Business of Medicine

Two new studies suggest the expansion of Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 may be leading to more frequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) among Hispanics.

The studies, presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, suggest that Medicaid expansion may have a diverse impact on various ethnic groups.

“The take-home message for both physicians and policy makers is that health policy has the capacity to shift health care delivery, yet we need to consider the effects of health policy might influence subgroups of patients differently. This is useful information for providers caring for a diverse group of patients. For policy makers, this study emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of health policy among different racial and ethnic subgroups to fully understand the impact of [policy] change,” said study lead author James D. Murphy, MD, MS, assistant vice chair of radiation medicine at the University of California San Diego.

Dr. Murphy and associates cautioned that other factors, not just Medicaid expansion, could be responsible for the uptick in colon cancer diagnoses.

“Our observations could potentially be influenced by other risk factors. Medicaid expansion was not a ‘randomized experiment,’ and states which opted to expand Medicaid might have fundamental differences which could impact colorectal cancer incidence,” he said.

His group’s analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database included 21 states where Medicaid was expanded and 16 states where expansion did not occur. Between 2010-2013 and 2014-2018, among patients under 65, overall colorectal cancer incidence rates did not differ by Medicaid expansion status. In nonexpansion states, there was a greater increase in CRC rates among Hispanics (5.4 vs. 1.6 increase per 100,000; P = .002) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.3 vs. 0.4 per 100,000; P = .02), but there was no difference among Black or non-Hispanic White individuals.
 

Early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses increase under Medicaid expansion

In another study presented at the meeting, researchers examined early-onset CRC data from the National Cancer Database. Among Hispanics, the rate of change of incidence of newly diagnosed cases among patients age 40-49 in Medicaid expansion states increased from 4.3% per year between 2010 and 2014 and 9.8% between 2014 and 2017. That compares with the general background increase in incidence of about 2%. In nonexpansion states, the rate of change decreased from 6.4% to 1% (P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of incidence among Blacks or Whites between expansion and nonexpansion states.

The reduced rate of change among Hispanics in nonexpansion states was a surprise, and the researchers haven’t determined the reason, according to Sanjay Goel, MD, an oncologist with Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and lead author on the National Cancer Database study. Dr. Goel speculated that some people may have migrated from nonexpansion states to states that expanded Medicaid in order to gain health care coverage.

The apparent benefit seen in Hispanics, but not Black patients, may be caused by greater susceptibility to early-onset CRC among Hispanics, leading to a stronger effect on that population when Medicaid was expanded, Dr. Goel said.

“At this point, with our available data, we do not have the ability to understand the underlying sources of these disparities, though these are questions which deserve additional research,” Dr. Murphy said.

Regardless of the reason, the message is clear, Dr. Goel said. “The bottom we want to state is that politics aside, providing health care coverage to as many people as possible, ideally to everyone, is the right way of going forward.”

The implications of the findings extend beyond policy. “The general advice I give is that, especially if you treat a Hispanic person, regardless of age, with any symptom or sign that could be suggestive of a malignancy, do not take it lightly. Follow the patient closely. I’m not advocating that you refer everybody with lower abdominal pain or bleeding for a colonoscopy, but do factor it in mind. Call them back in a week or 2, or have them make a follow-up appointment in a month so that they don’t get neglected by the system.”

Dr. Murphy and Dr. Goel have no relevant financial disclosures. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Two new studies suggest the expansion of Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 may be leading to more frequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) among Hispanics.

The studies, presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, suggest that Medicaid expansion may have a diverse impact on various ethnic groups.

“The take-home message for both physicians and policy makers is that health policy has the capacity to shift health care delivery, yet we need to consider the effects of health policy might influence subgroups of patients differently. This is useful information for providers caring for a diverse group of patients. For policy makers, this study emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of health policy among different racial and ethnic subgroups to fully understand the impact of [policy] change,” said study lead author James D. Murphy, MD, MS, assistant vice chair of radiation medicine at the University of California San Diego.

Dr. Murphy and associates cautioned that other factors, not just Medicaid expansion, could be responsible for the uptick in colon cancer diagnoses.

“Our observations could potentially be influenced by other risk factors. Medicaid expansion was not a ‘randomized experiment,’ and states which opted to expand Medicaid might have fundamental differences which could impact colorectal cancer incidence,” he said.

His group’s analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database included 21 states where Medicaid was expanded and 16 states where expansion did not occur. Between 2010-2013 and 2014-2018, among patients under 65, overall colorectal cancer incidence rates did not differ by Medicaid expansion status. In nonexpansion states, there was a greater increase in CRC rates among Hispanics (5.4 vs. 1.6 increase per 100,000; P = .002) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.3 vs. 0.4 per 100,000; P = .02), but there was no difference among Black or non-Hispanic White individuals.
 

Early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses increase under Medicaid expansion

In another study presented at the meeting, researchers examined early-onset CRC data from the National Cancer Database. Among Hispanics, the rate of change of incidence of newly diagnosed cases among patients age 40-49 in Medicaid expansion states increased from 4.3% per year between 2010 and 2014 and 9.8% between 2014 and 2017. That compares with the general background increase in incidence of about 2%. In nonexpansion states, the rate of change decreased from 6.4% to 1% (P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of incidence among Blacks or Whites between expansion and nonexpansion states.

The reduced rate of change among Hispanics in nonexpansion states was a surprise, and the researchers haven’t determined the reason, according to Sanjay Goel, MD, an oncologist with Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and lead author on the National Cancer Database study. Dr. Goel speculated that some people may have migrated from nonexpansion states to states that expanded Medicaid in order to gain health care coverage.

The apparent benefit seen in Hispanics, but not Black patients, may be caused by greater susceptibility to early-onset CRC among Hispanics, leading to a stronger effect on that population when Medicaid was expanded, Dr. Goel said.

“At this point, with our available data, we do not have the ability to understand the underlying sources of these disparities, though these are questions which deserve additional research,” Dr. Murphy said.

Regardless of the reason, the message is clear, Dr. Goel said. “The bottom we want to state is that politics aside, providing health care coverage to as many people as possible, ideally to everyone, is the right way of going forward.”

The implications of the findings extend beyond policy. “The general advice I give is that, especially if you treat a Hispanic person, regardless of age, with any symptom or sign that could be suggestive of a malignancy, do not take it lightly. Follow the patient closely. I’m not advocating that you refer everybody with lower abdominal pain or bleeding for a colonoscopy, but do factor it in mind. Call them back in a week or 2, or have them make a follow-up appointment in a month so that they don’t get neglected by the system.”

Dr. Murphy and Dr. Goel have no relevant financial disclosures. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Two new studies suggest the expansion of Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 may be leading to more frequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) among Hispanics.

The studies, presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, suggest that Medicaid expansion may have a diverse impact on various ethnic groups.

“The take-home message for both physicians and policy makers is that health policy has the capacity to shift health care delivery, yet we need to consider the effects of health policy might influence subgroups of patients differently. This is useful information for providers caring for a diverse group of patients. For policy makers, this study emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of health policy among different racial and ethnic subgroups to fully understand the impact of [policy] change,” said study lead author James D. Murphy, MD, MS, assistant vice chair of radiation medicine at the University of California San Diego.

Dr. Murphy and associates cautioned that other factors, not just Medicaid expansion, could be responsible for the uptick in colon cancer diagnoses.

“Our observations could potentially be influenced by other risk factors. Medicaid expansion was not a ‘randomized experiment,’ and states which opted to expand Medicaid might have fundamental differences which could impact colorectal cancer incidence,” he said.

His group’s analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database included 21 states where Medicaid was expanded and 16 states where expansion did not occur. Between 2010-2013 and 2014-2018, among patients under 65, overall colorectal cancer incidence rates did not differ by Medicaid expansion status. In nonexpansion states, there was a greater increase in CRC rates among Hispanics (5.4 vs. 1.6 increase per 100,000; P = .002) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.3 vs. 0.4 per 100,000; P = .02), but there was no difference among Black or non-Hispanic White individuals.
 

Early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses increase under Medicaid expansion

In another study presented at the meeting, researchers examined early-onset CRC data from the National Cancer Database. Among Hispanics, the rate of change of incidence of newly diagnosed cases among patients age 40-49 in Medicaid expansion states increased from 4.3% per year between 2010 and 2014 and 9.8% between 2014 and 2017. That compares with the general background increase in incidence of about 2%. In nonexpansion states, the rate of change decreased from 6.4% to 1% (P = .03). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of incidence among Blacks or Whites between expansion and nonexpansion states.

The reduced rate of change among Hispanics in nonexpansion states was a surprise, and the researchers haven’t determined the reason, according to Sanjay Goel, MD, an oncologist with Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and lead author on the National Cancer Database study. Dr. Goel speculated that some people may have migrated from nonexpansion states to states that expanded Medicaid in order to gain health care coverage.

The apparent benefit seen in Hispanics, but not Black patients, may be caused by greater susceptibility to early-onset CRC among Hispanics, leading to a stronger effect on that population when Medicaid was expanded, Dr. Goel said.

“At this point, with our available data, we do not have the ability to understand the underlying sources of these disparities, though these are questions which deserve additional research,” Dr. Murphy said.

Regardless of the reason, the message is clear, Dr. Goel said. “The bottom we want to state is that politics aside, providing health care coverage to as many people as possible, ideally to everyone, is the right way of going forward.”

The implications of the findings extend beyond policy. “The general advice I give is that, especially if you treat a Hispanic person, regardless of age, with any symptom or sign that could be suggestive of a malignancy, do not take it lightly. Follow the patient closely. I’m not advocating that you refer everybody with lower abdominal pain or bleeding for a colonoscopy, but do factor it in mind. Call them back in a week or 2, or have them make a follow-up appointment in a month so that they don’t get neglected by the system.”

Dr. Murphy and Dr. Goel have no relevant financial disclosures. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A new proposed insurance rule to limit discrimination in health plans has ignited a debate over transgender health care.

The policy, known as the Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, is part of the Biden administration’s proposal for 2023 for government health insurance exchanges. The rule would require health plans to ensure their benefit designs and implementation don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, sociodemographic factors, or other conditions.

The Obama administration first implemented the standard, but the Trump administration removed “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the antidiscrimination language in 2020. The Biden proposal would restore protections for those categories.

“We believe such amendments are warranted in light of the existing trends in health care discrimination and are necessary to better address barriers to health equity for LGBTQI+ individuals,” the Department of Health and Human Services wrote in the proposed rule.

The Biden administration, Democratic lawmakers, and advocacy groups have noted that the rule is vital for LGBTQ consumers to access care. But some private insurance companies have said the policy could drive up costs and that the language about what constitutes discrimination is too vague. Conservative groups have also argued that no clinical evidence supports covering care that affirms gender identity, such as hormone blockers or surgery.

Under the proposed rule, an insurer in the government health exchanges wouldn’t be classified as providing “essential health benefits” under federal law if discrimination was found, Roll Call reported. State regulators would be required to enforce the proposal.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services listed examples of presumptive discrimination that would be banned, such as limiting gender-affirmative care within a health plan. Several state health plains either don’t address coverage or limit coverage for specific services for transgender people, Roll Call reported.

Health benefit plans wouldn’t have to cover every possible health care service, Katie Keith, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, wrote in an article for Health Affairs. However, an insurer can’t have a different policy or restricted plans for transgender people over patients whose gender identity and sexual orientation match their birth gender.

The proposed rule has sparked a flurry of reactions in recent weeks. America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association for health insurance companies, said the nondiscrimination framework is overly broad and limits insurers’ abilities to design plans with controlled costs.

The rule “could create a slippery slope of eliminating benefit limits that are based on clinical evidence, support value-based care, and ensure affordable premiums,” the group wrote in a response letter.

Some conservative groups have pushed back against the coverage requirements as well. The Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation have questioned the benefits or validity of gender-affirmative care, according to Roll Call.

On the other hand, the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Initiative said the new rule could help patients who have long faced coverage issues. For instance, some insurers put HIV drugs on the highest-cost plan tiers, which can lead to major expenses for patients.

“It’s not just HIV. It’s other [chronic disease] patients, too,” Carl Schmid, executive director of the patient advocacy group, told Roll Call.

Other insurers, such as the Alliance of Community Health Plans, have said that the updated rule doesn’t give insurers enough time to implement changes. Under the proposal, insurers would have 60 days from final publication to ensure that plans meet the nondiscrimination framework. The group has suggested an effective date of 2024 or later, rather than 2023.

At the same time, some insurance groups have said they’re ready for the change now. The Association for Community Affiliated Plans, which represents small nonprofit plans, said many of its member health plans have already committed resources to ensure all patients can access services, including gender-affirming services or gender identity support for LGBTQ patients.

“We find that their forward-thinking work is – and should be – increasingly the norm,” Margaret Murray, the association’s CEO, wrote in a response letter.

Comments on the proposed rule were due Jan. 27. Now the proposal will wind through the annual approval process.

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

A new proposed insurance rule to limit discrimination in health plans has ignited a debate over transgender health care.

The policy, known as the Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, is part of the Biden administration’s proposal for 2023 for government health insurance exchanges. The rule would require health plans to ensure their benefit designs and implementation don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, sociodemographic factors, or other conditions.

The Obama administration first implemented the standard, but the Trump administration removed “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the antidiscrimination language in 2020. The Biden proposal would restore protections for those categories.

“We believe such amendments are warranted in light of the existing trends in health care discrimination and are necessary to better address barriers to health equity for LGBTQI+ individuals,” the Department of Health and Human Services wrote in the proposed rule.

The Biden administration, Democratic lawmakers, and advocacy groups have noted that the rule is vital for LGBTQ consumers to access care. But some private insurance companies have said the policy could drive up costs and that the language about what constitutes discrimination is too vague. Conservative groups have also argued that no clinical evidence supports covering care that affirms gender identity, such as hormone blockers or surgery.

Under the proposed rule, an insurer in the government health exchanges wouldn’t be classified as providing “essential health benefits” under federal law if discrimination was found, Roll Call reported. State regulators would be required to enforce the proposal.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services listed examples of presumptive discrimination that would be banned, such as limiting gender-affirmative care within a health plan. Several state health plains either don’t address coverage or limit coverage for specific services for transgender people, Roll Call reported.

Health benefit plans wouldn’t have to cover every possible health care service, Katie Keith, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, wrote in an article for Health Affairs. However, an insurer can’t have a different policy or restricted plans for transgender people over patients whose gender identity and sexual orientation match their birth gender.

The proposed rule has sparked a flurry of reactions in recent weeks. America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association for health insurance companies, said the nondiscrimination framework is overly broad and limits insurers’ abilities to design plans with controlled costs.

The rule “could create a slippery slope of eliminating benefit limits that are based on clinical evidence, support value-based care, and ensure affordable premiums,” the group wrote in a response letter.

Some conservative groups have pushed back against the coverage requirements as well. The Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation have questioned the benefits or validity of gender-affirmative care, according to Roll Call.

On the other hand, the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Initiative said the new rule could help patients who have long faced coverage issues. For instance, some insurers put HIV drugs on the highest-cost plan tiers, which can lead to major expenses for patients.

“It’s not just HIV. It’s other [chronic disease] patients, too,” Carl Schmid, executive director of the patient advocacy group, told Roll Call.

Other insurers, such as the Alliance of Community Health Plans, have said that the updated rule doesn’t give insurers enough time to implement changes. Under the proposal, insurers would have 60 days from final publication to ensure that plans meet the nondiscrimination framework. The group has suggested an effective date of 2024 or later, rather than 2023.

At the same time, some insurance groups have said they’re ready for the change now. The Association for Community Affiliated Plans, which represents small nonprofit plans, said many of its member health plans have already committed resources to ensure all patients can access services, including gender-affirming services or gender identity support for LGBTQ patients.

“We find that their forward-thinking work is – and should be – increasingly the norm,” Margaret Murray, the association’s CEO, wrote in a response letter.

Comments on the proposed rule were due Jan. 27. Now the proposal will wind through the annual approval process.

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

A new proposed insurance rule to limit discrimination in health plans has ignited a debate over transgender health care.

The policy, known as the Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, is part of the Biden administration’s proposal for 2023 for government health insurance exchanges. The rule would require health plans to ensure their benefit designs and implementation don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, sociodemographic factors, or other conditions.

The Obama administration first implemented the standard, but the Trump administration removed “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the antidiscrimination language in 2020. The Biden proposal would restore protections for those categories.

“We believe such amendments are warranted in light of the existing trends in health care discrimination and are necessary to better address barriers to health equity for LGBTQI+ individuals,” the Department of Health and Human Services wrote in the proposed rule.

The Biden administration, Democratic lawmakers, and advocacy groups have noted that the rule is vital for LGBTQ consumers to access care. But some private insurance companies have said the policy could drive up costs and that the language about what constitutes discrimination is too vague. Conservative groups have also argued that no clinical evidence supports covering care that affirms gender identity, such as hormone blockers or surgery.

Under the proposed rule, an insurer in the government health exchanges wouldn’t be classified as providing “essential health benefits” under federal law if discrimination was found, Roll Call reported. State regulators would be required to enforce the proposal.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services listed examples of presumptive discrimination that would be banned, such as limiting gender-affirmative care within a health plan. Several state health plains either don’t address coverage or limit coverage for specific services for transgender people, Roll Call reported.

Health benefit plans wouldn’t have to cover every possible health care service, Katie Keith, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, wrote in an article for Health Affairs. However, an insurer can’t have a different policy or restricted plans for transgender people over patients whose gender identity and sexual orientation match their birth gender.

The proposed rule has sparked a flurry of reactions in recent weeks. America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association for health insurance companies, said the nondiscrimination framework is overly broad and limits insurers’ abilities to design plans with controlled costs.

The rule “could create a slippery slope of eliminating benefit limits that are based on clinical evidence, support value-based care, and ensure affordable premiums,” the group wrote in a response letter.

Some conservative groups have pushed back against the coverage requirements as well. The Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation have questioned the benefits or validity of gender-affirmative care, according to Roll Call.

On the other hand, the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Initiative said the new rule could help patients who have long faced coverage issues. For instance, some insurers put HIV drugs on the highest-cost plan tiers, which can lead to major expenses for patients.

“It’s not just HIV. It’s other [chronic disease] patients, too,” Carl Schmid, executive director of the patient advocacy group, told Roll Call.

Other insurers, such as the Alliance of Community Health Plans, have said that the updated rule doesn’t give insurers enough time to implement changes. Under the proposal, insurers would have 60 days from final publication to ensure that plans meet the nondiscrimination framework. The group has suggested an effective date of 2024 or later, rather than 2023.

At the same time, some insurance groups have said they’re ready for the change now. The Association for Community Affiliated Plans, which represents small nonprofit plans, said many of its member health plans have already committed resources to ensure all patients can access services, including gender-affirming services or gender identity support for LGBTQ patients.

“We find that their forward-thinking work is – and should be – increasingly the norm,” Margaret Murray, the association’s CEO, wrote in a response letter.

Comments on the proposed rule were due Jan. 27. Now the proposal will wind through the annual approval process.

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

Nearly 80% of obstetrician-gynecologists report having been named in at least one malpractice claim, but the total number who report such suits has fallen steadily since 2017, according to the Medscape Ob/Gyn Malpractice Report 2021.

Ob.gyns. were the fifth most likely among practitioners in 29 specialties to be sued, and they are much more likely than are the typical physicians to be parties to a malpractice case (51%), according to the new report. However, the number of ob.gyns. who reported a malpractice suit has been dropping, from 85% in 2017 to 83% in 2019 to 79% in 2021. In most cases, multiple parties were named in the lawsuit (64%), although 27% of ob.gyns. reported having been sued individually.

The most common reasons for lawsuits were complications from treatment/surgery (39%), poor outcome/disease progression (30%), failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (25%), patients suffering an abnormal injury (17%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

The 2021 report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians representing 29 specialties; the survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021. Respondents include 314 ob.gyns. Most respondents had been in practice at least 25 years (60%), and 55% were at least 60 years old.

Ob.gyns. carry higher malpractice insurance costs than nearly every other medical specialty, owing to the unique challenges and inherent risks of delivering newborn babies. In 2021, 33% of ob.gyns. reported paying at least $30,000 in annual premiums, and only 27% said they paid less than $20,000. Over half of all specialists (52%) paid less than $20,000 in annual insurance premiums.

More than 70% of ob.gyns. were “very” (32%) or “somewhat” surprised (40%) by their malpractice suits. A large majority said they believed the lawsuit was unwarranted (78%). One respondent wrote: “Feeling like I had done my best for the patient and she sued me anyway.”

Many cases settled before trial (40%), although some (12%) were still in process at the time of the survey. Other outcomes ranged from a judge or jury ruling on behalf of the physician (8%) or the lawsuit being dismissed within a few months of filing (8%). Ob.gyns. reported having lost 2% the suits.

The largest proportion of cases took less than 2 years (39%), although almost as many cases (33%) lasted between 3 and 5 years. Monetary awards to plaintiffs exceeded $1 million in 15% of cases that resulted in economic damages, with 8% of these awards exceeding $2 million. One in five awards were between $500,000 and $1 million.

Most ob.gyns. (67%) said the lawsuits did not negatively affect their careers. Roughly one in five ob.gyns. (21%) said they now trusted their patients less than they did before the suit, modestly fewer than specialists overall (24%).

The largest proportion of ob.gyns. (44%) said they would not have done anything differently, almost identical to the proportion of physicians overall (43%). Approximately 10% of ob.gyns. said they would never have taken the patient in the first place, while 9% said they should have developed better chart documentation, and 8% said they should have referred the patient to another physician.

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

Nearly 80% of obstetrician-gynecologists report having been named in at least one malpractice claim, but the total number who report such suits has fallen steadily since 2017, according to the Medscape Ob/Gyn Malpractice Report 2021.

Ob.gyns. were the fifth most likely among practitioners in 29 specialties to be sued, and they are much more likely than are the typical physicians to be parties to a malpractice case (51%), according to the new report. However, the number of ob.gyns. who reported a malpractice suit has been dropping, from 85% in 2017 to 83% in 2019 to 79% in 2021. In most cases, multiple parties were named in the lawsuit (64%), although 27% of ob.gyns. reported having been sued individually.

The most common reasons for lawsuits were complications from treatment/surgery (39%), poor outcome/disease progression (30%), failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (25%), patients suffering an abnormal injury (17%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

The 2021 report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians representing 29 specialties; the survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021. Respondents include 314 ob.gyns. Most respondents had been in practice at least 25 years (60%), and 55% were at least 60 years old.

Ob.gyns. carry higher malpractice insurance costs than nearly every other medical specialty, owing to the unique challenges and inherent risks of delivering newborn babies. In 2021, 33% of ob.gyns. reported paying at least $30,000 in annual premiums, and only 27% said they paid less than $20,000. Over half of all specialists (52%) paid less than $20,000 in annual insurance premiums.

More than 70% of ob.gyns. were “very” (32%) or “somewhat” surprised (40%) by their malpractice suits. A large majority said they believed the lawsuit was unwarranted (78%). One respondent wrote: “Feeling like I had done my best for the patient and she sued me anyway.”

Many cases settled before trial (40%), although some (12%) were still in process at the time of the survey. Other outcomes ranged from a judge or jury ruling on behalf of the physician (8%) or the lawsuit being dismissed within a few months of filing (8%). Ob.gyns. reported having lost 2% the suits.

The largest proportion of cases took less than 2 years (39%), although almost as many cases (33%) lasted between 3 and 5 years. Monetary awards to plaintiffs exceeded $1 million in 15% of cases that resulted in economic damages, with 8% of these awards exceeding $2 million. One in five awards were between $500,000 and $1 million.

Most ob.gyns. (67%) said the lawsuits did not negatively affect their careers. Roughly one in five ob.gyns. (21%) said they now trusted their patients less than they did before the suit, modestly fewer than specialists overall (24%).

The largest proportion of ob.gyns. (44%) said they would not have done anything differently, almost identical to the proportion of physicians overall (43%). Approximately 10% of ob.gyns. said they would never have taken the patient in the first place, while 9% said they should have developed better chart documentation, and 8% said they should have referred the patient to another physician.

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

Nearly 80% of obstetrician-gynecologists report having been named in at least one malpractice claim, but the total number who report such suits has fallen steadily since 2017, according to the Medscape Ob/Gyn Malpractice Report 2021.

Ob.gyns. were the fifth most likely among practitioners in 29 specialties to be sued, and they are much more likely than are the typical physicians to be parties to a malpractice case (51%), according to the new report. However, the number of ob.gyns. who reported a malpractice suit has been dropping, from 85% in 2017 to 83% in 2019 to 79% in 2021. In most cases, multiple parties were named in the lawsuit (64%), although 27% of ob.gyns. reported having been sued individually.

The most common reasons for lawsuits were complications from treatment/surgery (39%), poor outcome/disease progression (30%), failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (25%), patients suffering an abnormal injury (17%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

The 2021 report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians representing 29 specialties; the survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021. Respondents include 314 ob.gyns. Most respondents had been in practice at least 25 years (60%), and 55% were at least 60 years old.

Ob.gyns. carry higher malpractice insurance costs than nearly every other medical specialty, owing to the unique challenges and inherent risks of delivering newborn babies. In 2021, 33% of ob.gyns. reported paying at least $30,000 in annual premiums, and only 27% said they paid less than $20,000. Over half of all specialists (52%) paid less than $20,000 in annual insurance premiums.

More than 70% of ob.gyns. were “very” (32%) or “somewhat” surprised (40%) by their malpractice suits. A large majority said they believed the lawsuit was unwarranted (78%). One respondent wrote: “Feeling like I had done my best for the patient and she sued me anyway.”

Many cases settled before trial (40%), although some (12%) were still in process at the time of the survey. Other outcomes ranged from a judge or jury ruling on behalf of the physician (8%) or the lawsuit being dismissed within a few months of filing (8%). Ob.gyns. reported having lost 2% the suits.

The largest proportion of cases took less than 2 years (39%), although almost as many cases (33%) lasted between 3 and 5 years. Monetary awards to plaintiffs exceeded $1 million in 15% of cases that resulted in economic damages, with 8% of these awards exceeding $2 million. One in five awards were between $500,000 and $1 million.

Most ob.gyns. (67%) said the lawsuits did not negatively affect their careers. Roughly one in five ob.gyns. (21%) said they now trusted their patients less than they did before the suit, modestly fewer than specialists overall (24%).

The largest proportion of ob.gyns. (44%) said they would not have done anything differently, almost identical to the proportion of physicians overall (43%). Approximately 10% of ob.gyns. said they would never have taken the patient in the first place, while 9% said they should have developed better chart documentation, and 8% said they should have referred the patient to another physician.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

CASE Embryo mix-up with 2 couples

A lawsuit was recently filed in California by a couple after the woman carried and gave birth to “the wrong child.” This was the second full-term pregnancy for the couple. The couple had undergone an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in October 2018. The next IVF cycle in 2019 led to the birth of a daughter on September 24, 2019, who is the subject of this case.¹

At the time of birth, the couple suspected something was wrong because the baby had “jet-black hair and a complexion that was darker” than their complexions. The couple eventually obtained a DNA test, which confirmed in November 2019 that this was not their biological child.¹

A few weeks later, they learned that another woman who went to the same IVF clinic gave birth to a female baby 1 week after their daughter was born. Similarly, that baby did not resemble the parents, and DNA testing confirmed the baby belonged to the first couple. The couples ultimately exchanged the babies.¹

The legal claim filed against the IVF center and its owner (an obstetrician) was for breach of contract, medical malpractice, and infliction of emotional distress, including experiencing “disassociation” on the part of the couple(s). Each couple felt they did not get to experience the birth of their biological child, and, of course there was considerable distress in the process of learning that the child was not theirs and exchanging the birth child for the biological child. In addition, the couple who filed the suit had another child (now age 7 years), who begged them to keep the baby to whom they gave birth. The couple also reported experiencing panic attacks as a result of the events.¹

Medical considerations

As of 2018, more than 8 million IVF babies had been born, with the first in 1978 in the United Kingdom.² Advances in science and technology have improved the process. Storage tanks now have alarms and several safeguards to monitor the level of liquid nitrogen and immediately notify key personnel if levels are low (FIGURES 1 and 2). Preimplantation genetic testing is also readily available to assess the embryo prior to transfer into the uterus and identify various genetic problems.

Guidelines for embryo straw labelling are provided by the College of American Pathologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) also provides guidelines. When an error occurs, disclosure is recommended and ethical and legal counsel should be involved. Failing to disclose can lead to professional penalties.⁴

Unfortunately, despite these advances and guidelines, embryo mix-ups like the one in the above case do occur and receive public notice (See “Cross country embryo mix-up cases”).^5,6 A report from the University of Nevada assessed liability for embryo mix-ups in US fertility practices from 2000 to 2020.⁷ They evaluated 184,015 IVF cycles with 176 claims. Payments were made to plaintiffs in 21 cases, resulting in $15 million of awarded damages (average award was $199,188).⁷ The most common problem was in the embryology laboratory with an overall incidence of 0.03% of the total number of IVF cycles.⁷ To avoid damages, the authors emphasized the importance of following labeling guidelines when storing embryos, considering a 2-step read-back method prior to embryo transfer, and offering genetic testing when a discrepancy is noted in the record (TABLE).⁷

Other medical liability considerations

Embryo mix-ups are not the only source of problems and potential liability in IVF. At the 2021 Association of Sexual and Reproductive Medicine Annual Meeting, Applebaum et al presented results from a comprehensive review of malpractice litigation involving IVF in the United States.⁸ Using the legal database NEXIS Uni they identified 50 cases between 1986 and 2020 (32% of which were filed in New York state). Common thematic elements among patient allegations were embryology errors (eg, lost or destroyed embryos or incorrect sperm or egg donor), errors in preimplantation genetics, surgical or medical errors/complications, or misdiagnosis (eg, sexually transmitted disease screening or malignancy).⁸ Overall, the most common plaintiff complaint was negligence (26 cases) due to informed consent–related issues (9 cases), wrongful life or birth (9 cases), or negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress (5 cases).⁸

In 48% of cases, the verdict was in favor of the defendant; it was for the plaintiff in 36% of cases and ongoing proceedings or partial judgement accounted for the remaining cases.⁸ Damages ranged from $4,171.45 to $50 million. The authors emphasized specific defense strategies, including the importance of careful labeling and handling of embryos, prompt disclosure when an error does occur, and awareness of the specific state statute(s) of limitations for medical malpractice claims.⁸

Continue to: Legal considerations...

The case at the beginning of this article is a “mix-up” case, in which an IVF center implanted the wrong embryo, resulting in the birth parents not being the biological parents.¹ As in that case, there may be (but are not always)^6,9 2 mix-ups, so that 2 couples have each other’s biological children. These cases may go unnoticed by the birth parent if the physical appearance is not unexpected and the parents never do genetic testing, or if the IVF center does not discover the error and inform the parents. Infrequently the cases make the news or the courts.^10,11

News accounts are not trials, and we do not suggest that all the facts discussed in news reports on the case described here are complete—or even accurate in the details reported. They are generally 1-sided, so there are other perspectives. To consider the legal issues, however, we will assume for discussion only that the facts are as they have been reported in the news coverage—with the understanding that the discovery and trial processes would undoubtedly bring to light many other important facts or corrections.

Negligence

Although there are several potential bases for liability (ie, contract or warranty claims, a form of product liability/defect) in mix-up and other artificial reproductive technology (ART), negligence or malpractice seem most likely.¹² “Negligence” here is intended to be simple negligence but may also include gross negligence or recklessness.

Although the incidence of errors in ART is unknown, there is limited evidence that suggests it is not a rare event. One study suggested >20% of fertility clinics knew of errors in processing or handling donor samples and embryos for implantation.¹³ Another study in the United Kingdom found that 1 in 1,000 IVF embryos were implanted in the wrong woman.¹⁴

Was there negligence? The first question in a malpractice or negligence-type action is, was there a professional relationship between the plaintiff who is claiming harm and the professional or organization defendant? The next question is whether the defendant was reasonably careful given the circumstances—that is, did the physician meet the “standard of care”? This is sometimes described as whether the professional’s actions would be acceptable (ie, reasonably prudent within the profession or specialty). If there was negligence, then the next question is, did that negligence cause an injury to the plaintiff?¹⁵

Determining the standard of care. The nature of the expected standard of care is dependent, in part, on the potential consequences of an error. For example, the care required when there is a significant risk of death from an error would be considerably more cautious than for an error that might result in small property damage. In this case study, a mix-up error is likely to be less severe than death, but is very substantial in terms of emotional harm and disruption. Thus, considerable care and attention would be expected to avoid these errors. They should be a “never” event. Institutions and physicians should give considerable attention to their processes and procedures to avoid the possibility of a mix-up error.¹⁶

Where did the negligence occur? There is an old tort doctrine “Res ipsa loquitor” (RIL) that means, “The thing speaks for itself.” Although there are several technical rules around the application of RIL as a presumption of negligence, it comes down to the proposition that some injuries do not occur without negligence. A traditional medical example is the sponge left in a patient during surgery—ordinarily that does not happen without some negligence. For RIL to be applied, usually the mechanism by which the injury occurred had to be under the control of the defendant (or the agents of the defendant).

The “mix-up” of embryos is an example of the kind of error that would not likely occur without negligence.¹⁷ But the embryo may not be in the exclusive control of any 1 institution. For example, the mistake could be made by the IVF center (or its employees), a separate facility that has processed or cryogenically stored the genetic materials, and independent physicians (not employees or agents of the center). Therefore, it is necessary to pinpoint where the negligence occurred and who is legally responsible. In some cases, a health care provider must take steps to ensure that its contractors have sufficient safeguards to avoid unnecessary harms. For example, an IVF center that uses an external cryogenic storage facility may have some obligation to know that the genetic material returned to the center is the same material that the center provided the storage facility in the first place and is properly identified.¹⁸

Assessing damages

From the facts as we have them, it appears that there must have been negligence that caused the mix-up of the embryos in the original case. It also appears reasonably clear that the negligence resulted in harm to both sets of parents and their families. This would suggest that the families should recover substantial damages. But that, somewhat surprisingly, may not be the case.¹⁹ Several legal principles may limit the availability or size of damages in mix-up cases. Also, it is worth remembering that there are differences in how states treat the different types of damages in these cases. Although the case was filed in California, we’ll take a more national view of the damages issue.

Not all harm is treated as equal. The first problem facing plaintiffs in mix-up cases may be the fact that they have suffered only emotional harm, without any physical injury. Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to allow recovery in negligence for purely emotional injuries. Also “intentional” infliction of emotional distress does permit financial recovery, but generally “negligent” infliction of emotional harm traditionally has not. In part, this was because of the fear of unwarranted (and difficult-to-assess) claims of emotional harm that are not related to a physical harm. Some states developed a “zone of danger” exception (eg, where someone was almost hit by a car) or allowed some emotional injury recovery if there were “physical manifestations” of the emotional harm. In short, depending on the state’s rules, negligence that causes purely emotional harm may not be compensable.²⁰

State-based malpractice “caps.” Another limitation on emotional injuries is the “caps” on malpractice damages enacted by several states (including California, where this mix-up case occurred). Therefore, if a mix-up case is determined to be a malpractice case under state law, emotional suffering damages (which are non-economic damages) may be limited to the cap—$250,000 in California, for example—even if the state allows damages for emotional injuries without physical injuries.

The rare exception. Very careless labeling or handling of the identity of the embryo could at the extreme be considered gross negligence or recklessness. There are relatively inexpensive and easy procedures that could easily avoid what is likely to be significant harm to families (including emotional upset).²¹ Institutions that callously fail to use those procedures might be seen by some courts as reckless, or in outrageous cases, even intentional. An example would be the University of California Irvine Center for Reproductive Health case, in which physicians intentionally (without consent) used patients’ ova, fertilized them, and then implanted them in other patients, with at least 15 births, many lawsuits, and multimillion dollar settlements.²² In “intentional” cases, limitations on emotional injuries would usually not be major barriers to recovery of damages. However, those are legal stretches, and recovery is the exception rather than the rule.²³

Continue to: Additional legal concerns with IVF...

Additional legal concerns with IVF

Reproduction negligence cases include a large range of errors and injuries—not just embryo mix-ups. Courts have struggled with when it is appropriate to allow damages, even when there have been clear injuries. For the most part courts have been reluctant to find liability in many areas of new IVF technology.¹² One problem in determining how to assess damages is determining how incidental benefits should be used to offset some or all of the damages. For example, how should the joy of having a child offset the costs of raising the child?

There are more than a dozen kinds of current and likely future claims arising from problems with ART. It is tempting to conclude, “Oh, what a tangled legal web we weave when first we practice to artificially conceive.” There are various groupings of such claims, with several examples of cases presented in this article. It is not possible to consider those in detail in this article. As a general proposition, however, “our legal system treats wrongfully disrupted plans concerning reproduction like one of those life adversities that people are expected to abide without remedy.”²⁴

This is not to say, however, that there is no compensation for IVF-related injuries. Applebaum and colleagues found more than 100 cases in the 35 years covered by the study (1984-2020).⁸ However, only 50 of those cases fit the criteria for inclusion in their data. The successful cases for the plaintiffs involved medical or surgical error, while it appeared that various forms of wrongful life or birth were much less successful. It would be a mistake to conclude from these data that there are not, and will not be, meaningful risks of liability in the areas of IVF and ART more generally.

First, claims that fit with existing legal doctrine are producing liability. About half of the claims (25 over the 34 years) examined by Applebaum et al resulted in liability. Admittedly, that number was small because ART use was increasing. Where the claims fit well-recognized legal forms of damages and forms of action (primarily negligence), the liability could be substantial. A remarkable example of this is the case of Wuth v Lab. Corp (see “Liability for genetic testing errors”),²⁵ which was the largest verdict ($50 million) in the Applebaum and colleagues’ study.⁸ The large verdict was due to the failure of the testing company and a medical center to properly perform and assess a genetic test, which resulted in the birth of a child with an unbalanced chromosome translocation.^8,25 The child’s serious disabilities would require a great deal of expensive care. Although the jury held the testing laboratory and medical center liable, they did not find liability against the physician.²⁵ Ultimately, this case would be considered a failure of genetic testing rather than an IVF case.

Future challenges

The future is likely to bring substantially expanded IVF/ART liability for several reasons. ART is becoming more common. Although courts have struggled with how to apply existing liability rules to the new technologies and related novel legal claims, the absence of established legal principles into which IVF injuries fit will not last forever. The legal system eventually finds ways of adjusting old rules or adopting new ones to cover injuries from new technology.

Although IVF injuries that most people feel deserve compensation currently are not cognizable in law, that will undoubtedly change. Either the courts will find new ways of assessing ART claims, or state legislatures and Congress will step in with legislation. To date, Congress has been relatively “hands off” on the ART processes, with the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 being a notable exception.²⁴ This law requires ART programs to report success rates and directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to publish reported success rates and laboratory incidents. It also establishes a model state laboratory certification program.²⁴ The CDC has an outline of the work under the statute,²⁶ as well as state-specific data regarding ART²⁷ and lists of publications in key areas.²⁸ In addition there are various state laws related to recordkeeping, donor qualifications, licensing, and family law issues.²⁹ Ultimately, physicians, scientists, and legal professionals can perform a valuable role in helping to fashion IVF liability principles that are workable and reasonable, that will not interfere with the progress of medicine, and that will ensure that those injured through carelessness or bad medicine receive compensation. ●

CASE Embryo mix-up with 2 couples

A lawsuit was recently filed in California by a couple after the woman carried and gave birth to “the wrong child.” This was the second full-term pregnancy for the couple. The couple had undergone an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in October 2018. The next IVF cycle in 2019 led to the birth of a daughter on September 24, 2019, who is the subject of this case.¹

At the time of birth, the couple suspected something was wrong because the baby had “jet-black hair and a complexion that was darker” than their complexions. The couple eventually obtained a DNA test, which confirmed in November 2019 that this was not their biological child.¹

A few weeks later, they learned that another woman who went to the same IVF clinic gave birth to a female baby 1 week after their daughter was born. Similarly, that baby did not resemble the parents, and DNA testing confirmed the baby belonged to the first couple. The couples ultimately exchanged the babies.¹

The legal claim filed against the IVF center and its owner (an obstetrician) was for breach of contract, medical malpractice, and infliction of emotional distress, including experiencing “disassociation” on the part of the couple(s). Each couple felt they did not get to experience the birth of their biological child, and, of course there was considerable distress in the process of learning that the child was not theirs and exchanging the birth child for the biological child. In addition, the couple who filed the suit had another child (now age 7 years), who begged them to keep the baby to whom they gave birth. The couple also reported experiencing panic attacks as a result of the events.¹

Medical considerations

As of 2018, more than 8 million IVF babies had been born, with the first in 1978 in the United Kingdom.² Advances in science and technology have improved the process. Storage tanks now have alarms and several safeguards to monitor the level of liquid nitrogen and immediately notify key personnel if levels are low (FIGURES 1 and 2). Preimplantation genetic testing is also readily available to assess the embryo prior to transfer into the uterus and identify various genetic problems.

Guidelines for embryo straw labelling are provided by the College of American Pathologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) also provides guidelines. When an error occurs, disclosure is recommended and ethical and legal counsel should be involved. Failing to disclose can lead to professional penalties.⁴

Unfortunately, despite these advances and guidelines, embryo mix-ups like the one in the above case do occur and receive public notice (See “Cross country embryo mix-up cases”).^5,6 A report from the University of Nevada assessed liability for embryo mix-ups in US fertility practices from 2000 to 2020.⁷ They evaluated 184,015 IVF cycles with 176 claims. Payments were made to plaintiffs in 21 cases, resulting in $15 million of awarded damages (average award was $199,188).⁷ The most common problem was in the embryology laboratory with an overall incidence of 0.03% of the total number of IVF cycles.⁷ To avoid damages, the authors emphasized the importance of following labeling guidelines when storing embryos, considering a 2-step read-back method prior to embryo transfer, and offering genetic testing when a discrepancy is noted in the record (TABLE).⁷

Other medical liability considerations

Embryo mix-ups are not the only source of problems and potential liability in IVF. At the 2021 Association of Sexual and Reproductive Medicine Annual Meeting, Applebaum et al presented results from a comprehensive review of malpractice litigation involving IVF in the United States.⁸ Using the legal database NEXIS Uni they identified 50 cases between 1986 and 2020 (32% of which were filed in New York state). Common thematic elements among patient allegations were embryology errors (eg, lost or destroyed embryos or incorrect sperm or egg donor), errors in preimplantation genetics, surgical or medical errors/complications, or misdiagnosis (eg, sexually transmitted disease screening or malignancy).⁸ Overall, the most common plaintiff complaint was negligence (26 cases) due to informed consent–related issues (9 cases), wrongful life or birth (9 cases), or negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress (5 cases).⁸

In 48% of cases, the verdict was in favor of the defendant; it was for the plaintiff in 36% of cases and ongoing proceedings or partial judgement accounted for the remaining cases.⁸ Damages ranged from $4,171.45 to $50 million. The authors emphasized specific defense strategies, including the importance of careful labeling and handling of embryos, prompt disclosure when an error does occur, and awareness of the specific state statute(s) of limitations for medical malpractice claims.⁸

Continue to: Legal considerations...

The case at the beginning of this article is a “mix-up” case, in which an IVF center implanted the wrong embryo, resulting in the birth parents not being the biological parents.¹ As in that case, there may be (but are not always)^6,9 2 mix-ups, so that 2 couples have each other’s biological children. These cases may go unnoticed by the birth parent if the physical appearance is not unexpected and the parents never do genetic testing, or if the IVF center does not discover the error and inform the parents. Infrequently the cases make the news or the courts.^10,11

News accounts are not trials, and we do not suggest that all the facts discussed in news reports on the case described here are complete—or even accurate in the details reported. They are generally 1-sided, so there are other perspectives. To consider the legal issues, however, we will assume for discussion only that the facts are as they have been reported in the news coverage—with the understanding that the discovery and trial processes would undoubtedly bring to light many other important facts or corrections.

Negligence

Although there are several potential bases for liability (ie, contract or warranty claims, a form of product liability/defect) in mix-up and other artificial reproductive technology (ART), negligence or malpractice seem most likely.¹² “Negligence” here is intended to be simple negligence but may also include gross negligence or recklessness.

Although the incidence of errors in ART is unknown, there is limited evidence that suggests it is not a rare event. One study suggested >20% of fertility clinics knew of errors in processing or handling donor samples and embryos for implantation.¹³ Another study in the United Kingdom found that 1 in 1,000 IVF embryos were implanted in the wrong woman.¹⁴

Was there negligence? The first question in a malpractice or negligence-type action is, was there a professional relationship between the plaintiff who is claiming harm and the professional or organization defendant? The next question is whether the defendant was reasonably careful given the circumstances—that is, did the physician meet the “standard of care”? This is sometimes described as whether the professional’s actions would be acceptable (ie, reasonably prudent within the profession or specialty). If there was negligence, then the next question is, did that negligence cause an injury to the plaintiff?¹⁵

Determining the standard of care. The nature of the expected standard of care is dependent, in part, on the potential consequences of an error. For example, the care required when there is a significant risk of death from an error would be considerably more cautious than for an error that might result in small property damage. In this case study, a mix-up error is likely to be less severe than death, but is very substantial in terms of emotional harm and disruption. Thus, considerable care and attention would be expected to avoid these errors. They should be a “never” event. Institutions and physicians should give considerable attention to their processes and procedures to avoid the possibility of a mix-up error.¹⁶

Where did the negligence occur? There is an old tort doctrine “Res ipsa loquitor” (RIL) that means, “The thing speaks for itself.” Although there are several technical rules around the application of RIL as a presumption of negligence, it comes down to the proposition that some injuries do not occur without negligence. A traditional medical example is the sponge left in a patient during surgery—ordinarily that does not happen without some negligence. For RIL to be applied, usually the mechanism by which the injury occurred had to be under the control of the defendant (or the agents of the defendant).

The “mix-up” of embryos is an example of the kind of error that would not likely occur without negligence.¹⁷ But the embryo may not be in the exclusive control of any 1 institution. For example, the mistake could be made by the IVF center (or its employees), a separate facility that has processed or cryogenically stored the genetic materials, and independent physicians (not employees or agents of the center). Therefore, it is necessary to pinpoint where the negligence occurred and who is legally responsible. In some cases, a health care provider must take steps to ensure that its contractors have sufficient safeguards to avoid unnecessary harms. For example, an IVF center that uses an external cryogenic storage facility may have some obligation to know that the genetic material returned to the center is the same material that the center provided the storage facility in the first place and is properly identified.¹⁸

Assessing damages

From the facts as we have them, it appears that there must have been negligence that caused the mix-up of the embryos in the original case. It also appears reasonably clear that the negligence resulted in harm to both sets of parents and their families. This would suggest that the families should recover substantial damages. But that, somewhat surprisingly, may not be the case.¹⁹ Several legal principles may limit the availability or size of damages in mix-up cases. Also, it is worth remembering that there are differences in how states treat the different types of damages in these cases. Although the case was filed in California, we’ll take a more national view of the damages issue.

Not all harm is treated as equal. The first problem facing plaintiffs in mix-up cases may be the fact that they have suffered only emotional harm, without any physical injury. Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to allow recovery in negligence for purely emotional injuries. Also “intentional” infliction of emotional distress does permit financial recovery, but generally “negligent” infliction of emotional harm traditionally has not. In part, this was because of the fear of unwarranted (and difficult-to-assess) claims of emotional harm that are not related to a physical harm. Some states developed a “zone of danger” exception (eg, where someone was almost hit by a car) or allowed some emotional injury recovery if there were “physical manifestations” of the emotional harm. In short, depending on the state’s rules, negligence that causes purely emotional harm may not be compensable.²⁰

State-based malpractice “caps.” Another limitation on emotional injuries is the “caps” on malpractice damages enacted by several states (including California, where this mix-up case occurred). Therefore, if a mix-up case is determined to be a malpractice case under state law, emotional suffering damages (which are non-economic damages) may be limited to the cap—$250,000 in California, for example—even if the state allows damages for emotional injuries without physical injuries.

The rare exception. Very careless labeling or handling of the identity of the embryo could at the extreme be considered gross negligence or recklessness. There are relatively inexpensive and easy procedures that could easily avoid what is likely to be significant harm to families (including emotional upset).²¹ Institutions that callously fail to use those procedures might be seen by some courts as reckless, or in outrageous cases, even intentional. An example would be the University of California Irvine Center for Reproductive Health case, in which physicians intentionally (without consent) used patients’ ova, fertilized them, and then implanted them in other patients, with at least 15 births, many lawsuits, and multimillion dollar settlements.²² In “intentional” cases, limitations on emotional injuries would usually not be major barriers to recovery of damages. However, those are legal stretches, and recovery is the exception rather than the rule.²³

Continue to: Additional legal concerns with IVF...

Additional legal concerns with IVF

Reproduction negligence cases include a large range of errors and injuries—not just embryo mix-ups. Courts have struggled with when it is appropriate to allow damages, even when there have been clear injuries. For the most part courts have been reluctant to find liability in many areas of new IVF technology.¹² One problem in determining how to assess damages is determining how incidental benefits should be used to offset some or all of the damages. For example, how should the joy of having a child offset the costs of raising the child?

There are more than a dozen kinds of current and likely future claims arising from problems with ART. It is tempting to conclude, “Oh, what a tangled legal web we weave when first we practice to artificially conceive.” There are various groupings of such claims, with several examples of cases presented in this article. It is not possible to consider those in detail in this article. As a general proposition, however, “our legal system treats wrongfully disrupted plans concerning reproduction like one of those life adversities that people are expected to abide without remedy.”²⁴

This is not to say, however, that there is no compensation for IVF-related injuries. Applebaum and colleagues found more than 100 cases in the 35 years covered by the study (1984-2020).⁸ However, only 50 of those cases fit the criteria for inclusion in their data. The successful cases for the plaintiffs involved medical or surgical error, while it appeared that various forms of wrongful life or birth were much less successful. It would be a mistake to conclude from these data that there are not, and will not be, meaningful risks of liability in the areas of IVF and ART more generally.

First, claims that fit with existing legal doctrine are producing liability. About half of the claims (25 over the 34 years) examined by Applebaum et al resulted in liability. Admittedly, that number was small because ART use was increasing. Where the claims fit well-recognized legal forms of damages and forms of action (primarily negligence), the liability could be substantial. A remarkable example of this is the case of Wuth v Lab. Corp (see “Liability for genetic testing errors”),²⁵ which was the largest verdict ($50 million) in the Applebaum and colleagues’ study.⁸ The large verdict was due to the failure of the testing company and a medical center to properly perform and assess a genetic test, which resulted in the birth of a child with an unbalanced chromosome translocation.^8,25 The child’s serious disabilities would require a great deal of expensive care. Although the jury held the testing laboratory and medical center liable, they did not find liability against the physician.²⁵ Ultimately, this case would be considered a failure of genetic testing rather than an IVF case.

Future challenges

The future is likely to bring substantially expanded IVF/ART liability for several reasons. ART is becoming more common. Although courts have struggled with how to apply existing liability rules to the new technologies and related novel legal claims, the absence of established legal principles into which IVF injuries fit will not last forever. The legal system eventually finds ways of adjusting old rules or adopting new ones to cover injuries from new technology.

Although IVF injuries that most people feel deserve compensation currently are not cognizable in law, that will undoubtedly change. Either the courts will find new ways of assessing ART claims, or state legislatures and Congress will step in with legislation. To date, Congress has been relatively “hands off” on the ART processes, with the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 being a notable exception.²⁴ This law requires ART programs to report success rates and directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to publish reported success rates and laboratory incidents. It also establishes a model state laboratory certification program.²⁴ The CDC has an outline of the work under the statute,²⁶ as well as state-specific data regarding ART²⁷ and lists of publications in key areas.²⁸ In addition there are various state laws related to recordkeeping, donor qualifications, licensing, and family law issues.²⁹ Ultimately, physicians, scientists, and legal professionals can perform a valuable role in helping to fashion IVF liability principles that are workable and reasonable, that will not interfere with the progress of medicine, and that will ensure that those injured through carelessness or bad medicine receive compensation. ●

CASE Embryo mix-up with 2 couples

A lawsuit was recently filed in California by a couple after the woman carried and gave birth to “the wrong child.” This was the second full-term pregnancy for the couple. The couple had undergone an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in October 2018. The next IVF cycle in 2019 led to the birth of a daughter on September 24, 2019, who is the subject of this case.¹

At the time of birth, the couple suspected something was wrong because the baby had “jet-black hair and a complexion that was darker” than their complexions. The couple eventually obtained a DNA test, which confirmed in November 2019 that this was not their biological child.¹

A few weeks later, they learned that another woman who went to the same IVF clinic gave birth to a female baby 1 week after their daughter was born. Similarly, that baby did not resemble the parents, and DNA testing confirmed the baby belonged to the first couple. The couples ultimately exchanged the babies.¹

The legal claim filed against the IVF center and its owner (an obstetrician) was for breach of contract, medical malpractice, and infliction of emotional distress, including experiencing “disassociation” on the part of the couple(s). Each couple felt they did not get to experience the birth of their biological child, and, of course there was considerable distress in the process of learning that the child was not theirs and exchanging the birth child for the biological child. In addition, the couple who filed the suit had another child (now age 7 years), who begged them to keep the baby to whom they gave birth. The couple also reported experiencing panic attacks as a result of the events.¹

Medical considerations

As of 2018, more than 8 million IVF babies had been born, with the first in 1978 in the United Kingdom.² Advances in science and technology have improved the process. Storage tanks now have alarms and several safeguards to monitor the level of liquid nitrogen and immediately notify key personnel if levels are low (FIGURES 1 and 2). Preimplantation genetic testing is also readily available to assess the embryo prior to transfer into the uterus and identify various genetic problems.

Guidelines for embryo straw labelling are provided by the College of American Pathologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) also provides guidelines. When an error occurs, disclosure is recommended and ethical and legal counsel should be involved. Failing to disclose can lead to professional penalties.⁴

Unfortunately, despite these advances and guidelines, embryo mix-ups like the one in the above case do occur and receive public notice (See “Cross country embryo mix-up cases”).^5,6 A report from the University of Nevada assessed liability for embryo mix-ups in US fertility practices from 2000 to 2020.⁷ They evaluated 184,015 IVF cycles with 176 claims. Payments were made to plaintiffs in 21 cases, resulting in $15 million of awarded damages (average award was $199,188).⁷ The most common problem was in the embryology laboratory with an overall incidence of 0.03% of the total number of IVF cycles.⁷ To avoid damages, the authors emphasized the importance of following labeling guidelines when storing embryos, considering a 2-step read-back method prior to embryo transfer, and offering genetic testing when a discrepancy is noted in the record (TABLE).⁷

Other medical liability considerations

Embryo mix-ups are not the only source of problems and potential liability in IVF. At the 2021 Association of Sexual and Reproductive Medicine Annual Meeting, Applebaum et al presented results from a comprehensive review of malpractice litigation involving IVF in the United States.⁸ Using the legal database NEXIS Uni they identified 50 cases between 1986 and 2020 (32% of which were filed in New York state). Common thematic elements among patient allegations were embryology errors (eg, lost or destroyed embryos or incorrect sperm or egg donor), errors in preimplantation genetics, surgical or medical errors/complications, or misdiagnosis (eg, sexually transmitted disease screening or malignancy).⁸ Overall, the most common plaintiff complaint was negligence (26 cases) due to informed consent–related issues (9 cases), wrongful life or birth (9 cases), or negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress (5 cases).⁸

In 48% of cases, the verdict was in favor of the defendant; it was for the plaintiff in 36% of cases and ongoing proceedings or partial judgement accounted for the remaining cases.⁸ Damages ranged from $4,171.45 to $50 million. The authors emphasized specific defense strategies, including the importance of careful labeling and handling of embryos, prompt disclosure when an error does occur, and awareness of the specific state statute(s) of limitations for medical malpractice claims.⁸

Continue to: Legal considerations...

The case at the beginning of this article is a “mix-up” case, in which an IVF center implanted the wrong embryo, resulting in the birth parents not being the biological parents.¹ As in that case, there may be (but are not always)^6,9 2 mix-ups, so that 2 couples have each other’s biological children. These cases may go unnoticed by the birth parent if the physical appearance is not unexpected and the parents never do genetic testing, or if the IVF center does not discover the error and inform the parents. Infrequently the cases make the news or the courts.^10,11

News accounts are not trials, and we do not suggest that all the facts discussed in news reports on the case described here are complete—or even accurate in the details reported. They are generally 1-sided, so there are other perspectives. To consider the legal issues, however, we will assume for discussion only that the facts are as they have been reported in the news coverage—with the understanding that the discovery and trial processes would undoubtedly bring to light many other important facts or corrections.

Negligence

Although there are several potential bases for liability (ie, contract or warranty claims, a form of product liability/defect) in mix-up and other artificial reproductive technology (ART), negligence or malpractice seem most likely.¹² “Negligence” here is intended to be simple negligence but may also include gross negligence or recklessness.

Although the incidence of errors in ART is unknown, there is limited evidence that suggests it is not a rare event. One study suggested >20% of fertility clinics knew of errors in processing or handling donor samples and embryos for implantation.¹³ Another study in the United Kingdom found that 1 in 1,000 IVF embryos were implanted in the wrong woman.¹⁴

Was there negligence? The first question in a malpractice or negligence-type action is, was there a professional relationship between the plaintiff who is claiming harm and the professional or organization defendant? The next question is whether the defendant was reasonably careful given the circumstances—that is, did the physician meet the “standard of care”? This is sometimes described as whether the professional’s actions would be acceptable (ie, reasonably prudent within the profession or specialty). If there was negligence, then the next question is, did that negligence cause an injury to the plaintiff?¹⁵

Determining the standard of care. The nature of the expected standard of care is dependent, in part, on the potential consequences of an error. For example, the care required when there is a significant risk of death from an error would be considerably more cautious than for an error that might result in small property damage. In this case study, a mix-up error is likely to be less severe than death, but is very substantial in terms of emotional harm and disruption. Thus, considerable care and attention would be expected to avoid these errors. They should be a “never” event. Institutions and physicians should give considerable attention to their processes and procedures to avoid the possibility of a mix-up error.¹⁶

Where did the negligence occur? There is an old tort doctrine “Res ipsa loquitor” (RIL) that means, “The thing speaks for itself.” Although there are several technical rules around the application of RIL as a presumption of negligence, it comes down to the proposition that some injuries do not occur without negligence. A traditional medical example is the sponge left in a patient during surgery—ordinarily that does not happen without some negligence. For RIL to be applied, usually the mechanism by which the injury occurred had to be under the control of the defendant (or the agents of the defendant).

The “mix-up” of embryos is an example of the kind of error that would not likely occur without negligence.¹⁷ But the embryo may not be in the exclusive control of any 1 institution. For example, the mistake could be made by the IVF center (or its employees), a separate facility that has processed or cryogenically stored the genetic materials, and independent physicians (not employees or agents of the center). Therefore, it is necessary to pinpoint where the negligence occurred and who is legally responsible. In some cases, a health care provider must take steps to ensure that its contractors have sufficient safeguards to avoid unnecessary harms. For example, an IVF center that uses an external cryogenic storage facility may have some obligation to know that the genetic material returned to the center is the same material that the center provided the storage facility in the first place and is properly identified.¹⁸

Assessing damages

From the facts as we have them, it appears that there must have been negligence that caused the mix-up of the embryos in the original case. It also appears reasonably clear that the negligence resulted in harm to both sets of parents and their families. This would suggest that the families should recover substantial damages. But that, somewhat surprisingly, may not be the case.¹⁹ Several legal principles may limit the availability or size of damages in mix-up cases. Also, it is worth remembering that there are differences in how states treat the different types of damages in these cases. Although the case was filed in California, we’ll take a more national view of the damages issue.

Not all harm is treated as equal. The first problem facing plaintiffs in mix-up cases may be the fact that they have suffered only emotional harm, without any physical injury. Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to allow recovery in negligence for purely emotional injuries. Also “intentional” infliction of emotional distress does permit financial recovery, but generally “negligent” infliction of emotional harm traditionally has not. In part, this was because of the fear of unwarranted (and difficult-to-assess) claims of emotional harm that are not related to a physical harm. Some states developed a “zone of danger” exception (eg, where someone was almost hit by a car) or allowed some emotional injury recovery if there were “physical manifestations” of the emotional harm. In short, depending on the state’s rules, negligence that causes purely emotional harm may not be compensable.²⁰

State-based malpractice “caps.” Another limitation on emotional injuries is the “caps” on malpractice damages enacted by several states (including California, where this mix-up case occurred). Therefore, if a mix-up case is determined to be a malpractice case under state law, emotional suffering damages (which are non-economic damages) may be limited to the cap—$250,000 in California, for example—even if the state allows damages for emotional injuries without physical injuries.

The rare exception. Very careless labeling or handling of the identity of the embryo could at the extreme be considered gross negligence or recklessness. There are relatively inexpensive and easy procedures that could easily avoid what is likely to be significant harm to families (including emotional upset).²¹ Institutions that callously fail to use those procedures might be seen by some courts as reckless, or in outrageous cases, even intentional. An example would be the University of California Irvine Center for Reproductive Health case, in which physicians intentionally (without consent) used patients’ ova, fertilized them, and then implanted them in other patients, with at least 15 births, many lawsuits, and multimillion dollar settlements.²² In “intentional” cases, limitations on emotional injuries would usually not be major barriers to recovery of damages. However, those are legal stretches, and recovery is the exception rather than the rule.²³

Continue to: Additional legal concerns with IVF...

Additional legal concerns with IVF

Reproduction negligence cases include a large range of errors and injuries—not just embryo mix-ups. Courts have struggled with when it is appropriate to allow damages, even when there have been clear injuries. For the most part courts have been reluctant to find liability in many areas of new IVF technology.¹² One problem in determining how to assess damages is determining how incidental benefits should be used to offset some or all of the damages. For example, how should the joy of having a child offset the costs of raising the child?

There are more than a dozen kinds of current and likely future claims arising from problems with ART. It is tempting to conclude, “Oh, what a tangled legal web we weave when first we practice to artificially conceive.” There are various groupings of such claims, with several examples of cases presented in this article. It is not possible to consider those in detail in this article. As a general proposition, however, “our legal system treats wrongfully disrupted plans concerning reproduction like one of those life adversities that people are expected to abide without remedy.”²⁴

This is not to say, however, that there is no compensation for IVF-related injuries. Applebaum and colleagues found more than 100 cases in the 35 years covered by the study (1984-2020).⁸ However, only 50 of those cases fit the criteria for inclusion in their data. The successful cases for the plaintiffs involved medical or surgical error, while it appeared that various forms of wrongful life or birth were much less successful. It would be a mistake to conclude from these data that there are not, and will not be, meaningful risks of liability in the areas of IVF and ART more generally.

First, claims that fit with existing legal doctrine are producing liability. About half of the claims (25 over the 34 years) examined by Applebaum et al resulted in liability. Admittedly, that number was small because ART use was increasing. Where the claims fit well-recognized legal forms of damages and forms of action (primarily negligence), the liability could be substantial. A remarkable example of this is the case of Wuth v Lab. Corp (see “Liability for genetic testing errors”),²⁵ which was the largest verdict ($50 million) in the Applebaum and colleagues’ study.⁸ The large verdict was due to the failure of the testing company and a medical center to properly perform and assess a genetic test, which resulted in the birth of a child with an unbalanced chromosome translocation.^8,25 The child’s serious disabilities would require a great deal of expensive care. Although the jury held the testing laboratory and medical center liable, they did not find liability against the physician.²⁵ Ultimately, this case would be considered a failure of genetic testing rather than an IVF case.

Future challenges

The future is likely to bring substantially expanded IVF/ART liability for several reasons. ART is becoming more common. Although courts have struggled with how to apply existing liability rules to the new technologies and related novel legal claims, the absence of established legal principles into which IVF injuries fit will not last forever. The legal system eventually finds ways of adjusting old rules or adopting new ones to cover injuries from new technology.

Although IVF injuries that most people feel deserve compensation currently are not cognizable in law, that will undoubtedly change. Either the courts will find new ways of assessing ART claims, or state legislatures and Congress will step in with legislation. To date, Congress has been relatively “hands off” on the ART processes, with the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 being a notable exception.²⁴ This law requires ART programs to report success rates and directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to publish reported success rates and laboratory incidents. It also establishes a model state laboratory certification program.²⁴ The CDC has an outline of the work under the statute,²⁶ as well as state-specific data regarding ART²⁷ and lists of publications in key areas.²⁸ In addition there are various state laws related to recordkeeping, donor qualifications, licensing, and family law issues.²⁹ Ultimately, physicians, scientists, and legal professionals can perform a valuable role in helping to fashion IVF liability principles that are workable and reasonable, that will not interfere with the progress of medicine, and that will ensure that those injured through carelessness or bad medicine receive compensation. ●

She was a 20-year-old barista when we first met, working her way through college.

I was a newly minted attending physician. I’d stopped at the place she worked for coffee on the way to my office. When I got up to the front she was wearing sunglasses and apologized for them. She said she was having bad headaches, and couldn’t get into a doctor she’d been referred to. Feeling bad for her, and needing patients, I handed her my card.

She showed up a few days later, a little nervous as she’d never met a “regular” outside the coffee place before, and had brought her sister along for support.

She was back last week. Now she’s head of human resources for the same chain of local coffee shops. She’s married, with kids, a mortgage, and a minivan.

We were talking about our chance meeting and reminiscing. Her migraines had taken a few medication trials to control, but after a year or 2 we’d found the right one for her and she’s been on it since.

Like many of my longtime patients, she moved past calling me “doctor” long ago. Our one to two visits a year are now more social than medical, chatting about our kids, dogs, and lives.

The same passage of time that brings us from grade school, to medical school, to medical practice takes others along with it. We may not see the changes of days, but when they drop by only once a year it’s obvious. Just like the way we don’t see daily changes in family and friends, but when we look at old pictures we’re shocked by how different they (not to mention ourselves) look.

We all follow the same course around the sun, usually facing the same milestones and similar memories on the trip. Our long-term patients, like distant relatives, may only come by infrequently, so the changes are greater. I’m sure they say the same things about me. “I saw Dr. Block today; boy, he’s really gone gray.”

I don’t mind that (too much) anymore. My thinning, graying, hair (I hope) makes me look a little more distinguished, although my complete lack of fashion sense more than goes the other way.

The river only goes in one direction, carrying us, our patients, and our families, all along with it. We often lose track of time’s effects on us until we see the changes it has brought to another.

It’s always a good reminder to pause and remember to enjoy the ride.

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

She was a 20-year-old barista when we first met, working her way through college.

I was a newly minted attending physician. I’d stopped at the place she worked for coffee on the way to my office. When I got up to the front she was wearing sunglasses and apologized for them. She said she was having bad headaches, and couldn’t get into a doctor she’d been referred to. Feeling bad for her, and needing patients, I handed her my card.

She showed up a few days later, a little nervous as she’d never met a “regular” outside the coffee place before, and had brought her sister along for support.

She was back last week. Now she’s head of human resources for the same chain of local coffee shops. She’s married, with kids, a mortgage, and a minivan.

We were talking about our chance meeting and reminiscing. Her migraines had taken a few medication trials to control, but after a year or 2 we’d found the right one for her and she’s been on it since.

Like many of my longtime patients, she moved past calling me “doctor” long ago. Our one to two visits a year are now more social than medical, chatting about our kids, dogs, and lives.

The same passage of time that brings us from grade school, to medical school, to medical practice takes others along with it. We may not see the changes of days, but when they drop by only once a year it’s obvious. Just like the way we don’t see daily changes in family and friends, but when we look at old pictures we’re shocked by how different they (not to mention ourselves) look.

We all follow the same course around the sun, usually facing the same milestones and similar memories on the trip. Our long-term patients, like distant relatives, may only come by infrequently, so the changes are greater. I’m sure they say the same things about me. “I saw Dr. Block today; boy, he’s really gone gray.”

I don’t mind that (too much) anymore. My thinning, graying, hair (I hope) makes me look a little more distinguished, although my complete lack of fashion sense more than goes the other way.

The river only goes in one direction, carrying us, our patients, and our families, all along with it. We often lose track of time’s effects on us until we see the changes it has brought to another.

It’s always a good reminder to pause and remember to enjoy the ride.

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

She was a 20-year-old barista when we first met, working her way through college.

I was a newly minted attending physician. I’d stopped at the place she worked for coffee on the way to my office. When I got up to the front she was wearing sunglasses and apologized for them. She said she was having bad headaches, and couldn’t get into a doctor she’d been referred to. Feeling bad for her, and needing patients, I handed her my card.

She showed up a few days later, a little nervous as she’d never met a “regular” outside the coffee place before, and had brought her sister along for support.

She was back last week. Now she’s head of human resources for the same chain of local coffee shops. She’s married, with kids, a mortgage, and a minivan.

We were talking about our chance meeting and reminiscing. Her migraines had taken a few medication trials to control, but after a year or 2 we’d found the right one for her and she’s been on it since.

Like many of my longtime patients, she moved past calling me “doctor” long ago. Our one to two visits a year are now more social than medical, chatting about our kids, dogs, and lives.

The same passage of time that brings us from grade school, to medical school, to medical practice takes others along with it. We may not see the changes of days, but when they drop by only once a year it’s obvious. Just like the way we don’t see daily changes in family and friends, but when we look at old pictures we’re shocked by how different they (not to mention ourselves) look.

We all follow the same course around the sun, usually facing the same milestones and similar memories on the trip. Our long-term patients, like distant relatives, may only come by infrequently, so the changes are greater. I’m sure they say the same things about me. “I saw Dr. Block today; boy, he’s really gone gray.”

I don’t mind that (too much) anymore. My thinning, graying, hair (I hope) makes me look a little more distinguished, although my complete lack of fashion sense more than goes the other way.

The river only goes in one direction, carrying us, our patients, and our families, all along with it. We often lose track of time’s effects on us until we see the changes it has brought to another.

It’s always a good reminder to pause and remember to enjoy the ride.

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

More than forty percent (42%) of primary care providers (PCPs) say they have been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Primary Care Physician Malpractice Report 2021. This figure is less than the overall proportion of physicians in all specialties named in a malpractice suit (51%).

More PCPs were part of lawsuits that named multiple parties (34%) than suits that named a individual practitioners (11%). Failure to make a proper diagnosis (41%) was the most common claim in malpractice suits against PCPs, followed by poor outcome/disease progression (26%), complications from treatment/surgery (17%), wrongful death (16%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

The report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21, 2021, to August 28, 2021, and included 732 family and internal medicine physicians. Most respondents had practiced medicine for more than 25 years (47%) or from 21-25 years (16%). Almost half of respondents (47%) were aged 60 years or older.

Most PCPs (63%) reported malpractice insurance premiums of less than $20,000 per year, which is more than the overall proportion for all specialists (52%). The typical premium for PCPs was $5,000-$9,999 (26%). Premium payments varied widely by geographic area, with a PCP in New York paying five times as much as a colleague in California, Tennessee, or Ohio would pay to obtain comparable coverage, the survey found.

More than 9 in 10 PCPs (91%) reported being “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” to having been part of a malpractice suit and reported being upset and anxious: “Feeling betrayed by people to whom I had provided good care, and embarrassed that my colleagues might find out,” as one internist put it. The majority (84%) of PCPs said their lawsuits were unwarranted, in line with perceptions among all specialists (83%).

The largest proportions of cases were settled before trial (35%) or were dismissed within a few months of lawsuit filing (16%). A judge or jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor only 2% of the time. Seven percent of cases are ongoing, and 3% were settled at trial, according to the survey.

The largest number of cases (40%) took between 1 and 2 years, although 30% were less than a year. Roughly one in four cases (24%) lasted 3-5 years. Almost half (47%) of any monetary payments to plaintiffs were $100,000 or less; one-third of such payments were capped at $500,000.

Two-thirds (68%) of PCPs said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their careers, and more than one in four (28%) said they now no longer trust patients or that they treat them differently. This change in trust is slightly higher than for specialists overall (24%).

More than 4 in 10 PCPs (41%) said they would have done nothing differently despite being sued. The largest proportion of changes other PCPs would have made included improved documentation (18%) and ordering additional tests as a hedge against a lawsuit (11%); 10% said they should never have taken on the patient in the first place.

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

More than forty percent (42%) of primary care providers (PCPs) say they have been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Primary Care Physician Malpractice Report 2021. This figure is less than the overall proportion of physicians in all specialties named in a malpractice suit (51%).

More PCPs were part of lawsuits that named multiple parties (34%) than suits that named a individual practitioners (11%). Failure to make a proper diagnosis (41%) was the most common claim in malpractice suits against PCPs, followed by poor outcome/disease progression (26%), complications from treatment/surgery (17%), wrongful death (16%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

The report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21, 2021, to August 28, 2021, and included 732 family and internal medicine physicians. Most respondents had practiced medicine for more than 25 years (47%) or from 21-25 years (16%). Almost half of respondents (47%) were aged 60 years or older.

Most PCPs (63%) reported malpractice insurance premiums of less than $20,000 per year, which is more than the overall proportion for all specialists (52%). The typical premium for PCPs was $5,000-$9,999 (26%). Premium payments varied widely by geographic area, with a PCP in New York paying five times as much as a colleague in California, Tennessee, or Ohio would pay to obtain comparable coverage, the survey found.

More than 9 in 10 PCPs (91%) reported being “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” to having been part of a malpractice suit and reported being upset and anxious: “Feeling betrayed by people to whom I had provided good care, and embarrassed that my colleagues might find out,” as one internist put it. The majority (84%) of PCPs said their lawsuits were unwarranted, in line with perceptions among all specialists (83%).

The largest proportions of cases were settled before trial (35%) or were dismissed within a few months of lawsuit filing (16%). A judge or jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor only 2% of the time. Seven percent of cases are ongoing, and 3% were settled at trial, according to the survey.

The largest number of cases (40%) took between 1 and 2 years, although 30% were less than a year. Roughly one in four cases (24%) lasted 3-5 years. Almost half (47%) of any monetary payments to plaintiffs were $100,000 or less; one-third of such payments were capped at $500,000.

Two-thirds (68%) of PCPs said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their careers, and more than one in four (28%) said they now no longer trust patients or that they treat them differently. This change in trust is slightly higher than for specialists overall (24%).

More than 4 in 10 PCPs (41%) said they would have done nothing differently despite being sued. The largest proportion of changes other PCPs would have made included improved documentation (18%) and ordering additional tests as a hedge against a lawsuit (11%); 10% said they should never have taken on the patient in the first place.

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

More than forty percent (42%) of primary care providers (PCPs) say they have been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Primary Care Physician Malpractice Report 2021. This figure is less than the overall proportion of physicians in all specialties named in a malpractice suit (51%).

More PCPs were part of lawsuits that named multiple parties (34%) than suits that named a individual practitioners (11%). Failure to make a proper diagnosis (41%) was the most common claim in malpractice suits against PCPs, followed by poor outcome/disease progression (26%), complications from treatment/surgery (17%), wrongful death (16%), and failure to treat/delayed treatment (16%).

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

The report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21, 2021, to August 28, 2021, and included 732 family and internal medicine physicians. Most respondents had practiced medicine for more than 25 years (47%) or from 21-25 years (16%). Almost half of respondents (47%) were aged 60 years or older.

Most PCPs (63%) reported malpractice insurance premiums of less than $20,000 per year, which is more than the overall proportion for all specialists (52%). The typical premium for PCPs was $5,000-$9,999 (26%). Premium payments varied widely by geographic area, with a PCP in New York paying five times as much as a colleague in California, Tennessee, or Ohio would pay to obtain comparable coverage, the survey found.

More than 9 in 10 PCPs (91%) reported being “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” to having been part of a malpractice suit and reported being upset and anxious: “Feeling betrayed by people to whom I had provided good care, and embarrassed that my colleagues might find out,” as one internist put it. The majority (84%) of PCPs said their lawsuits were unwarranted, in line with perceptions among all specialists (83%).

The largest proportions of cases were settled before trial (35%) or were dismissed within a few months of lawsuit filing (16%). A judge or jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor only 2% of the time. Seven percent of cases are ongoing, and 3% were settled at trial, according to the survey.

The largest number of cases (40%) took between 1 and 2 years, although 30% were less than a year. Roughly one in four cases (24%) lasted 3-5 years. Almost half (47%) of any monetary payments to plaintiffs were $100,000 or less; one-third of such payments were capped at $500,000.

Two-thirds (68%) of PCPs said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their careers, and more than one in four (28%) said they now no longer trust patients or that they treat them differently. This change in trust is slightly higher than for specialists overall (24%).

More than 4 in 10 PCPs (41%) said they would have done nothing differently despite being sued. The largest proportion of changes other PCPs would have made included improved documentation (18%) and ordering additional tests as a hedge against a lawsuit (11%); 10% said they should never have taken on the patient in the first place.

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

The world’s most valuable mouse

You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!

We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.

Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay

BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.

BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.

Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.

If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
 

Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces

Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?

Amandad/Pixabay

For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.

“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.

Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?

And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.

“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.

About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.

As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
 

Raise a glass to delinquency

You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.

PxHere

Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.

The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.

An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!

If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
 

A ‘dirty’ scam

Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.

Nandan/Pixahive

A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.

That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.

“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.

After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.

As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.

The world’s most valuable mouse

You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!

We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.

Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay

BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.

BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.

Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.

If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
 

Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces

Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?

Amandad/Pixabay

For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.

“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.

Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?

And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.

“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.

About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.

As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
 

Raise a glass to delinquency

You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.

PxHere

Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.

The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.

An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!

If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
 

A ‘dirty’ scam

Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.

Nandan/Pixahive

A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.

That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.

“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.

After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.

As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.

The world’s most valuable mouse

You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!

We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.

Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay

BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.

BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.

Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.

If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
 

Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces

Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?

Amandad/Pixabay

For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.

“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.

Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?

And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.

“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.

About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.

As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
 

Raise a glass to delinquency

You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.

PxHere

Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.

The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.

An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!

If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
 

A ‘dirty’ scam

Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.

Nandan/Pixahive

A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.

That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.

“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.

After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.

As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.