Business of Medicine

I am hearing more and more often from colleagues about the number of rheumatologists taking early retirement because of the frustration of having doctor-patient shared decision-making taken out of their hands and given to the insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Often the right medication for the patient is not available on the formulary, causing unnecessary administrative barriers to providing care. When you put that together with the decreased reimbursement and the many obstacles to the “buy-and-bill” model, many rheumatologists have just had enough and called it quits earlier than they thought they would. This is a significant contributor to the growing workforce problem in rheumatology.

Many of the issues affecting the availability of medications happen throughout the development and distribution of a drug treatment – regulatory approval and obstacles to commercial launch, such as patent thickets, “pay for delay,” and other anticompetitive tactics by the manufacturers. And once a medication is launched on to the marketplace, rheumatologists are at the mercy of the health plans and PBMs as to whether, when, and even where a medication can be used. Here is where much of the frustration begins, amplified by the knowledge that profit for the PBM is the driving force behind formulary construction.
 

To support rheumatologists in addressing these challenges, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations started a “Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues” page. Here, rheumatologists can describe issues or complaints they have with payers regarding patient care. The responses we’ve received so far always have a sense of urgency and frustration in the description of whatever obstacle to care is being thrown up by an insurance company or PBM.

One of the recent issues that has arisen via the CSRO’s reporting form involves a new policy for an insurance plan that removes the availability of the intravenous formulation of a medication if it has a subcutaneous (sub Q) formulation. It is a commercial version of the Medicare self-administered drug list, but worse. At least Medicare takes the time to look at the actual usage of a formulation before moving it from Part B to Part D. This new policy flatly states that no patients will have access to the IV formulation until the sub Q formulation has been tried. This includes switching all stable IV patients over to the sub Q formulation. Because the IV formulation is weight based, switching patients from IV to sub Q can reduce their dosage by more than 50%. It appears that loss of disease control is a small price to pay for increased PBM profits (called “savings” by the PBM). Notably, IV medications through physician “buy and bill” offer no revenue to the insurance company, while sub Q medications increase profits through rebates, fees, and other price concessions.

The CSRO outlined these concerns in its Jan. 18, 2022, response to the insurance company’s reply to the coalition’s original letter, urging them to value patients over profits. In this response, the CSRO addressed nonmedical switching, site of care cost, outcome documentation, and grandfathering stable patients, and finished with a discussion on ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) protections.

While our Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues form cannot handle reimbursement issues, there needs to be a word about money and profit when it comes to physicians. Physicians whose specialties have few to no procedures, including rheumatologists, rely on office visits and ancillary services such as infusion suites for income. That income sustains their practice and maintains all their attendant expenses. Many of the recent policies put forth by health plans not only intrude on the doctor-patient relationship in treatment decisions, but also reduce reimbursements and place obstacles to “buy and bill,” shifting revenue from the physician to the insurance company.

All these insurance/payer issues boil down to a version of “death by a thousand cuts.” These cuts harm patients and impede rheumatologists’ ability to sustain their practices. They are a type of moral injury (among the many we see in health care providers) that are causing rheumatologists to retire early. Clearly, these issues ultimately affect the workforce. We need advocacy on many levels if we have any hope of dulling the knives that are delivering these “cuts.”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

I am hearing more and more often from colleagues about the number of rheumatologists taking early retirement because of the frustration of having doctor-patient shared decision-making taken out of their hands and given to the insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Often the right medication for the patient is not available on the formulary, causing unnecessary administrative barriers to providing care. When you put that together with the decreased reimbursement and the many obstacles to the “buy-and-bill” model, many rheumatologists have just had enough and called it quits earlier than they thought they would. This is a significant contributor to the growing workforce problem in rheumatology.

Many of the issues affecting the availability of medications happen throughout the development and distribution of a drug treatment – regulatory approval and obstacles to commercial launch, such as patent thickets, “pay for delay,” and other anticompetitive tactics by the manufacturers. And once a medication is launched on to the marketplace, rheumatologists are at the mercy of the health plans and PBMs as to whether, when, and even where a medication can be used. Here is where much of the frustration begins, amplified by the knowledge that profit for the PBM is the driving force behind formulary construction.
 

To support rheumatologists in addressing these challenges, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations started a “Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues” page. Here, rheumatologists can describe issues or complaints they have with payers regarding patient care. The responses we’ve received so far always have a sense of urgency and frustration in the description of whatever obstacle to care is being thrown up by an insurance company or PBM.

One of the recent issues that has arisen via the CSRO’s reporting form involves a new policy for an insurance plan that removes the availability of the intravenous formulation of a medication if it has a subcutaneous (sub Q) formulation. It is a commercial version of the Medicare self-administered drug list, but worse. At least Medicare takes the time to look at the actual usage of a formulation before moving it from Part B to Part D. This new policy flatly states that no patients will have access to the IV formulation until the sub Q formulation has been tried. This includes switching all stable IV patients over to the sub Q formulation. Because the IV formulation is weight based, switching patients from IV to sub Q can reduce their dosage by more than 50%. It appears that loss of disease control is a small price to pay for increased PBM profits (called “savings” by the PBM). Notably, IV medications through physician “buy and bill” offer no revenue to the insurance company, while sub Q medications increase profits through rebates, fees, and other price concessions.

The CSRO outlined these concerns in its Jan. 18, 2022, response to the insurance company’s reply to the coalition’s original letter, urging them to value patients over profits. In this response, the CSRO addressed nonmedical switching, site of care cost, outcome documentation, and grandfathering stable patients, and finished with a discussion on ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) protections.

While our Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues form cannot handle reimbursement issues, there needs to be a word about money and profit when it comes to physicians. Physicians whose specialties have few to no procedures, including rheumatologists, rely on office visits and ancillary services such as infusion suites for income. That income sustains their practice and maintains all their attendant expenses. Many of the recent policies put forth by health plans not only intrude on the doctor-patient relationship in treatment decisions, but also reduce reimbursements and place obstacles to “buy and bill,” shifting revenue from the physician to the insurance company.

All these insurance/payer issues boil down to a version of “death by a thousand cuts.” These cuts harm patients and impede rheumatologists’ ability to sustain their practices. They are a type of moral injury (among the many we see in health care providers) that are causing rheumatologists to retire early. Clearly, these issues ultimately affect the workforce. We need advocacy on many levels if we have any hope of dulling the knives that are delivering these “cuts.”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

I am hearing more and more often from colleagues about the number of rheumatologists taking early retirement because of the frustration of having doctor-patient shared decision-making taken out of their hands and given to the insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Often the right medication for the patient is not available on the formulary, causing unnecessary administrative barriers to providing care. When you put that together with the decreased reimbursement and the many obstacles to the “buy-and-bill” model, many rheumatologists have just had enough and called it quits earlier than they thought they would. This is a significant contributor to the growing workforce problem in rheumatology.

Many of the issues affecting the availability of medications happen throughout the development and distribution of a drug treatment – regulatory approval and obstacles to commercial launch, such as patent thickets, “pay for delay,” and other anticompetitive tactics by the manufacturers. And once a medication is launched on to the marketplace, rheumatologists are at the mercy of the health plans and PBMs as to whether, when, and even where a medication can be used. Here is where much of the frustration begins, amplified by the knowledge that profit for the PBM is the driving force behind formulary construction.
 

To support rheumatologists in addressing these challenges, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations started a “Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues” page. Here, rheumatologists can describe issues or complaints they have with payers regarding patient care. The responses we’ve received so far always have a sense of urgency and frustration in the description of whatever obstacle to care is being thrown up by an insurance company or PBM.

One of the recent issues that has arisen via the CSRO’s reporting form involves a new policy for an insurance plan that removes the availability of the intravenous formulation of a medication if it has a subcutaneous (sub Q) formulation. It is a commercial version of the Medicare self-administered drug list, but worse. At least Medicare takes the time to look at the actual usage of a formulation before moving it from Part B to Part D. This new policy flatly states that no patients will have access to the IV formulation until the sub Q formulation has been tried. This includes switching all stable IV patients over to the sub Q formulation. Because the IV formulation is weight based, switching patients from IV to sub Q can reduce their dosage by more than 50%. It appears that loss of disease control is a small price to pay for increased PBM profits (called “savings” by the PBM). Notably, IV medications through physician “buy and bill” offer no revenue to the insurance company, while sub Q medications increase profits through rebates, fees, and other price concessions.

The CSRO outlined these concerns in its Jan. 18, 2022, response to the insurance company’s reply to the coalition’s original letter, urging them to value patients over profits. In this response, the CSRO addressed nonmedical switching, site of care cost, outcome documentation, and grandfathering stable patients, and finished with a discussion on ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) protections.

While our Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues form cannot handle reimbursement issues, there needs to be a word about money and profit when it comes to physicians. Physicians whose specialties have few to no procedures, including rheumatologists, rely on office visits and ancillary services such as infusion suites for income. That income sustains their practice and maintains all their attendant expenses. Many of the recent policies put forth by health plans not only intrude on the doctor-patient relationship in treatment decisions, but also reduce reimbursements and place obstacles to “buy and bill,” shifting revenue from the physician to the insurance company.

All these insurance/payer issues boil down to a version of “death by a thousand cuts.” These cuts harm patients and impede rheumatologists’ ability to sustain their practices. They are a type of moral injury (among the many we see in health care providers) that are causing rheumatologists to retire early. Clearly, these issues ultimately affect the workforce. We need advocacy on many levels if we have any hope of dulling the knives that are delivering these “cuts.”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

A patient swore at me the other day. Not as in “she used a curse word.” As in she spewed fury, spitting out a vulgar, adverbial word before “... terrible doctor” while jabbing her finger toward me. In my 15 years of practice, I’d never had that happen before. Equally surprising, I was not surprised by her outburst. The level of incivility from patients is at an all-time high.

Her anger was misdirected. She wanted me to write a letter to her employer excusing her from getting a vaccine. It was neither indicated nor ethical for me to do so. I did my best to redirect her, but without success. As our chief of service, I often help with service concerns and am happy to see patients who want another opinion or want to speak with the department head (aka, “the manager”). Usually I can help. Lately, it’s become harder.

Not only are such rude incidents more frequent, but they are also more dramatic and inappropriate. For example, I cannot imagine writing a complaint against a doctor stating that she must be a foreign medical grad (as it happens, she’s Ivy League-trained) or demanding money back when a biopsy result turned out to be benign, or threatening to report a doctor to the medical board because he failed to schedule a follow-up appointment (that doctor had been retired for months). Patients have hung up on our staff mid-sentence and slammed a clinic door when they left in a huff. Why are so many previously sensible people throwing childlike tantrums?

It’s the same phenomenon happening to our fellow service agents across all industries. The Federal Aviation Administration’s graph of unruly passenger incidents is a flat line from 1995 to 2019, then it goes straight vertical. A recent survey showed that Americans’ sense of civility is low and worse, that people’s expectations that civility will improve is going down. It’s palpable. Last month, I witnessed a man and woman screaming at each other over Christmas lights in a busy store. An army of aproned walkie-talkie staff surrounded them and escorted them out – their coordination and efficiency clearly indicated they’d done this before. Customers everywhere are mad, frustrated, disenfranchised. Lately, a lot of things just are not working out for them. Supplies are out. Kids are sent home from school. No elective surgery appointments are available. The insta-gratification they’ve grown accustomed to from Amazon and DoorDash is colliding with the reality that not everything works that way.

The word “patient’’ you’ll recall comes from the Latin “patior,” meaning to suffer or bear. With virus variants raging, inflation growing, and call center wait times approaching infinity, many of our patients, it seems, cannot bear any more. I’m confident this situation will improve and our patients will be more reasonable in their expectations, but I am afraid that, in the end, we’ll have lost some decorum and dignity that we may never find again in medicine.

For my potty-mouthed patient, I made an excuse to leave the room to get my dermatoscope and walked out. It gave her time to calm down. I returned in a few minutes to do a skin exam. As I was wrapping up, I advised her that she cannot raise her voice or use offensive language and that she should know that I and everyone in our office cares about her and wants to help. She did apologize for her behavior, but then had to add that, if I really cared, I’d write the letter for her.

I guess the customer is not always right.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

A patient swore at me the other day. Not as in “she used a curse word.” As in she spewed fury, spitting out a vulgar, adverbial word before “... terrible doctor” while jabbing her finger toward me. In my 15 years of practice, I’d never had that happen before. Equally surprising, I was not surprised by her outburst. The level of incivility from patients is at an all-time high.

Her anger was misdirected. She wanted me to write a letter to her employer excusing her from getting a vaccine. It was neither indicated nor ethical for me to do so. I did my best to redirect her, but without success. As our chief of service, I often help with service concerns and am happy to see patients who want another opinion or want to speak with the department head (aka, “the manager”). Usually I can help. Lately, it’s become harder.

Not only are such rude incidents more frequent, but they are also more dramatic and inappropriate. For example, I cannot imagine writing a complaint against a doctor stating that she must be a foreign medical grad (as it happens, she’s Ivy League-trained) or demanding money back when a biopsy result turned out to be benign, or threatening to report a doctor to the medical board because he failed to schedule a follow-up appointment (that doctor had been retired for months). Patients have hung up on our staff mid-sentence and slammed a clinic door when they left in a huff. Why are so many previously sensible people throwing childlike tantrums?

It’s the same phenomenon happening to our fellow service agents across all industries. The Federal Aviation Administration’s graph of unruly passenger incidents is a flat line from 1995 to 2019, then it goes straight vertical. A recent survey showed that Americans’ sense of civility is low and worse, that people’s expectations that civility will improve is going down. It’s palpable. Last month, I witnessed a man and woman screaming at each other over Christmas lights in a busy store. An army of aproned walkie-talkie staff surrounded them and escorted them out – their coordination and efficiency clearly indicated they’d done this before. Customers everywhere are mad, frustrated, disenfranchised. Lately, a lot of things just are not working out for them. Supplies are out. Kids are sent home from school. No elective surgery appointments are available. The insta-gratification they’ve grown accustomed to from Amazon and DoorDash is colliding with the reality that not everything works that way.

The word “patient’’ you’ll recall comes from the Latin “patior,” meaning to suffer or bear. With virus variants raging, inflation growing, and call center wait times approaching infinity, many of our patients, it seems, cannot bear any more. I’m confident this situation will improve and our patients will be more reasonable in their expectations, but I am afraid that, in the end, we’ll have lost some decorum and dignity that we may never find again in medicine.

For my potty-mouthed patient, I made an excuse to leave the room to get my dermatoscope and walked out. It gave her time to calm down. I returned in a few minutes to do a skin exam. As I was wrapping up, I advised her that she cannot raise her voice or use offensive language and that she should know that I and everyone in our office cares about her and wants to help. She did apologize for her behavior, but then had to add that, if I really cared, I’d write the letter for her.

I guess the customer is not always right.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

A patient swore at me the other day. Not as in “she used a curse word.” As in she spewed fury, spitting out a vulgar, adverbial word before “... terrible doctor” while jabbing her finger toward me. In my 15 years of practice, I’d never had that happen before. Equally surprising, I was not surprised by her outburst. The level of incivility from patients is at an all-time high.

Her anger was misdirected. She wanted me to write a letter to her employer excusing her from getting a vaccine. It was neither indicated nor ethical for me to do so. I did my best to redirect her, but without success. As our chief of service, I often help with service concerns and am happy to see patients who want another opinion or want to speak with the department head (aka, “the manager”). Usually I can help. Lately, it’s become harder.

Not only are such rude incidents more frequent, but they are also more dramatic and inappropriate. For example, I cannot imagine writing a complaint against a doctor stating that she must be a foreign medical grad (as it happens, she’s Ivy League-trained) or demanding money back when a biopsy result turned out to be benign, or threatening to report a doctor to the medical board because he failed to schedule a follow-up appointment (that doctor had been retired for months). Patients have hung up on our staff mid-sentence and slammed a clinic door when they left in a huff. Why are so many previously sensible people throwing childlike tantrums?

It’s the same phenomenon happening to our fellow service agents across all industries. The Federal Aviation Administration’s graph of unruly passenger incidents is a flat line from 1995 to 2019, then it goes straight vertical. A recent survey showed that Americans’ sense of civility is low and worse, that people’s expectations that civility will improve is going down. It’s palpable. Last month, I witnessed a man and woman screaming at each other over Christmas lights in a busy store. An army of aproned walkie-talkie staff surrounded them and escorted them out – their coordination and efficiency clearly indicated they’d done this before. Customers everywhere are mad, frustrated, disenfranchised. Lately, a lot of things just are not working out for them. Supplies are out. Kids are sent home from school. No elective surgery appointments are available. The insta-gratification they’ve grown accustomed to from Amazon and DoorDash is colliding with the reality that not everything works that way.

The word “patient’’ you’ll recall comes from the Latin “patior,” meaning to suffer or bear. With virus variants raging, inflation growing, and call center wait times approaching infinity, many of our patients, it seems, cannot bear any more. I’m confident this situation will improve and our patients will be more reasonable in their expectations, but I am afraid that, in the end, we’ll have lost some decorum and dignity that we may never find again in medicine.

For my potty-mouthed patient, I made an excuse to leave the room to get my dermatoscope and walked out. It gave her time to calm down. I returned in a few minutes to do a skin exam. As I was wrapping up, I advised her that she cannot raise her voice or use offensive language and that she should know that I and everyone in our office cares about her and wants to help. She did apologize for her behavior, but then had to add that, if I really cared, I’d write the letter for her.

I guess the customer is not always right.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

There’s another doctor with whom I’ve referred patients, back and forth, for the last 20 years. I think he’s good at his job and assume he feels the same way about me. We aren’t social friends, but chat briefly when we run into each other at the hospital, or store, or local restaurants.

Last week I was at the hospital to read EEGs, and happened to see him in the doctor’s parking lot. We wished each other a happy new year, talked briefly about a few mutual patients, and then went our separate ways.

As he pulled out, I noticed his car had a bumper sticker for a cause I strongly disagree with. I mean, 180 degrees opposed.

Suddenly, I didn’t want to ever refer to him again. Why should I support him? He’s the enemy.

Why should I help him out by referring patients?

But then I had to stop. Isn’t this 2022? Aren’t we supposed to be in a civilized world? This isn’t my tribe versus your tribe, my cave versus your cave. The closest we’re supposed to come to direct conflict with others is the “us versus them” world of professional and college sports.

I hope.

Aren’t I supposed to be better than this? Isn’t learning to coexist the whole point of the playground as a kid (besides burning off energy and giving the teacher a break)? Isn’t the idea behind civilization to get along with each other, accept our differences as “agreeing to disagree,” and work together? Like Hamilton and Jefferson, or Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill?

Refusing to work with another competent physician because I disagree with their personal, religious, or political beliefs is just plain stupid.

Politicians and pundits try to convince us that people who disagree with us are the enemy, but that’s horse hockey. The truth is that the majority of people out there, regardless of personal beliefs, are decent, hardworking, and just trying to support their families like I am mine.

Later that week I had a patient who clearly needed the other doctor’s expertise, and I gave her his name and phone number. She asked if I’d send my own family to him, and I said, unequivocally, “yes” (actually I have).

Because, at the end of the day, we’re all people, along on the same ride. To not send a patient to him wouldn’t be in their best interest, which is what I’m supposed to be watching out for.

Not only that, but if I don’t refer just because I disagree with him as a person, then I’ve become the problem and not the solution.

Because I, and everyone else, have to try to be better than that.

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

There’s another doctor with whom I’ve referred patients, back and forth, for the last 20 years. I think he’s good at his job and assume he feels the same way about me. We aren’t social friends, but chat briefly when we run into each other at the hospital, or store, or local restaurants.

Last week I was at the hospital to read EEGs, and happened to see him in the doctor’s parking lot. We wished each other a happy new year, talked briefly about a few mutual patients, and then went our separate ways.

As he pulled out, I noticed his car had a bumper sticker for a cause I strongly disagree with. I mean, 180 degrees opposed.

Suddenly, I didn’t want to ever refer to him again. Why should I support him? He’s the enemy.

Why should I help him out by referring patients?

But then I had to stop. Isn’t this 2022? Aren’t we supposed to be in a civilized world? This isn’t my tribe versus your tribe, my cave versus your cave. The closest we’re supposed to come to direct conflict with others is the “us versus them” world of professional and college sports.

I hope.

Aren’t I supposed to be better than this? Isn’t learning to coexist the whole point of the playground as a kid (besides burning off energy and giving the teacher a break)? Isn’t the idea behind civilization to get along with each other, accept our differences as “agreeing to disagree,” and work together? Like Hamilton and Jefferson, or Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill?

Refusing to work with another competent physician because I disagree with their personal, religious, or political beliefs is just plain stupid.

Politicians and pundits try to convince us that people who disagree with us are the enemy, but that’s horse hockey. The truth is that the majority of people out there, regardless of personal beliefs, are decent, hardworking, and just trying to support their families like I am mine.

Later that week I had a patient who clearly needed the other doctor’s expertise, and I gave her his name and phone number. She asked if I’d send my own family to him, and I said, unequivocally, “yes” (actually I have).

Because, at the end of the day, we’re all people, along on the same ride. To not send a patient to him wouldn’t be in their best interest, which is what I’m supposed to be watching out for.

Not only that, but if I don’t refer just because I disagree with him as a person, then I’ve become the problem and not the solution.

Because I, and everyone else, have to try to be better than that.

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

There’s another doctor with whom I’ve referred patients, back and forth, for the last 20 years. I think he’s good at his job and assume he feels the same way about me. We aren’t social friends, but chat briefly when we run into each other at the hospital, or store, or local restaurants.

Last week I was at the hospital to read EEGs, and happened to see him in the doctor’s parking lot. We wished each other a happy new year, talked briefly about a few mutual patients, and then went our separate ways.

As he pulled out, I noticed his car had a bumper sticker for a cause I strongly disagree with. I mean, 180 degrees opposed.

Suddenly, I didn’t want to ever refer to him again. Why should I support him? He’s the enemy.

Why should I help him out by referring patients?

But then I had to stop. Isn’t this 2022? Aren’t we supposed to be in a civilized world? This isn’t my tribe versus your tribe, my cave versus your cave. The closest we’re supposed to come to direct conflict with others is the “us versus them” world of professional and college sports.

I hope.

Aren’t I supposed to be better than this? Isn’t learning to coexist the whole point of the playground as a kid (besides burning off energy and giving the teacher a break)? Isn’t the idea behind civilization to get along with each other, accept our differences as “agreeing to disagree,” and work together? Like Hamilton and Jefferson, or Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill?

Refusing to work with another competent physician because I disagree with their personal, religious, or political beliefs is just plain stupid.

Politicians and pundits try to convince us that people who disagree with us are the enemy, but that’s horse hockey. The truth is that the majority of people out there, regardless of personal beliefs, are decent, hardworking, and just trying to support their families like I am mine.

Later that week I had a patient who clearly needed the other doctor’s expertise, and I gave her his name and phone number. She asked if I’d send my own family to him, and I said, unequivocally, “yes” (actually I have).

Because, at the end of the day, we’re all people, along on the same ride. To not send a patient to him wouldn’t be in their best interest, which is what I’m supposed to be watching out for.

Not only that, but if I don’t refer just because I disagree with him as a person, then I’ve become the problem and not the solution.

Because I, and everyone else, have to try to be better than that.

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

A majority of adults support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of skin conditions, but relatively few have actually tried such a product, according to the results of a recent survey.

Almost 89% of respondents were in favor of medical cannabis use for dermatologic diseases, and 73% said that they would be comfortable seeing a dermatologist who recommended such products to them, Samuel Yeroushalmi, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington, and associates reported.

“Consumers and patients are already using MCPs [medical cannabis products] to treat inflammatory skin conditions, such as acne, rosacea, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, even without guidance from a dermatologist. While acceptance was high, there were clear barriers reported limiting use and uptake, such as patient skepticism and a lack of understanding,” Adam Friedman, MD, senior author and chair of the department of dermatology at the university, said in a separate statement.

Dermatologic use of OTC cannabis products without the recommendation of a dermatologist was reported by 18% of the 504 of 700 adults who responded in the SurveyMonkey online panel. Of the two-thirds who had seen a dermatologist, 20% received a recommendation for an OTC product and 11% were recommended a product that required a department of health medical card, the investigators said.

Uptake among the patients who did receive a recommendation, however, was high: 76% for OTC products and 72% for those that required a medical card. Among those who had received an OTC recommendation, 32% used the cannabis product for psoriasis and 30% each for acne and rosacea, Mr. Yeroushalmi and his coauthors said.

The most common indication among the respondents with dermatologist recommendations for products requiring a medical card was for acne (68%), followed by psoriasis and rosacea (28% each). Cost was the main deterrent (60%) for those who declined to use the recommended cannabis product, with skepticism, limited understanding, and product illegality in their state each at 50%, the researchers said.

“Though cost and legality concerns are nonmodifiable barriers, dermatologists have an opportunity to educate those who know little in the way of medical cannabis or are skeptic[s],” they wrote. The survey results show that many patients are interested, and “the future should be bright for MCPs; we just need to show and disseminate the science,” Dr. Friedman commented in the statement.

One of the authors was from the University of Maryland, College Park. The authors had no disclosures to report.

A majority of adults support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of skin conditions, but relatively few have actually tried such a product, according to the results of a recent survey.

Almost 89% of respondents were in favor of medical cannabis use for dermatologic diseases, and 73% said that they would be comfortable seeing a dermatologist who recommended such products to them, Samuel Yeroushalmi, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington, and associates reported.

“Consumers and patients are already using MCPs [medical cannabis products] to treat inflammatory skin conditions, such as acne, rosacea, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, even without guidance from a dermatologist. While acceptance was high, there were clear barriers reported limiting use and uptake, such as patient skepticism and a lack of understanding,” Adam Friedman, MD, senior author and chair of the department of dermatology at the university, said in a separate statement.

Dermatologic use of OTC cannabis products without the recommendation of a dermatologist was reported by 18% of the 504 of 700 adults who responded in the SurveyMonkey online panel. Of the two-thirds who had seen a dermatologist, 20% received a recommendation for an OTC product and 11% were recommended a product that required a department of health medical card, the investigators said.

Uptake among the patients who did receive a recommendation, however, was high: 76% for OTC products and 72% for those that required a medical card. Among those who had received an OTC recommendation, 32% used the cannabis product for psoriasis and 30% each for acne and rosacea, Mr. Yeroushalmi and his coauthors said.

The most common indication among the respondents with dermatologist recommendations for products requiring a medical card was for acne (68%), followed by psoriasis and rosacea (28% each). Cost was the main deterrent (60%) for those who declined to use the recommended cannabis product, with skepticism, limited understanding, and product illegality in their state each at 50%, the researchers said.

“Though cost and legality concerns are nonmodifiable barriers, dermatologists have an opportunity to educate those who know little in the way of medical cannabis or are skeptic[s],” they wrote. The survey results show that many patients are interested, and “the future should be bright for MCPs; we just need to show and disseminate the science,” Dr. Friedman commented in the statement.

One of the authors was from the University of Maryland, College Park. The authors had no disclosures to report.

A majority of adults support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of skin conditions, but relatively few have actually tried such a product, according to the results of a recent survey.

Almost 89% of respondents were in favor of medical cannabis use for dermatologic diseases, and 73% said that they would be comfortable seeing a dermatologist who recommended such products to them, Samuel Yeroushalmi, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington, and associates reported.

“Consumers and patients are already using MCPs [medical cannabis products] to treat inflammatory skin conditions, such as acne, rosacea, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, even without guidance from a dermatologist. While acceptance was high, there were clear barriers reported limiting use and uptake, such as patient skepticism and a lack of understanding,” Adam Friedman, MD, senior author and chair of the department of dermatology at the university, said in a separate statement.

Dermatologic use of OTC cannabis products without the recommendation of a dermatologist was reported by 18% of the 504 of 700 adults who responded in the SurveyMonkey online panel. Of the two-thirds who had seen a dermatologist, 20% received a recommendation for an OTC product and 11% were recommended a product that required a department of health medical card, the investigators said.

Uptake among the patients who did receive a recommendation, however, was high: 76% for OTC products and 72% for those that required a medical card. Among those who had received an OTC recommendation, 32% used the cannabis product for psoriasis and 30% each for acne and rosacea, Mr. Yeroushalmi and his coauthors said.

The most common indication among the respondents with dermatologist recommendations for products requiring a medical card was for acne (68%), followed by psoriasis and rosacea (28% each). Cost was the main deterrent (60%) for those who declined to use the recommended cannabis product, with skepticism, limited understanding, and product illegality in their state each at 50%, the researchers said.

“Though cost and legality concerns are nonmodifiable barriers, dermatologists have an opportunity to educate those who know little in the way of medical cannabis or are skeptic[s],” they wrote. The survey results show that many patients are interested, and “the future should be bright for MCPs; we just need to show and disseminate the science,” Dr. Friedman commented in the statement.

One of the authors was from the University of Maryland, College Park. The authors had no disclosures to report.

After a recent column about the dilemma of dealing with patients who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, several readers raised the question of how to properly dismiss patients from a practice, for that or any other reason. Specifically, most asked: “How do I dismiss a patient without violating any laws?”

Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, there are no statutory laws that I am aware of that directly apply to patient dismissal, beyond the obvious ones prohibiting discrimination that I’ve discussed many times. The more realistic concern is leaving yourself vulnerable to civil litigation – usually charges of abandonment.

Criteria will vary by region, jurisdiction, and practice. Since there are no hard and fast rules, your reasons for dismissal should be determined in advance, written out, and included in your practice manual. Once you have laid down your rules, follow them. Exceptions should be rare and made only under extraordinary circumstances.

Most patients are dismissed because of interpersonal conflicts between physician or staff members. Usually, that involves noncompliance with a reasonable treatment plan (including vaccinations), but there are other valid reasons. These include threats of violence, inappropriate sexual advances, providing false or misleading medical history, demands for inappropriate treatments or medications, and repeated failure to keep appointments or pay bills. And most ethics experts agree that you can dismiss someone who insists on treatment outside your area of expertise, or at a location other than your private office.

Even when circumstances warrant, dismissal should be a last resort. As with most interpersonal conflicts, your best option is usually reconciliation. Sit down with the patient, explain your concerns, and discuss what must be done if your doctor-patient relationship is to continue. Often, such patients are not aware (or willing to admit) that they are violating your office policies. Honest communication will often save such relationships. But be sure to make it clear that failure to address the problems you have outlined will result in dismissal from your practice. Document this conversation in detail in the patient’s chart, and follow up with a written communication reconfirming what you discussed.

If, despite your best (documented) efforts, the problems continue and dismissal becomes necessary, following a few generally accepted guidelines will help keep the process smooth and consequence free.

First, try to avoid dismissing a patient in the middle of a course of treatment. If that is unavoidable, you might want to contact your malpractice carrier and review the case with them prior to doing so.

Inform the patient, preferably by certified mail, of your decision. Spell out your reasons, with a reminder that these problems were discussed, and that a warning was issued and not heeded. If the patient belongs to a third-party health plan, be certain that you are acting within the stipulations of your contract with that plan, and inform the payer in writing of your action.

Once again, you must clearly document in the patient’s chart exactly how he or she violated your office policies. This will minimize grounds for charges of discrimination of any sort. Be especially diligent about this step if the patient has any known physical or mental disability.

Give the patient a reasonable amount of time (30 days is common) to find another physician, and mention that you will address any emergent problems within the scope of your specialty within that 30-day period. To minimize any potential allegations of abandonment, include a list of competent physicians in your area (without any guarantees) who might be willing to assume the patient’s care. Alternatively, you can list the phone number or website of a local medical society that they can contact to find a replacement. Offer to transfer medical records to the new physician upon receipt of written permission.

File a copy or scan of the letter, the certified delivery receipt, and the returned signature card in the patient’s chart. While the law states that a first-class letter, properly addressed and stamped, is presumed to have been delivered, you don’t want any question as to whether the patient received written notice of dismissal.

Forcibly ending a physician-patient relationship is a significant event that should not be undertaken lightly. Again, dismissal should be a rare occurrence, a last resort.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

After a recent column about the dilemma of dealing with patients who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, several readers raised the question of how to properly dismiss patients from a practice, for that or any other reason. Specifically, most asked: “How do I dismiss a patient without violating any laws?”

Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, there are no statutory laws that I am aware of that directly apply to patient dismissal, beyond the obvious ones prohibiting discrimination that I’ve discussed many times. The more realistic concern is leaving yourself vulnerable to civil litigation – usually charges of abandonment.

Criteria will vary by region, jurisdiction, and practice. Since there are no hard and fast rules, your reasons for dismissal should be determined in advance, written out, and included in your practice manual. Once you have laid down your rules, follow them. Exceptions should be rare and made only under extraordinary circumstances.

Most patients are dismissed because of interpersonal conflicts between physician or staff members. Usually, that involves noncompliance with a reasonable treatment plan (including vaccinations), but there are other valid reasons. These include threats of violence, inappropriate sexual advances, providing false or misleading medical history, demands for inappropriate treatments or medications, and repeated failure to keep appointments or pay bills. And most ethics experts agree that you can dismiss someone who insists on treatment outside your area of expertise, or at a location other than your private office.

Even when circumstances warrant, dismissal should be a last resort. As with most interpersonal conflicts, your best option is usually reconciliation. Sit down with the patient, explain your concerns, and discuss what must be done if your doctor-patient relationship is to continue. Often, such patients are not aware (or willing to admit) that they are violating your office policies. Honest communication will often save such relationships. But be sure to make it clear that failure to address the problems you have outlined will result in dismissal from your practice. Document this conversation in detail in the patient’s chart, and follow up with a written communication reconfirming what you discussed.

If, despite your best (documented) efforts, the problems continue and dismissal becomes necessary, following a few generally accepted guidelines will help keep the process smooth and consequence free.

First, try to avoid dismissing a patient in the middle of a course of treatment. If that is unavoidable, you might want to contact your malpractice carrier and review the case with them prior to doing so.

Inform the patient, preferably by certified mail, of your decision. Spell out your reasons, with a reminder that these problems were discussed, and that a warning was issued and not heeded. If the patient belongs to a third-party health plan, be certain that you are acting within the stipulations of your contract with that plan, and inform the payer in writing of your action.

Once again, you must clearly document in the patient’s chart exactly how he or she violated your office policies. This will minimize grounds for charges of discrimination of any sort. Be especially diligent about this step if the patient has any known physical or mental disability.

Give the patient a reasonable amount of time (30 days is common) to find another physician, and mention that you will address any emergent problems within the scope of your specialty within that 30-day period. To minimize any potential allegations of abandonment, include a list of competent physicians in your area (without any guarantees) who might be willing to assume the patient’s care. Alternatively, you can list the phone number or website of a local medical society that they can contact to find a replacement. Offer to transfer medical records to the new physician upon receipt of written permission.

File a copy or scan of the letter, the certified delivery receipt, and the returned signature card in the patient’s chart. While the law states that a first-class letter, properly addressed and stamped, is presumed to have been delivered, you don’t want any question as to whether the patient received written notice of dismissal.

Forcibly ending a physician-patient relationship is a significant event that should not be undertaken lightly. Again, dismissal should be a rare occurrence, a last resort.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

After a recent column about the dilemma of dealing with patients who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, several readers raised the question of how to properly dismiss patients from a practice, for that or any other reason. Specifically, most asked: “How do I dismiss a patient without violating any laws?”

Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, there are no statutory laws that I am aware of that directly apply to patient dismissal, beyond the obvious ones prohibiting discrimination that I’ve discussed many times. The more realistic concern is leaving yourself vulnerable to civil litigation – usually charges of abandonment.

Criteria will vary by region, jurisdiction, and practice. Since there are no hard and fast rules, your reasons for dismissal should be determined in advance, written out, and included in your practice manual. Once you have laid down your rules, follow them. Exceptions should be rare and made only under extraordinary circumstances.

Most patients are dismissed because of interpersonal conflicts between physician or staff members. Usually, that involves noncompliance with a reasonable treatment plan (including vaccinations), but there are other valid reasons. These include threats of violence, inappropriate sexual advances, providing false or misleading medical history, demands for inappropriate treatments or medications, and repeated failure to keep appointments or pay bills. And most ethics experts agree that you can dismiss someone who insists on treatment outside your area of expertise, or at a location other than your private office.

Even when circumstances warrant, dismissal should be a last resort. As with most interpersonal conflicts, your best option is usually reconciliation. Sit down with the patient, explain your concerns, and discuss what must be done if your doctor-patient relationship is to continue. Often, such patients are not aware (or willing to admit) that they are violating your office policies. Honest communication will often save such relationships. But be sure to make it clear that failure to address the problems you have outlined will result in dismissal from your practice. Document this conversation in detail in the patient’s chart, and follow up with a written communication reconfirming what you discussed.

If, despite your best (documented) efforts, the problems continue and dismissal becomes necessary, following a few generally accepted guidelines will help keep the process smooth and consequence free.

First, try to avoid dismissing a patient in the middle of a course of treatment. If that is unavoidable, you might want to contact your malpractice carrier and review the case with them prior to doing so.

Inform the patient, preferably by certified mail, of your decision. Spell out your reasons, with a reminder that these problems were discussed, and that a warning was issued and not heeded. If the patient belongs to a third-party health plan, be certain that you are acting within the stipulations of your contract with that plan, and inform the payer in writing of your action.

Once again, you must clearly document in the patient’s chart exactly how he or she violated your office policies. This will minimize grounds for charges of discrimination of any sort. Be especially diligent about this step if the patient has any known physical or mental disability.

Give the patient a reasonable amount of time (30 days is common) to find another physician, and mention that you will address any emergent problems within the scope of your specialty within that 30-day period. To minimize any potential allegations of abandonment, include a list of competent physicians in your area (without any guarantees) who might be willing to assume the patient’s care. Alternatively, you can list the phone number or website of a local medical society that they can contact to find a replacement. Offer to transfer medical records to the new physician upon receipt of written permission.

File a copy or scan of the letter, the certified delivery receipt, and the returned signature card in the patient’s chart. While the law states that a first-class letter, properly addressed and stamped, is presumed to have been delivered, you don’t want any question as to whether the patient received written notice of dismissal.

Forcibly ending a physician-patient relationship is a significant event that should not be undertaken lightly. Again, dismissal should be a rare occurrence, a last resort.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Therapeutic inertia regarding intensification of blood pressure treatment has been shown to be more of an issue in Black patients, but this was not the case in the SPRINT trial, which involved a strict standardized approach to blood pressure management, a new analysis shows.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

“Overall, we found that therapeutic inertia was similar in different races in the SPRINT trial. We did not see disparities that have been reported in previous observational studies,” lead author, Alexander Zheutlin, MD, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“These results show that a well-resourced approach in which a standardized approach to blood pressure measurement and treatment intensification is followed can overcome the racial disparity that is seen in therapeutic inertia and the treatment of blood pressure,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 10.

The authors explain that hypertension remains a leading modifiable cause of racial disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite similar treatment rates and increased availability of safe, effective, and affordable antihypertensive medications, blood pressure control rates among Black and Hispanic adults remain significantly lower than among White adults in the United States, and one of the factors contributing to this is thought to be therapeutic inertia – the phenomenon of clinicians not initiating or up-titrating clinically indicated therapy in the setting of unmet treatment goals.

The current analysis of the SPRINT trial was conducted to investigate whether racial and ethnic differences in therapeutic inertia in hypertension were present when blood pressure care was standardized and protocolized.

The landmark SPRINT trial compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) with standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure treatment goals in adults 50 years and older at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured blood pressure above the target goal and included 4,141 patients in the standard group and 4,415 patients in the intensive group.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia – defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the blood pressure was above target goal – was either similar or lower for Black and Hispanic participants than for White participants. This pattern was observed whether participants were randomized to the standard or intensive treatment group.

“These findings support the idea that a standardized approach to blood pressure management, as implemented in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care is provided to all patients and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in uncontrolled blood pressure,” the authors say.

They point out that therapeutic inertia has been identified as a key clinician-level barrier to blood pressure control and is estimated to be present in more than 80% of clinic visits in community practice, whereas in the current analysis of the SPRINT trial, therapeutic inertia was present in 50% to 60% of participant visits with uncontrolled blood pressure.

“In SPRINT, blood pressure had to be measured at defined intervals with a specific method, and there were clear instructions on intensifying treatment if blood pressure was above a certain goal,” Dr. Zheutlin noted. “Our results show that within such strict confines, therapeutic inertia does not seem to be different between different racial groups. This suggests that we could make better gains in blood pressure control and more equitable treatment if we adopted a standardized approach to hypertension management.”

He added: “Many guidelines have been published on when to start treatment and the targets for blood pressure, but there is a lot of variation in how we turn these guidelines into protocols. We need to bring in more consistent protocols on blood pressure measurement and intensification and ensure they are followed. In practice, if the BP is 5 or 10 mm Hg above target, a clinician may defer a decision to intensify treatment and intensification never gets done. But if there was a strict protocol to follow, there would be less chance of this happening.”
 

Therapeutic inertia still high

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Rivara, MD, Nisha Bansal, MD, and Bessie Young, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, say the current SPRINT analysis has broad implications for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of evidence-based treatment targets in the general population.

“In hypertension management, standardized protocols for medication adjustments may limit clinician practice heterogeneity to ultimately reduce differences in blood pressure control among racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. But they add that such protocols must be implemented thoughtfully to incorporate individualized clinical assessment and clinician-patient shared decision-making.

Dr. Rivara et al. point out that the rates of therapeutic inertia in SPRINT, while lower than community-based estimates, were still very high. They suggest reasons for this could include clinician concerns about medication efficacy, adverse effects, and patient mistrust of medical professionals. Outside the clinical trial environment, additional considerations may include prescription drug and laboratory test costs, pharmacy access, and competing demands during busy clinic visits.

To address these challenges, they say that clinicians need education on current clinical practice guidelines, managing complications of intensified antihypertensive therapies, and shared decisionmaking, including culturally sensitive collaborative care. Similarly, care systems must support patients on how to address concerns about treatments.

Finally, further research is needed to better define the specific factors associated with therapeutic inertia to allow tailored interventions to overcome this inertia.

“In designing and performing such research, it is vital that investigators engage with racial and ethnic minority groups to better explore the intersection of race, ethnicity, therapeutic decision-making, trust, and shared decisionmaking,” they add.

The SPRINT trial was funded with federal funds from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zheutlin reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study.

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

Therapeutic inertia regarding intensification of blood pressure treatment has been shown to be more of an issue in Black patients, but this was not the case in the SPRINT trial, which involved a strict standardized approach to blood pressure management, a new analysis shows.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

“Overall, we found that therapeutic inertia was similar in different races in the SPRINT trial. We did not see disparities that have been reported in previous observational studies,” lead author, Alexander Zheutlin, MD, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“These results show that a well-resourced approach in which a standardized approach to blood pressure measurement and treatment intensification is followed can overcome the racial disparity that is seen in therapeutic inertia and the treatment of blood pressure,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 10.

The authors explain that hypertension remains a leading modifiable cause of racial disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite similar treatment rates and increased availability of safe, effective, and affordable antihypertensive medications, blood pressure control rates among Black and Hispanic adults remain significantly lower than among White adults in the United States, and one of the factors contributing to this is thought to be therapeutic inertia – the phenomenon of clinicians not initiating or up-titrating clinically indicated therapy in the setting of unmet treatment goals.

The current analysis of the SPRINT trial was conducted to investigate whether racial and ethnic differences in therapeutic inertia in hypertension were present when blood pressure care was standardized and protocolized.

The landmark SPRINT trial compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) with standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure treatment goals in adults 50 years and older at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured blood pressure above the target goal and included 4,141 patients in the standard group and 4,415 patients in the intensive group.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia – defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the blood pressure was above target goal – was either similar or lower for Black and Hispanic participants than for White participants. This pattern was observed whether participants were randomized to the standard or intensive treatment group.

“These findings support the idea that a standardized approach to blood pressure management, as implemented in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care is provided to all patients and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in uncontrolled blood pressure,” the authors say.

They point out that therapeutic inertia has been identified as a key clinician-level barrier to blood pressure control and is estimated to be present in more than 80% of clinic visits in community practice, whereas in the current analysis of the SPRINT trial, therapeutic inertia was present in 50% to 60% of participant visits with uncontrolled blood pressure.

“In SPRINT, blood pressure had to be measured at defined intervals with a specific method, and there were clear instructions on intensifying treatment if blood pressure was above a certain goal,” Dr. Zheutlin noted. “Our results show that within such strict confines, therapeutic inertia does not seem to be different between different racial groups. This suggests that we could make better gains in blood pressure control and more equitable treatment if we adopted a standardized approach to hypertension management.”

He added: “Many guidelines have been published on when to start treatment and the targets for blood pressure, but there is a lot of variation in how we turn these guidelines into protocols. We need to bring in more consistent protocols on blood pressure measurement and intensification and ensure they are followed. In practice, if the BP is 5 or 10 mm Hg above target, a clinician may defer a decision to intensify treatment and intensification never gets done. But if there was a strict protocol to follow, there would be less chance of this happening.”
 

Therapeutic inertia still high

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Rivara, MD, Nisha Bansal, MD, and Bessie Young, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, say the current SPRINT analysis has broad implications for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of evidence-based treatment targets in the general population.

“In hypertension management, standardized protocols for medication adjustments may limit clinician practice heterogeneity to ultimately reduce differences in blood pressure control among racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. But they add that such protocols must be implemented thoughtfully to incorporate individualized clinical assessment and clinician-patient shared decision-making.

Dr. Rivara et al. point out that the rates of therapeutic inertia in SPRINT, while lower than community-based estimates, were still very high. They suggest reasons for this could include clinician concerns about medication efficacy, adverse effects, and patient mistrust of medical professionals. Outside the clinical trial environment, additional considerations may include prescription drug and laboratory test costs, pharmacy access, and competing demands during busy clinic visits.

To address these challenges, they say that clinicians need education on current clinical practice guidelines, managing complications of intensified antihypertensive therapies, and shared decisionmaking, including culturally sensitive collaborative care. Similarly, care systems must support patients on how to address concerns about treatments.

Finally, further research is needed to better define the specific factors associated with therapeutic inertia to allow tailored interventions to overcome this inertia.

“In designing and performing such research, it is vital that investigators engage with racial and ethnic minority groups to better explore the intersection of race, ethnicity, therapeutic decision-making, trust, and shared decisionmaking,” they add.

The SPRINT trial was funded with federal funds from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zheutlin reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study.

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

Therapeutic inertia regarding intensification of blood pressure treatment has been shown to be more of an issue in Black patients, but this was not the case in the SPRINT trial, which involved a strict standardized approach to blood pressure management, a new analysis shows.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

“Overall, we found that therapeutic inertia was similar in different races in the SPRINT trial. We did not see disparities that have been reported in previous observational studies,” lead author, Alexander Zheutlin, MD, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“These results show that a well-resourced approach in which a standardized approach to blood pressure measurement and treatment intensification is followed can overcome the racial disparity that is seen in therapeutic inertia and the treatment of blood pressure,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 10.

The authors explain that hypertension remains a leading modifiable cause of racial disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite similar treatment rates and increased availability of safe, effective, and affordable antihypertensive medications, blood pressure control rates among Black and Hispanic adults remain significantly lower than among White adults in the United States, and one of the factors contributing to this is thought to be therapeutic inertia – the phenomenon of clinicians not initiating or up-titrating clinically indicated therapy in the setting of unmet treatment goals.

The current analysis of the SPRINT trial was conducted to investigate whether racial and ethnic differences in therapeutic inertia in hypertension were present when blood pressure care was standardized and protocolized.

The landmark SPRINT trial compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) with standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure treatment goals in adults 50 years and older at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured blood pressure above the target goal and included 4,141 patients in the standard group and 4,415 patients in the intensive group.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia – defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the blood pressure was above target goal – was either similar or lower for Black and Hispanic participants than for White participants. This pattern was observed whether participants were randomized to the standard or intensive treatment group.

“These findings support the idea that a standardized approach to blood pressure management, as implemented in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care is provided to all patients and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in uncontrolled blood pressure,” the authors say.

They point out that therapeutic inertia has been identified as a key clinician-level barrier to blood pressure control and is estimated to be present in more than 80% of clinic visits in community practice, whereas in the current analysis of the SPRINT trial, therapeutic inertia was present in 50% to 60% of participant visits with uncontrolled blood pressure.

“In SPRINT, blood pressure had to be measured at defined intervals with a specific method, and there were clear instructions on intensifying treatment if blood pressure was above a certain goal,” Dr. Zheutlin noted. “Our results show that within such strict confines, therapeutic inertia does not seem to be different between different racial groups. This suggests that we could make better gains in blood pressure control and more equitable treatment if we adopted a standardized approach to hypertension management.”

He added: “Many guidelines have been published on when to start treatment and the targets for blood pressure, but there is a lot of variation in how we turn these guidelines into protocols. We need to bring in more consistent protocols on blood pressure measurement and intensification and ensure they are followed. In practice, if the BP is 5 or 10 mm Hg above target, a clinician may defer a decision to intensify treatment and intensification never gets done. But if there was a strict protocol to follow, there would be less chance of this happening.”
 

Therapeutic inertia still high

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Rivara, MD, Nisha Bansal, MD, and Bessie Young, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, say the current SPRINT analysis has broad implications for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of evidence-based treatment targets in the general population.

“In hypertension management, standardized protocols for medication adjustments may limit clinician practice heterogeneity to ultimately reduce differences in blood pressure control among racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. But they add that such protocols must be implemented thoughtfully to incorporate individualized clinical assessment and clinician-patient shared decision-making.

Dr. Rivara et al. point out that the rates of therapeutic inertia in SPRINT, while lower than community-based estimates, were still very high. They suggest reasons for this could include clinician concerns about medication efficacy, adverse effects, and patient mistrust of medical professionals. Outside the clinical trial environment, additional considerations may include prescription drug and laboratory test costs, pharmacy access, and competing demands during busy clinic visits.

To address these challenges, they say that clinicians need education on current clinical practice guidelines, managing complications of intensified antihypertensive therapies, and shared decisionmaking, including culturally sensitive collaborative care. Similarly, care systems must support patients on how to address concerns about treatments.

Finally, further research is needed to better define the specific factors associated with therapeutic inertia to allow tailored interventions to overcome this inertia.

“In designing and performing such research, it is vital that investigators engage with racial and ethnic minority groups to better explore the intersection of race, ethnicity, therapeutic decision-making, trust, and shared decisionmaking,” they add.

The SPRINT trial was funded with federal funds from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zheutlin reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) performs as well as expert uropathologists – and in some cases better than general pathologists – in diagnosing and grading prostate cancer, suggests a new study.

AI has shown promise in the diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer. However studies so far have been siloed, “with limited proof for generalization across diverse multinational cohorts, representing one of the central barriers to implementation of AI algorithms in clinical practice,” the investigators wrote in Nature Medicine.

Wouter Bulten, from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and coauthors reported the outcomes of the international PANDA histopathology competition, in which 1,290 deep learning algorithm developers were challenged to come up with reproducible algorithms that could match the findings of human experts. Deep learning is a form of machine learning in which artificial neural networks “learn” from large datasets and apply that learning in a similar way to the human brain. At least one AI product for detecting prostate cancer – the Paige Prostate system – has already been approved for clinical use in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration authorized marketing it in September 2021, as an adjunct to – but not replacement for – pathologist review.

The developers of the new algorithms participating in the competition were given a set of 10,616 digitized prostate biopsies to learn from, then were tested against a panel of either one to six – depending on the country – experienced uropathologists on a set of 393 digitized slides. A selection of 15 teams were then invited to take part in a validation phase with an additional 1,616 slides.

Within the first 10 days of the competition, one algorithm already achieved greater than 0.90 agreement with the uropathologists; by day 33, the median performance of all the teams in the competition was greater than 0.85 agreement with the human experts.
 

Algorithms correctly detected tumors in 99.7% of cases

The algorithms selected for validation showed even higher levels of agreement – 0.931 on average (95% confidence interval, 0.918-0.944). These algorithms correctly detected tumors in 99.7% of cases (95% CI, 98.1%-99.7%), and correctly identified 92.9% of negative results (95% CI, 91.9%-96.7%).

When it came to classifying the prostate cancers based on Gleason grade, the algorithms showed significantly more agreement with uropathologists than did an international panel of 13 or 20 general pathologists.

“This higher sensitivity shows promise for reducing pathologist workload by automated identification and exclusion of most benign biopsies from review,” the authors wrote.

The study found that the AI algorithms missed 1%-1.9% of cancers, but the general pathologists missed 1.8%-7.3%. The algorithms demonstrated a sensitivity of 96.4%-98.2% and specificity of 75%-100% for tumors, whereas the pathologists showed a sensitivity of 91.9-96.5% and specificity of 92.3%-95%.
 

Benign cases were misclassified

The main error that the algorithms made was misclassifying benign cases as ISUP GG 1 cancer. The authors commented that this was likely caused by a shift in the distribution of cases between the training data given to the algorithms and the data set they were validated on.

They also noted that, in one validation set, the algorithms overgraded a “substantial proportion” of ISUP GG 3 cases as GG 4, whereas general pathologists tended to undergrade cases, particularly in the higher-grade cancers.

“These differences suggest that general pathologists supported by AI could reach higher agreements with uropathologists, potentially alleviating some of the rater variability associated with Gleason grading,” they wrote.

The authors also pointed out that the algorithms were validated on individual biopsies from each patient, whereas in the clinical context, a pathologist would likely have multiple biopsies from a single patient.

“Future studies can focus on patient-level evaluation of tissue samples, taking multiple cores and sections into account for the final diagnosis,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, Google, Verily Life Sciences, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish eScience Research Center, EIT Health, Karolinska Institutet, Åke Wiberg Foundation, Prostatacancerförbundet, Academy of Finland, Cancer Foundation Finland, and ERAPerMed. The authors declared a range of grants and funding outside the study, including from Philips Digital Pathology Solutions. Several authors declared patents related to prostate cancer diagnoses, and 10 were employees of Google.

Artificial intelligence (AI) performs as well as expert uropathologists – and in some cases better than general pathologists – in diagnosing and grading prostate cancer, suggests a new study.

AI has shown promise in the diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer. However studies so far have been siloed, “with limited proof for generalization across diverse multinational cohorts, representing one of the central barriers to implementation of AI algorithms in clinical practice,” the investigators wrote in Nature Medicine.

Wouter Bulten, from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and coauthors reported the outcomes of the international PANDA histopathology competition, in which 1,290 deep learning algorithm developers were challenged to come up with reproducible algorithms that could match the findings of human experts. Deep learning is a form of machine learning in which artificial neural networks “learn” from large datasets and apply that learning in a similar way to the human brain. At least one AI product for detecting prostate cancer – the Paige Prostate system – has already been approved for clinical use in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration authorized marketing it in September 2021, as an adjunct to – but not replacement for – pathologist review.

The developers of the new algorithms participating in the competition were given a set of 10,616 digitized prostate biopsies to learn from, then were tested against a panel of either one to six – depending on the country – experienced uropathologists on a set of 393 digitized slides. A selection of 15 teams were then invited to take part in a validation phase with an additional 1,616 slides.

Within the first 10 days of the competition, one algorithm already achieved greater than 0.90 agreement with the uropathologists; by day 33, the median performance of all the teams in the competition was greater than 0.85 agreement with the human experts.
 

Algorithms correctly detected tumors in 99.7% of cases

The algorithms selected for validation showed even higher levels of agreement – 0.931 on average (95% confidence interval, 0.918-0.944). These algorithms correctly detected tumors in 99.7% of cases (95% CI, 98.1%-99.7%), and correctly identified 92.9% of negative results (95% CI, 91.9%-96.7%).

When it came to classifying the prostate cancers based on Gleason grade, the algorithms showed significantly more agreement with uropathologists than did an international panel of 13 or 20 general pathologists.

“This higher sensitivity shows promise for reducing pathologist workload by automated identification and exclusion of most benign biopsies from review,” the authors wrote.

The study found that the AI algorithms missed 1%-1.9% of cancers, but the general pathologists missed 1.8%-7.3%. The algorithms demonstrated a sensitivity of 96.4%-98.2% and specificity of 75%-100% for tumors, whereas the pathologists showed a sensitivity of 91.9-96.5% and specificity of 92.3%-95%.
 

Benign cases were misclassified

The main error that the algorithms made was misclassifying benign cases as ISUP GG 1 cancer. The authors commented that this was likely caused by a shift in the distribution of cases between the training data given to the algorithms and the data set they were validated on.

They also noted that, in one validation set, the algorithms overgraded a “substantial proportion” of ISUP GG 3 cases as GG 4, whereas general pathologists tended to undergrade cases, particularly in the higher-grade cancers.

“These differences suggest that general pathologists supported by AI could reach higher agreements with uropathologists, potentially alleviating some of the rater variability associated with Gleason grading,” they wrote.

The authors also pointed out that the algorithms were validated on individual biopsies from each patient, whereas in the clinical context, a pathologist would likely have multiple biopsies from a single patient.

“Future studies can focus on patient-level evaluation of tissue samples, taking multiple cores and sections into account for the final diagnosis,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, Google, Verily Life Sciences, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish eScience Research Center, EIT Health, Karolinska Institutet, Åke Wiberg Foundation, Prostatacancerförbundet, Academy of Finland, Cancer Foundation Finland, and ERAPerMed. The authors declared a range of grants and funding outside the study, including from Philips Digital Pathology Solutions. Several authors declared patents related to prostate cancer diagnoses, and 10 were employees of Google.

Artificial intelligence (AI) performs as well as expert uropathologists – and in some cases better than general pathologists – in diagnosing and grading prostate cancer, suggests a new study.

AI has shown promise in the diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer. However studies so far have been siloed, “with limited proof for generalization across diverse multinational cohorts, representing one of the central barriers to implementation of AI algorithms in clinical practice,” the investigators wrote in Nature Medicine.

Wouter Bulten, from the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and coauthors reported the outcomes of the international PANDA histopathology competition, in which 1,290 deep learning algorithm developers were challenged to come up with reproducible algorithms that could match the findings of human experts. Deep learning is a form of machine learning in which artificial neural networks “learn” from large datasets and apply that learning in a similar way to the human brain. At least one AI product for detecting prostate cancer – the Paige Prostate system – has already been approved for clinical use in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration authorized marketing it in September 2021, as an adjunct to – but not replacement for – pathologist review.

The developers of the new algorithms participating in the competition were given a set of 10,616 digitized prostate biopsies to learn from, then were tested against a panel of either one to six – depending on the country – experienced uropathologists on a set of 393 digitized slides. A selection of 15 teams were then invited to take part in a validation phase with an additional 1,616 slides.

Within the first 10 days of the competition, one algorithm already achieved greater than 0.90 agreement with the uropathologists; by day 33, the median performance of all the teams in the competition was greater than 0.85 agreement with the human experts.
 

Algorithms correctly detected tumors in 99.7% of cases

The algorithms selected for validation showed even higher levels of agreement – 0.931 on average (95% confidence interval, 0.918-0.944). These algorithms correctly detected tumors in 99.7% of cases (95% CI, 98.1%-99.7%), and correctly identified 92.9% of negative results (95% CI, 91.9%-96.7%).

When it came to classifying the prostate cancers based on Gleason grade, the algorithms showed significantly more agreement with uropathologists than did an international panel of 13 or 20 general pathologists.

“This higher sensitivity shows promise for reducing pathologist workload by automated identification and exclusion of most benign biopsies from review,” the authors wrote.

The study found that the AI algorithms missed 1%-1.9% of cancers, but the general pathologists missed 1.8%-7.3%. The algorithms demonstrated a sensitivity of 96.4%-98.2% and specificity of 75%-100% for tumors, whereas the pathologists showed a sensitivity of 91.9-96.5% and specificity of 92.3%-95%.
 

Benign cases were misclassified

The main error that the algorithms made was misclassifying benign cases as ISUP GG 1 cancer. The authors commented that this was likely caused by a shift in the distribution of cases between the training data given to the algorithms and the data set they were validated on.

They also noted that, in one validation set, the algorithms overgraded a “substantial proportion” of ISUP GG 3 cases as GG 4, whereas general pathologists tended to undergrade cases, particularly in the higher-grade cancers.

“These differences suggest that general pathologists supported by AI could reach higher agreements with uropathologists, potentially alleviating some of the rater variability associated with Gleason grading,” they wrote.

The authors also pointed out that the algorithms were validated on individual biopsies from each patient, whereas in the clinical context, a pathologist would likely have multiple biopsies from a single patient.

“Future studies can focus on patient-level evaluation of tissue samples, taking multiple cores and sections into account for the final diagnosis,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, Google, Verily Life Sciences, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish eScience Research Center, EIT Health, Karolinska Institutet, Åke Wiberg Foundation, Prostatacancerförbundet, Academy of Finland, Cancer Foundation Finland, and ERAPerMed. The authors declared a range of grants and funding outside the study, including from Philips Digital Pathology Solutions. Several authors declared patents related to prostate cancer diagnoses, and 10 were employees of Google.

This commentary was submitted as a rebuttal to “PA name change bad for patients and the profession.”

To the Editor:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are climbing and health care workers are struggling to meet the needs of our nation’s healthcare system, the commentary by Rebekah Bernard, MD, divides health care providers and demeans the education, experience, and value of physician associates (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) in our opinion.

The ill timing of this negative message is equally matched by her mischaracterization of the PA title change and PA efforts to eliminate outdated administrative barriers, as well as her baseless attack on NP education and clinical training.

Let us be clear about one thing: What patients really want and deserve is access to high-quality care delivered by the health care provider of their choice. Patients deserve health care providers who are committed to modern, integrated, and coordinated health care delivery, led by professionals who are dedicated to ensuring that everyone is practicing to the full extent of their education, clinical experience, and scope of practice. Patients deserve health care providers who respect each other and work together to embrace solutions that will improve health care for the future.

Decades of research confirm the high quality of PA- and NP-delivered health care. The evidence is in, and it is irrefutable: PA- and NP-delivered care is associated with improved access to care, lower health care costs, and fewer avoidable emergency room visits.

With regard to the PA title change, the fact is this: Changing the profession’s title does not change what PAs do or affect a PA’s scope of practice. The new title – physician associate – directly addresses the common misperception that PAs merely “assist” physicians. It is in the best interest of patients and the health care system for PAs to hold a professional title that ensures clarity about the work that PAs do.

For the sake of patients, we urge Bernard and her organization to stop continuously attacking other professions and focus on what really matters – providing access to safe, effective, equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

We are committed to patient-centered, coordinated health care, and we continue to work with like-minded physicians and other colleagues to make this a reality.

Ms. Orozco is president and chair of the board of directors for the American Academy of Physician Associates. Dr. Kapu is president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.


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

This commentary was submitted as a rebuttal to “PA name change bad for patients and the profession.”

To the Editor:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are climbing and health care workers are struggling to meet the needs of our nation’s healthcare system, the commentary by Rebekah Bernard, MD, divides health care providers and demeans the education, experience, and value of physician associates (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) in our opinion.

The ill timing of this negative message is equally matched by her mischaracterization of the PA title change and PA efforts to eliminate outdated administrative barriers, as well as her baseless attack on NP education and clinical training.

Let us be clear about one thing: What patients really want and deserve is access to high-quality care delivered by the health care provider of their choice. Patients deserve health care providers who are committed to modern, integrated, and coordinated health care delivery, led by professionals who are dedicated to ensuring that everyone is practicing to the full extent of their education, clinical experience, and scope of practice. Patients deserve health care providers who respect each other and work together to embrace solutions that will improve health care for the future.

Decades of research confirm the high quality of PA- and NP-delivered health care. The evidence is in, and it is irrefutable: PA- and NP-delivered care is associated with improved access to care, lower health care costs, and fewer avoidable emergency room visits.

With regard to the PA title change, the fact is this: Changing the profession’s title does not change what PAs do or affect a PA’s scope of practice. The new title – physician associate – directly addresses the common misperception that PAs merely “assist” physicians. It is in the best interest of patients and the health care system for PAs to hold a professional title that ensures clarity about the work that PAs do.

For the sake of patients, we urge Bernard and her organization to stop continuously attacking other professions and focus on what really matters – providing access to safe, effective, equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

We are committed to patient-centered, coordinated health care, and we continue to work with like-minded physicians and other colleagues to make this a reality.

Ms. Orozco is president and chair of the board of directors for the American Academy of Physician Associates. Dr. Kapu is president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.


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

This commentary was submitted as a rebuttal to “PA name change bad for patients and the profession.”

To the Editor:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are climbing and health care workers are struggling to meet the needs of our nation’s healthcare system, the commentary by Rebekah Bernard, MD, divides health care providers and demeans the education, experience, and value of physician associates (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) in our opinion.

The ill timing of this negative message is equally matched by her mischaracterization of the PA title change and PA efforts to eliminate outdated administrative barriers, as well as her baseless attack on NP education and clinical training.

Let us be clear about one thing: What patients really want and deserve is access to high-quality care delivered by the health care provider of their choice. Patients deserve health care providers who are committed to modern, integrated, and coordinated health care delivery, led by professionals who are dedicated to ensuring that everyone is practicing to the full extent of their education, clinical experience, and scope of practice. Patients deserve health care providers who respect each other and work together to embrace solutions that will improve health care for the future.

Decades of research confirm the high quality of PA- and NP-delivered health care. The evidence is in, and it is irrefutable: PA- and NP-delivered care is associated with improved access to care, lower health care costs, and fewer avoidable emergency room visits.

With regard to the PA title change, the fact is this: Changing the profession’s title does not change what PAs do or affect a PA’s scope of practice. The new title – physician associate – directly addresses the common misperception that PAs merely “assist” physicians. It is in the best interest of patients and the health care system for PAs to hold a professional title that ensures clarity about the work that PAs do.

For the sake of patients, we urge Bernard and her organization to stop continuously attacking other professions and focus on what really matters – providing access to safe, effective, equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

We are committed to patient-centered, coordinated health care, and we continue to work with like-minded physicians and other colleagues to make this a reality.

Ms. Orozco is president and chair of the board of directors for the American Academy of Physician Associates. Dr. Kapu is president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.


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

Expanding Medicaid coverage has proved beneficial to postpartum women and may even help reduce disparities, say two new papers.

In the first study, expansion of Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act was associated with higher rates of postpartum coverage and outpatient visits, according to results published in JAMA Health Forum.

Racial and ethnic disparities were also reduced in postpartum coverage, although these disparities remained between Black and White women for outpatient visits.

In the second study, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers found that when postpartum care is covered as part of Emergency Medicaid, women who have been denied access because of their citizenship status are able to use these services, which includes contraception.

Federal law currently prohibits undocumented and documented immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 5 years from receiving full-benefit Medicaid. Coverage is limited to Emergency Medicaid, which offers benefits only for life-threatening conditions, including hospital admission for childbirth. Coverage is not available for prenatal or postpartum care, including contraception.

For the first article, lead author Maria W. Steenland, SD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues point out that compared with other high-income countries, maternal mortality is higher in the United States and largely driven by persistent racial disparities. Compared with non-Hispanic White women, the rates of maternal death are more than twice as high among American Indian and Alaska Native women, and more than threefold greater in non-Hispanic Black women.

“To be clear, visits increased by around the same amount for Black and White individuals after Medicaid expansion, it is just that visits started off lower among Black women, and remained lower by a similar degree,” said Dr. Steenland.

One explanation is that Black women experience racial discrimination during pregnancy-related health care including childbirth hospitalizations and this may make them more reticent to seek postpartum care, she explained. “In addition, the ability to seek health care is determined by insurance as well as other social factors such as paid leave from work, childcare, and transportation, and these other factors may have remained a larger barrier for Black women after expansion.”

In this cohort study, they looked at the association of Medicaid expansion in Arkansas with continuous postpartum coverage, postpartum health care use, and change in racial disparities in the study outcomes. Using the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database for persons with a childbirth between 2013 and 2015, the authors identified 60,990 childbirths. Of this group, 67% were White, 22% Black, and 7% Hispanic, and 72.3% were covered by Medicaid. The remaining 27.7% were paid for by a commercial payer.

Before Medicaid expansion, 50.6% of women with Medicaid had continuous coverage during the 6 months postpartum, and the share of women with Medicaid childbirth coverage who were continuously covered for 6 months postpartum increased to 69.3% in 2014 and 90.0% in 2015. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 27.8% increase in continuous coverage for 6-12 months postpartum, and 0.9 increase in visits or a relative increase of 75.0% in outpatient care compared with the visit rate of 1.2 visits within the first 6 months postpartum during the pre-expansion period.

A subgroup analysis was conducted to see if Medicaid expansion had any effect on the disparities between White and Black patients. In the 2-year period after expansion, the percentage of both Black and White women with continuous 6-month postpartum coverage increased to 87.9% and 85.9%, respectively. White individuals averaged 2 visits in the first 6 months postpartum versus 1.6 for Black individuals before expansion, and even though there was no difference in postpartum insurance coverage after expansion, racial disparities in the number of visits during the first 6 months postpartum remained after Medicaid expansion (2.5 vs. 2).

Commenting on the paper, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, noted that she has seen the benefits of Medicaid expansion among obstetric population in California. “I’m glad to see similar expansion in other states,” she said. “But to address persistent health care inequities, I think concierge services or patient care navigation serve a role and can hopefully put a little dent in narrowing gaps.”

Dr. Cansino noted that there are many postpartum patients who need help arranging both pediatric and postpartum care, often prioritizing the newborn appointments. “They also need childcare help so they can focus on their own care as well as transportation,” she said, adding that “it would also be interesting to review racial/ethnic differences with regard to knowledge about contraceptive need immediately postpartum and also about the stigma related to postpartum mental health disorders. If patients don’t see the value of a postpartum visit, they would tend not to attend this visit especially given the many other challenges in the postpartum period.”
 

Access for immigrants

In the second study, the authors note that the decision to expand Emergency Medicaid options is largely up to individual states. Led by Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues, they decided to compare two states – Oregon, which expanded Emergency Medicaid to include postpartum services and South Carolina, which kept only the federal minimum services – to see how it affected postpartum care among immigrant women.

Compared with South Carolina, there was a 40.6 percentage-point increase (95% confidence interval [CI] in postpartum care visits, P < .001) and postpartum contraception within 60 days grew by 33.2 percentage points (95% CI, P < .001), in Oregon after expansion went into effect.

“When postpartum care was covered for women who would have qualified for Medicaid, except for their citizenship status, their rates of attendance at a postpartum visit and use of postpartum contraception increased to levels observed in the traditional Medicaid population,” the authors wrote.

The calculations, drawn from Medicaid claims and birth certificate data from 2010 to 2019, assumed parallel trends, meaning the researchers made the assumption that use patterns would have remained the same in Oregon if the Emergency Medicaid expansion hadn’t happened and use in South Carolina would have remained consistent as well. A differential trend analysis showed significant increases in use of the services in Oregon relative to South Carolina.

“We included Oregon and South Carolina because both states have experienced similar growth in their immigrant population and have comparable immigrant populations, in terms of size and country of origin, residing in each state,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the study, Laura Mercer MD, MBA, MPH, associate professor in obstetrics and gynecology and director of the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, said she was “excited and encouraged by the results” but not surprised, as it’s logical to assume that there would be more uptake of the services when they are provided free of charge or at low cost.

“Oftentimes, the mother of the family deprioritizes her own health and well-being in favor of diverting those resources to her children and her family,” said Dr. Mercer, who specializes in prenatal and postpartum care.

She added that the significant increase in contraception is a particularly representative sign of improvement as it is easier to quantify, compared to improvements in mental health or counseling.

But comprehensive postpartum care extends to physical, psychological, and social well-being. “Its components include counseling on the importance of birth spacing and providing the contraceptive method of their choice,” the authors wrote. “An absence of postpartum care has been associated with unintended pregnancy, short interpregnancy intervals, exacerbation of chronic diseases, and preterm birth.”

Dr. Mercer noted that closely spaced pregnancies, particularly less than 6 months but at least less than 18 months carry increased risk for mother and child. And for those who would say that immigrant women should be excluded from the Emergency Medicaid postpartum services, Dr. Mercer said she would encourage them to look at the data around the improved outcomes of comprehensive maternal care.

Being able to track health markers and intervene before a woman requires emergency care will reduce costs in the long run, she pointed out. But, regardless of the cost, policymakers have to ask themselves, “What do we value as a society? If we value families and healthy families and we want to promote the best possible outcomes, then I think this question becomes very easy to answer.”

The first study was funded by the National Institute for Health Care Management. Dr. Steenland was also supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Steenland reported grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development during the conduct of the study. The second study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Rodriguez reports grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Bayer, and Merck outside the submitted work. A coauthor reports grants from Merck/Organon and the Office of Population Affairs outside the submitted work, as well as membership on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning and the ACOG Gynecology Clinical Practice Guideline committee. Dr. Mercer reported no relevant financial relationships.

Expanding Medicaid coverage has proved beneficial to postpartum women and may even help reduce disparities, say two new papers.

In the first study, expansion of Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act was associated with higher rates of postpartum coverage and outpatient visits, according to results published in JAMA Health Forum.

Racial and ethnic disparities were also reduced in postpartum coverage, although these disparities remained between Black and White women for outpatient visits.

In the second study, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers found that when postpartum care is covered as part of Emergency Medicaid, women who have been denied access because of their citizenship status are able to use these services, which includes contraception.

Federal law currently prohibits undocumented and documented immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 5 years from receiving full-benefit Medicaid. Coverage is limited to Emergency Medicaid, which offers benefits only for life-threatening conditions, including hospital admission for childbirth. Coverage is not available for prenatal or postpartum care, including contraception.

For the first article, lead author Maria W. Steenland, SD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues point out that compared with other high-income countries, maternal mortality is higher in the United States and largely driven by persistent racial disparities. Compared with non-Hispanic White women, the rates of maternal death are more than twice as high among American Indian and Alaska Native women, and more than threefold greater in non-Hispanic Black women.

“To be clear, visits increased by around the same amount for Black and White individuals after Medicaid expansion, it is just that visits started off lower among Black women, and remained lower by a similar degree,” said Dr. Steenland.

One explanation is that Black women experience racial discrimination during pregnancy-related health care including childbirth hospitalizations and this may make them more reticent to seek postpartum care, she explained. “In addition, the ability to seek health care is determined by insurance as well as other social factors such as paid leave from work, childcare, and transportation, and these other factors may have remained a larger barrier for Black women after expansion.”

In this cohort study, they looked at the association of Medicaid expansion in Arkansas with continuous postpartum coverage, postpartum health care use, and change in racial disparities in the study outcomes. Using the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database for persons with a childbirth between 2013 and 2015, the authors identified 60,990 childbirths. Of this group, 67% were White, 22% Black, and 7% Hispanic, and 72.3% were covered by Medicaid. The remaining 27.7% were paid for by a commercial payer.

Before Medicaid expansion, 50.6% of women with Medicaid had continuous coverage during the 6 months postpartum, and the share of women with Medicaid childbirth coverage who were continuously covered for 6 months postpartum increased to 69.3% in 2014 and 90.0% in 2015. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 27.8% increase in continuous coverage for 6-12 months postpartum, and 0.9 increase in visits or a relative increase of 75.0% in outpatient care compared with the visit rate of 1.2 visits within the first 6 months postpartum during the pre-expansion period.

A subgroup analysis was conducted to see if Medicaid expansion had any effect on the disparities between White and Black patients. In the 2-year period after expansion, the percentage of both Black and White women with continuous 6-month postpartum coverage increased to 87.9% and 85.9%, respectively. White individuals averaged 2 visits in the first 6 months postpartum versus 1.6 for Black individuals before expansion, and even though there was no difference in postpartum insurance coverage after expansion, racial disparities in the number of visits during the first 6 months postpartum remained after Medicaid expansion (2.5 vs. 2).

Commenting on the paper, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, noted that she has seen the benefits of Medicaid expansion among obstetric population in California. “I’m glad to see similar expansion in other states,” she said. “But to address persistent health care inequities, I think concierge services or patient care navigation serve a role and can hopefully put a little dent in narrowing gaps.”

Dr. Cansino noted that there are many postpartum patients who need help arranging both pediatric and postpartum care, often prioritizing the newborn appointments. “They also need childcare help so they can focus on their own care as well as transportation,” she said, adding that “it would also be interesting to review racial/ethnic differences with regard to knowledge about contraceptive need immediately postpartum and also about the stigma related to postpartum mental health disorders. If patients don’t see the value of a postpartum visit, they would tend not to attend this visit especially given the many other challenges in the postpartum period.”
 

Access for immigrants

In the second study, the authors note that the decision to expand Emergency Medicaid options is largely up to individual states. Led by Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues, they decided to compare two states – Oregon, which expanded Emergency Medicaid to include postpartum services and South Carolina, which kept only the federal minimum services – to see how it affected postpartum care among immigrant women.

Compared with South Carolina, there was a 40.6 percentage-point increase (95% confidence interval [CI] in postpartum care visits, P < .001) and postpartum contraception within 60 days grew by 33.2 percentage points (95% CI, P < .001), in Oregon after expansion went into effect.

“When postpartum care was covered for women who would have qualified for Medicaid, except for their citizenship status, their rates of attendance at a postpartum visit and use of postpartum contraception increased to levels observed in the traditional Medicaid population,” the authors wrote.

The calculations, drawn from Medicaid claims and birth certificate data from 2010 to 2019, assumed parallel trends, meaning the researchers made the assumption that use patterns would have remained the same in Oregon if the Emergency Medicaid expansion hadn’t happened and use in South Carolina would have remained consistent as well. A differential trend analysis showed significant increases in use of the services in Oregon relative to South Carolina.

“We included Oregon and South Carolina because both states have experienced similar growth in their immigrant population and have comparable immigrant populations, in terms of size and country of origin, residing in each state,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the study, Laura Mercer MD, MBA, MPH, associate professor in obstetrics and gynecology and director of the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, said she was “excited and encouraged by the results” but not surprised, as it’s logical to assume that there would be more uptake of the services when they are provided free of charge or at low cost.

“Oftentimes, the mother of the family deprioritizes her own health and well-being in favor of diverting those resources to her children and her family,” said Dr. Mercer, who specializes in prenatal and postpartum care.

She added that the significant increase in contraception is a particularly representative sign of improvement as it is easier to quantify, compared to improvements in mental health or counseling.

But comprehensive postpartum care extends to physical, psychological, and social well-being. “Its components include counseling on the importance of birth spacing and providing the contraceptive method of their choice,” the authors wrote. “An absence of postpartum care has been associated with unintended pregnancy, short interpregnancy intervals, exacerbation of chronic diseases, and preterm birth.”

Dr. Mercer noted that closely spaced pregnancies, particularly less than 6 months but at least less than 18 months carry increased risk for mother and child. And for those who would say that immigrant women should be excluded from the Emergency Medicaid postpartum services, Dr. Mercer said she would encourage them to look at the data around the improved outcomes of comprehensive maternal care.

Being able to track health markers and intervene before a woman requires emergency care will reduce costs in the long run, she pointed out. But, regardless of the cost, policymakers have to ask themselves, “What do we value as a society? If we value families and healthy families and we want to promote the best possible outcomes, then I think this question becomes very easy to answer.”

The first study was funded by the National Institute for Health Care Management. Dr. Steenland was also supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Steenland reported grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development during the conduct of the study. The second study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Rodriguez reports grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Bayer, and Merck outside the submitted work. A coauthor reports grants from Merck/Organon and the Office of Population Affairs outside the submitted work, as well as membership on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning and the ACOG Gynecology Clinical Practice Guideline committee. Dr. Mercer reported no relevant financial relationships.

Expanding Medicaid coverage has proved beneficial to postpartum women and may even help reduce disparities, say two new papers.

In the first study, expansion of Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act was associated with higher rates of postpartum coverage and outpatient visits, according to results published in JAMA Health Forum.

Racial and ethnic disparities were also reduced in postpartum coverage, although these disparities remained between Black and White women for outpatient visits.

In the second study, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers found that when postpartum care is covered as part of Emergency Medicaid, women who have been denied access because of their citizenship status are able to use these services, which includes contraception.

Federal law currently prohibits undocumented and documented immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 5 years from receiving full-benefit Medicaid. Coverage is limited to Emergency Medicaid, which offers benefits only for life-threatening conditions, including hospital admission for childbirth. Coverage is not available for prenatal or postpartum care, including contraception.

For the first article, lead author Maria W. Steenland, SD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues point out that compared with other high-income countries, maternal mortality is higher in the United States and largely driven by persistent racial disparities. Compared with non-Hispanic White women, the rates of maternal death are more than twice as high among American Indian and Alaska Native women, and more than threefold greater in non-Hispanic Black women.

“To be clear, visits increased by around the same amount for Black and White individuals after Medicaid expansion, it is just that visits started off lower among Black women, and remained lower by a similar degree,” said Dr. Steenland.

One explanation is that Black women experience racial discrimination during pregnancy-related health care including childbirth hospitalizations and this may make them more reticent to seek postpartum care, she explained. “In addition, the ability to seek health care is determined by insurance as well as other social factors such as paid leave from work, childcare, and transportation, and these other factors may have remained a larger barrier for Black women after expansion.”

In this cohort study, they looked at the association of Medicaid expansion in Arkansas with continuous postpartum coverage, postpartum health care use, and change in racial disparities in the study outcomes. Using the Arkansas All-Payer Claims Database for persons with a childbirth between 2013 and 2015, the authors identified 60,990 childbirths. Of this group, 67% were White, 22% Black, and 7% Hispanic, and 72.3% were covered by Medicaid. The remaining 27.7% were paid for by a commercial payer.

Before Medicaid expansion, 50.6% of women with Medicaid had continuous coverage during the 6 months postpartum, and the share of women with Medicaid childbirth coverage who were continuously covered for 6 months postpartum increased to 69.3% in 2014 and 90.0% in 2015. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 27.8% increase in continuous coverage for 6-12 months postpartum, and 0.9 increase in visits or a relative increase of 75.0% in outpatient care compared with the visit rate of 1.2 visits within the first 6 months postpartum during the pre-expansion period.

A subgroup analysis was conducted to see if Medicaid expansion had any effect on the disparities between White and Black patients. In the 2-year period after expansion, the percentage of both Black and White women with continuous 6-month postpartum coverage increased to 87.9% and 85.9%, respectively. White individuals averaged 2 visits in the first 6 months postpartum versus 1.6 for Black individuals before expansion, and even though there was no difference in postpartum insurance coverage after expansion, racial disparities in the number of visits during the first 6 months postpartum remained after Medicaid expansion (2.5 vs. 2).

Commenting on the paper, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, noted that she has seen the benefits of Medicaid expansion among obstetric population in California. “I’m glad to see similar expansion in other states,” she said. “But to address persistent health care inequities, I think concierge services or patient care navigation serve a role and can hopefully put a little dent in narrowing gaps.”

Dr. Cansino noted that there are many postpartum patients who need help arranging both pediatric and postpartum care, often prioritizing the newborn appointments. “They also need childcare help so they can focus on their own care as well as transportation,” she said, adding that “it would also be interesting to review racial/ethnic differences with regard to knowledge about contraceptive need immediately postpartum and also about the stigma related to postpartum mental health disorders. If patients don’t see the value of a postpartum visit, they would tend not to attend this visit especially given the many other challenges in the postpartum period.”
 

Access for immigrants

In the second study, the authors note that the decision to expand Emergency Medicaid options is largely up to individual states. Led by Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues, they decided to compare two states – Oregon, which expanded Emergency Medicaid to include postpartum services and South Carolina, which kept only the federal minimum services – to see how it affected postpartum care among immigrant women.

Compared with South Carolina, there was a 40.6 percentage-point increase (95% confidence interval [CI] in postpartum care visits, P < .001) and postpartum contraception within 60 days grew by 33.2 percentage points (95% CI, P < .001), in Oregon after expansion went into effect.

“When postpartum care was covered for women who would have qualified for Medicaid, except for their citizenship status, their rates of attendance at a postpartum visit and use of postpartum contraception increased to levels observed in the traditional Medicaid population,” the authors wrote.

The calculations, drawn from Medicaid claims and birth certificate data from 2010 to 2019, assumed parallel trends, meaning the researchers made the assumption that use patterns would have remained the same in Oregon if the Emergency Medicaid expansion hadn’t happened and use in South Carolina would have remained consistent as well. A differential trend analysis showed significant increases in use of the services in Oregon relative to South Carolina.

“We included Oregon and South Carolina because both states have experienced similar growth in their immigrant population and have comparable immigrant populations, in terms of size and country of origin, residing in each state,” the authors noted.

Commenting on the study, Laura Mercer MD, MBA, MPH, associate professor in obstetrics and gynecology and director of the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship at the University of Arizona in Phoenix, said she was “excited and encouraged by the results” but not surprised, as it’s logical to assume that there would be more uptake of the services when they are provided free of charge or at low cost.

“Oftentimes, the mother of the family deprioritizes her own health and well-being in favor of diverting those resources to her children and her family,” said Dr. Mercer, who specializes in prenatal and postpartum care.

She added that the significant increase in contraception is a particularly representative sign of improvement as it is easier to quantify, compared to improvements in mental health or counseling.

But comprehensive postpartum care extends to physical, psychological, and social well-being. “Its components include counseling on the importance of birth spacing and providing the contraceptive method of their choice,” the authors wrote. “An absence of postpartum care has been associated with unintended pregnancy, short interpregnancy intervals, exacerbation of chronic diseases, and preterm birth.”

Dr. Mercer noted that closely spaced pregnancies, particularly less than 6 months but at least less than 18 months carry increased risk for mother and child. And for those who would say that immigrant women should be excluded from the Emergency Medicaid postpartum services, Dr. Mercer said she would encourage them to look at the data around the improved outcomes of comprehensive maternal care.

Being able to track health markers and intervene before a woman requires emergency care will reduce costs in the long run, she pointed out. But, regardless of the cost, policymakers have to ask themselves, “What do we value as a society? If we value families and healthy families and we want to promote the best possible outcomes, then I think this question becomes very easy to answer.”

The first study was funded by the National Institute for Health Care Management. Dr. Steenland was also supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Steenland reported grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development during the conduct of the study. The second study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Rodriguez reports grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Bayer, and Merck outside the submitted work. A coauthor reports grants from Merck/Organon and the Office of Population Affairs outside the submitted work, as well as membership on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning and the ACOG Gynecology Clinical Practice Guideline committee. Dr. Mercer reported no relevant financial relationships.

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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