even know for sure where our patients are located? Are we obligated to ask for a precise location at the beginning of each session? What if patients do not offer their locations, or lie about where they are?

Oddly, the issue is with the location of the patient; the doctor can be anywhere as long as the patient’s body is in a state where he or she is licensed. And it has never been a problem to send prescriptions to pharmacies in other states, though this seems to me the essence of practicing across state lines.

In the State of the Union Address on March 1, President Biden had a hefty agenda: The Russian invasion of Ukraine, a global pandemic, spiraling inflation, and for the first time in a SOTU address, our president discussed a strategy to address our National Mental Health Crisis. The fact sheet released by the White House details many long-awaited changes to increase the mental health workforce to address shortages, instituting a “988” crisis line to initiate “someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere for every American in crisis to go.” The proposals call for a sweeping reform in providing access to services, strengthening parity, and improving community, veterans, and university services – and the Biden administration specifically addresses telemental health. “To maintain continuity of access, the Administration will work with Congress to ensure coverage of tele-behavioral health across health plans, and support appropriate delivery of telemedicine across state lines.”

This is good news, as it’s time we concentrated on allowing for access to care in a consumer-oriented way. It may let us focus on offering good clinical care and not focus on following outdated regulations. Hopefully, those who want help will be able to access it, and perhaps soon a traveling nurse will be permitted to get mental health care with continuity of treatment.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

I was taught to think clinically first and legally second. There are moments when following every regulation is clearly detrimental to the well-being of both the patient and the medical community at large, and these challenges have been highlighted by issues with telemental health during the pandemic.

A friend emailed me with a problem: He has a son who is a traveling nurse and is currently in psychotherapy. The therapist has, in accordance with licensing requirements, told his son that she can not see him when assignments take him to any state where she is not licensed. The patient needs to physically be in the same state where the clinician holds a license, technically for every appointment. The nursing assignments last for 3 months and he will be going to a variety of states. Does he really need to get a new therapist every 90 days?

The logistics seem mind-boggling in a time when there is a shortage of mental health professionals, and there are often long wait lists to get care. And even if it was all easy, I’ll point out that working with a therapist is a bit different then going to an urgent care center to have sutures removed or to obtain antibiotics for strep throat: The relationship is not easily interchangeable, and I know of no one who would think it clinically optimal for anyone to change psychotherapists every 3 months. The traveling nurse does not just need to find a “provider” in each state, he needs to find one he is comfortable with and he will have to spend several sessions relaying his history and forming a new therapeutic alliance. And given the ambiguities of psychotherapy, he would optimally see therapists who do not make conflicting interpretations or recommendations. Mind-boggling. And while none of us are irreplaceable, it feels heartless to tell someone who is traveling to provide medical care to others during a pandemic that they can’t have mental health care when our technology would allow for it.

In the “old days” it was simpler: Patients came to the office and both the patient and the clinician were physically located in the same state, even if the patient resided in another state and commuted hours to the appointment. Telemental health was done in select rural areas or in military settings, and most physicians did not consider the option for video visits, much less full video treatment. For the average practitioner, issues of location were not relevant. The exception was for college students who might reside in one state and see a psychiatrist or therapist in another, but typically everyone was comfortable taking a break from therapy when the patient could not meet with the therapist in person. If psychiatrists were having phone or video sessions with out-of-state patients on an occasional basis, it may have been because there was less scrutiny and it was less obvious that this was not permitted.

When the pandemic forced treatment to go online, the issues changed. At the beginning, issues related to state licensing were waived. Now each state has a different requirement with regard to out-of-state physicians; some allow their residents to be seen, while others require the physician to get licensed in their state and the process may or may not be costly or arduous for the provider. The regulations change frequently, and can be quite confusing to follow. Since psychiatry is a shortage field, many psychiatrists are not looking to have more patients from other states and are not motivated to apply for extra licenses.

Life as a practicing psychiatrist has been a moving target: I reopened my practice for some in-person visits for vaccinated patients in June 2021, then closed it when the Omicron surge seemed too risky, and I’ll be reopening soon. Patients, too, have had unpredictable lives.

For the practitioner who is following the rules precisely, the issues can be sticky. It may be fine to have Zoom visits with a patient who lives across the street, but not with the elderly patient who has to drive 90 minutes across a state line, and it’s always fine to have a video session with a patient in Guam. If a patient signs on for a video visit with a doctor licensed in Maine and announces there will be a visit to a brother in Michigan, does the clinician abruptly end the session? Does he charge for the then missed appointment, and don’t we feel this is a waste of the psychiatrist’s time when appointments are limited?

If college students started with therapists in their home states when universities shut down in the spring of 2020, must they now try to get treatment in the states where their college campuses are located? What if the university has a long wait for services, there are no local psychiatrists taking on new patients, or the student feels he is making good progress with the doctor he is working with? And how do we even know for sure where our patients are located? Are we obligated to ask for a precise location at the beginning of each session? What if patients do not offer their locations, or lie about where they are?

Oddly, the issue is with the location of the patient; the doctor can be anywhere as long as the patient’s body is in a state where he or she is licensed. And it has never been a problem to send prescriptions to pharmacies in other states, though this seems to me the essence of practicing across state lines.

In the State of the Union Address on March 1, President Biden had a hefty agenda: The Russian invasion of Ukraine, a global pandemic, spiraling inflation, and for the first time in a SOTU address, our president discussed a strategy to address our National Mental Health Crisis. The fact sheet released by the White House details many long-awaited changes to increase the mental health workforce to address shortages, instituting a “988” crisis line to initiate “someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere for every American in crisis to go.” The proposals call for a sweeping reform in providing access to services, strengthening parity, and improving community, veterans, and university services – and the Biden administration specifically addresses telemental health. “To maintain continuity of access, the Administration will work with Congress to ensure coverage of tele-behavioral health across health plans, and support appropriate delivery of telemedicine across state lines.”

This is good news, as it’s time we concentrated on allowing for access to care in a consumer-oriented way. It may let us focus on offering good clinical care and not focus on following outdated regulations. Hopefully, those who want help will be able to access it, and perhaps soon a traveling nurse will be permitted to get mental health care with continuity of treatment.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

I was taught to think clinically first and legally second. There are moments when following every regulation is clearly detrimental to the well-being of both the patient and the medical community at large, and these challenges have been highlighted by issues with telemental health during the pandemic.

A friend emailed me with a problem: He has a son who is a traveling nurse and is currently in psychotherapy. The therapist has, in accordance with licensing requirements, told his son that she can not see him when assignments take him to any state where she is not licensed. The patient needs to physically be in the same state where the clinician holds a license, technically for every appointment. The nursing assignments last for 3 months and he will be going to a variety of states. Does he really need to get a new therapist every 90 days?

The logistics seem mind-boggling in a time when there is a shortage of mental health professionals, and there are often long wait lists to get care. And even if it was all easy, I’ll point out that working with a therapist is a bit different then going to an urgent care center to have sutures removed or to obtain antibiotics for strep throat: The relationship is not easily interchangeable, and I know of no one who would think it clinically optimal for anyone to change psychotherapists every 3 months. The traveling nurse does not just need to find a “provider” in each state, he needs to find one he is comfortable with and he will have to spend several sessions relaying his history and forming a new therapeutic alliance. And given the ambiguities of psychotherapy, he would optimally see therapists who do not make conflicting interpretations or recommendations. Mind-boggling. And while none of us are irreplaceable, it feels heartless to tell someone who is traveling to provide medical care to others during a pandemic that they can’t have mental health care when our technology would allow for it.

In the “old days” it was simpler: Patients came to the office and both the patient and the clinician were physically located in the same state, even if the patient resided in another state and commuted hours to the appointment. Telemental health was done in select rural areas or in military settings, and most physicians did not consider the option for video visits, much less full video treatment. For the average practitioner, issues of location were not relevant. The exception was for college students who might reside in one state and see a psychiatrist or therapist in another, but typically everyone was comfortable taking a break from therapy when the patient could not meet with the therapist in person. If psychiatrists were having phone or video sessions with out-of-state patients on an occasional basis, it may have been because there was less scrutiny and it was less obvious that this was not permitted.

When the pandemic forced treatment to go online, the issues changed. At the beginning, issues related to state licensing were waived. Now each state has a different requirement with regard to out-of-state physicians; some allow their residents to be seen, while others require the physician to get licensed in their state and the process may or may not be costly or arduous for the provider. The regulations change frequently, and can be quite confusing to follow. Since psychiatry is a shortage field, many psychiatrists are not looking to have more patients from other states and are not motivated to apply for extra licenses.

Life as a practicing psychiatrist has been a moving target: I reopened my practice for some in-person visits for vaccinated patients in June 2021, then closed it when the Omicron surge seemed too risky, and I’ll be reopening soon. Patients, too, have had unpredictable lives.

For the practitioner who is following the rules precisely, the issues can be sticky. It may be fine to have Zoom visits with a patient who lives across the street, but not with the elderly patient who has to drive 90 minutes across a state line, and it’s always fine to have a video session with a patient in Guam. If a patient signs on for a video visit with a doctor licensed in Maine and announces there will be a visit to a brother in Michigan, does the clinician abruptly end the session? Does he charge for the then missed appointment, and don’t we feel this is a waste of the psychiatrist’s time when appointments are limited?

If college students started with therapists in their home states when universities shut down in the spring of 2020, must they now try to get treatment in the states where their college campuses are located? What if the university has a long wait for services, there are no local psychiatrists taking on new patients, or the student feels he is making good progress with the doctor he is working with? And how do we even know for sure where our patients are located? Are we obligated to ask for a precise location at the beginning of each session? What if patients do not offer their locations, or lie about where they are?

Oddly, the issue is with the location of the patient; the doctor can be anywhere as long as the patient’s body is in a state where he or she is licensed. And it has never been a problem to send prescriptions to pharmacies in other states, though this seems to me the essence of practicing across state lines.

In the State of the Union Address on March 1, President Biden had a hefty agenda: The Russian invasion of Ukraine, a global pandemic, spiraling inflation, and for the first time in a SOTU address, our president discussed a strategy to address our National Mental Health Crisis. The fact sheet released by the White House details many long-awaited changes to increase the mental health workforce to address shortages, instituting a “988” crisis line to initiate “someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere for every American in crisis to go.” The proposals call for a sweeping reform in providing access to services, strengthening parity, and improving community, veterans, and university services – and the Biden administration specifically addresses telemental health. “To maintain continuity of access, the Administration will work with Congress to ensure coverage of tele-behavioral health across health plans, and support appropriate delivery of telemedicine across state lines.”

This is good news, as it’s time we concentrated on allowing for access to care in a consumer-oriented way. It may let us focus on offering good clinical care and not focus on following outdated regulations. Hopefully, those who want help will be able to access it, and perhaps soon a traveling nurse will be permitted to get mental health care with continuity of treatment.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.

Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”

“Overbook him!” I said.

This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.

In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.

Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.

After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.

I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.

I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.

Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.

Why?

Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.

I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.

Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.

Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.

I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.

I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.

After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.

Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.

Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”

“Overbook him!” I said.

This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.

In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.

Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.

After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.

I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.

I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.

Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.

Why?

Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.

I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.

Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.

Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.

I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.

I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.

After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.

Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.

Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”

“Overbook him!” I said.

This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.

In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.

Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.

After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.

I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.

I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.

Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.

Why?

Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.

I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.

Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.

Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.

I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.

I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.

After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.

Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at [email protected].

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at [email protected].

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at [email protected].