User login
Report urges complete residency overhaul
from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.
The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.
The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.
The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:
- Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
- Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
- Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
- Increasing financial costs to students
- Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates
Seeking a common framework for competence
Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.
To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.
While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”
Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:
- The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
- Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
- The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
- An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”
Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews
The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.
Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.
Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.
The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
Osteopathic students’ dilemma
To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.
Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.
The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.
This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.
For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.
Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.
Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.
The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.
The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.
The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:
- Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
- Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
- Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
- Increasing financial costs to students
- Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates
Seeking a common framework for competence
Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.
To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.
While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”
Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:
- The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
- Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
- The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
- An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”
Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews
The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.
Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.
Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.
The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
Osteopathic students’ dilemma
To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.
Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.
The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.
This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.
For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.
Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.
Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.
The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.
The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.
The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:
- Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
- Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
- Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
- Increasing financial costs to students
- Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates
Seeking a common framework for competence
Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.
To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.
While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”
Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:
- The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
- Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
- The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
- An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”
Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews
The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.
Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.
Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.
The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
Osteopathic students’ dilemma
To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.
Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.
The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.
This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.
For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.
Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.
Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Self-described ‘assassin,’ now doctor, indicted for 1M illegal opioid doses
A according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The substances include oxycodone and morphine.
Adrian Dexter Talbot, MD, 55, of Slidell, La., is also charged with maintaining a medical clinic for the purpose of illegally distributing controlled substances, per the indictment.
Because the opioid prescriptions were filled using beneficiaries’ health insurance, Dr. Talbot is also charged with defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana of more than $5.1 million.
When contacted by this news organization for comment on the case via Twitter, Dr. Talbot or a representative responded with a link to his self-published book on Amazon. In his author bio, Dr. Talbot refers to himself as “a former assassin,” “retired military commander,” and “leader of the Medellin Cartel’s New York operations at the age of 16.” The Medellin Cartel is a notorious drug distribution empire.
Dr. Talbot is listed as the author of another book on Google Books detailing his time as a “former teenage assassin” and leader of the cartel, told as he struggles with early onset Alzheimer’s.
Dr. Talbot could spend decades in prison
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 444 residents of the Bayou State lost their lives because of an opioid-related drug overdose in 2018. During that year, the state’s health care providers wrote more than 79.4 opioid prescriptions for every 100 persons, which puts the state in the top five in the United States in 2018, when the average U.S. rate was 51.4 prescriptions per 100 persons.
Charged with one count each of conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and dispense controlled substances and maintaining drug-involved premises and conspiracy to commit health care fraud, Dr. Talbot is also charged with four counts of unlawfully distributing and dispensing controlled substances. He is scheduled for a federal court appearance on September 10.
In addition to presigning prescriptions for individuals he didn’t meet or examine, federal officials allege Dr. Talbot hired another health care provider to similarly presign prescriptions for people who weren’t examined at a medical practice in Slidell, where Dr. Talbot was employed. The DOJ says Dr. Talbot took a full-time job in Pineville, La., and presigned prescriptions while no longer physically present at the Slidell clinic.
A speaker’s bio for Dr. Talbot indicates he worked as chief of medical services for the Alexandria Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Pineville.
According to the DOJ’s indictment, Dr. Talbot was aware that patients were filling the prescriptions that were provided outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. This is what triggered the DOJ’s fraudulent billing claim.
Dr. Talbot faces a maximum penalty of 10 years for conspiracy to commit health care fraud and 20 years each for the other counts, if convicted.
Dr. Talbot was candidate for local coroner
In February 2015, Dr. Talbot announced his candidacy for coroner for St. Tammany Parish, about an hour’s drive south of New Orleans, reported the Times Picayune. The seat was open because the previous coroner had resigned and ultimately pleaded guilty to a federal corruption charge.
The Times Picayune reported at the time that Dr. Talbot was a U.S. Navy veteran, in addition to serving as medical director and a primary care physician at the Medical Care Center in Slidell. Among the services provided to his patients were evaluations and treatment for substance use and mental health disorders, according to a press release issued by Dr. Talbot’s campaign.
Dr. Talbot’s medical license was issued in 1999 and inactive as of 2017, per the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.
Louisiana expects $325M in multistate settlement with opioid companies
Louisiana is a party to a multistate and multijurisdictional lawsuit where the state is expected to receive more than $325 million in a settlement reached with drug distributors Cardinal, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen, and drug manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, reported the Louisiana Illuminator in July. The total settlement may reach $26 billion dollars.
The Associated Press reported in July that there have been at least $40 billion in completed or proposed settlements, penalties, and fines between governments as a result of the opioid epidemic since 2007.
That total doesn’t include a proposed settlement involving members of the Sackler family, who own Purdue Pharmaceuticals, which manufactured and marketed the opioid painkiller OxyContin. The Sackler family have agreed to pay approximately $4.3 billion and surrender ownership of their bankrupt company, reported NPR. The family’s proposed settlement is part of a deal involving Purdue Pharmaceuticals worth more than $10 billion, reported Reuters.
In 2020, there were more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths, the highest number recorded in a 12-month period, per the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fentanyl, an illicitly manufactured synthetic opioid, was the lead driver of those deaths.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The substances include oxycodone and morphine.
Adrian Dexter Talbot, MD, 55, of Slidell, La., is also charged with maintaining a medical clinic for the purpose of illegally distributing controlled substances, per the indictment.
Because the opioid prescriptions were filled using beneficiaries’ health insurance, Dr. Talbot is also charged with defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana of more than $5.1 million.
When contacted by this news organization for comment on the case via Twitter, Dr. Talbot or a representative responded with a link to his self-published book on Amazon. In his author bio, Dr. Talbot refers to himself as “a former assassin,” “retired military commander,” and “leader of the Medellin Cartel’s New York operations at the age of 16.” The Medellin Cartel is a notorious drug distribution empire.
Dr. Talbot is listed as the author of another book on Google Books detailing his time as a “former teenage assassin” and leader of the cartel, told as he struggles with early onset Alzheimer’s.
Dr. Talbot could spend decades in prison
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 444 residents of the Bayou State lost their lives because of an opioid-related drug overdose in 2018. During that year, the state’s health care providers wrote more than 79.4 opioid prescriptions for every 100 persons, which puts the state in the top five in the United States in 2018, when the average U.S. rate was 51.4 prescriptions per 100 persons.
Charged with one count each of conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and dispense controlled substances and maintaining drug-involved premises and conspiracy to commit health care fraud, Dr. Talbot is also charged with four counts of unlawfully distributing and dispensing controlled substances. He is scheduled for a federal court appearance on September 10.
In addition to presigning prescriptions for individuals he didn’t meet or examine, federal officials allege Dr. Talbot hired another health care provider to similarly presign prescriptions for people who weren’t examined at a medical practice in Slidell, where Dr. Talbot was employed. The DOJ says Dr. Talbot took a full-time job in Pineville, La., and presigned prescriptions while no longer physically present at the Slidell clinic.
A speaker’s bio for Dr. Talbot indicates he worked as chief of medical services for the Alexandria Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Pineville.
According to the DOJ’s indictment, Dr. Talbot was aware that patients were filling the prescriptions that were provided outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. This is what triggered the DOJ’s fraudulent billing claim.
Dr. Talbot faces a maximum penalty of 10 years for conspiracy to commit health care fraud and 20 years each for the other counts, if convicted.
Dr. Talbot was candidate for local coroner
In February 2015, Dr. Talbot announced his candidacy for coroner for St. Tammany Parish, about an hour’s drive south of New Orleans, reported the Times Picayune. The seat was open because the previous coroner had resigned and ultimately pleaded guilty to a federal corruption charge.
The Times Picayune reported at the time that Dr. Talbot was a U.S. Navy veteran, in addition to serving as medical director and a primary care physician at the Medical Care Center in Slidell. Among the services provided to his patients were evaluations and treatment for substance use and mental health disorders, according to a press release issued by Dr. Talbot’s campaign.
Dr. Talbot’s medical license was issued in 1999 and inactive as of 2017, per the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.
Louisiana expects $325M in multistate settlement with opioid companies
Louisiana is a party to a multistate and multijurisdictional lawsuit where the state is expected to receive more than $325 million in a settlement reached with drug distributors Cardinal, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen, and drug manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, reported the Louisiana Illuminator in July. The total settlement may reach $26 billion dollars.
The Associated Press reported in July that there have been at least $40 billion in completed or proposed settlements, penalties, and fines between governments as a result of the opioid epidemic since 2007.
That total doesn’t include a proposed settlement involving members of the Sackler family, who own Purdue Pharmaceuticals, which manufactured and marketed the opioid painkiller OxyContin. The Sackler family have agreed to pay approximately $4.3 billion and surrender ownership of their bankrupt company, reported NPR. The family’s proposed settlement is part of a deal involving Purdue Pharmaceuticals worth more than $10 billion, reported Reuters.
In 2020, there were more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths, the highest number recorded in a 12-month period, per the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fentanyl, an illicitly manufactured synthetic opioid, was the lead driver of those deaths.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The substances include oxycodone and morphine.
Adrian Dexter Talbot, MD, 55, of Slidell, La., is also charged with maintaining a medical clinic for the purpose of illegally distributing controlled substances, per the indictment.
Because the opioid prescriptions were filled using beneficiaries’ health insurance, Dr. Talbot is also charged with defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana of more than $5.1 million.
When contacted by this news organization for comment on the case via Twitter, Dr. Talbot or a representative responded with a link to his self-published book on Amazon. In his author bio, Dr. Talbot refers to himself as “a former assassin,” “retired military commander,” and “leader of the Medellin Cartel’s New York operations at the age of 16.” The Medellin Cartel is a notorious drug distribution empire.
Dr. Talbot is listed as the author of another book on Google Books detailing his time as a “former teenage assassin” and leader of the cartel, told as he struggles with early onset Alzheimer’s.
Dr. Talbot could spend decades in prison
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 444 residents of the Bayou State lost their lives because of an opioid-related drug overdose in 2018. During that year, the state’s health care providers wrote more than 79.4 opioid prescriptions for every 100 persons, which puts the state in the top five in the United States in 2018, when the average U.S. rate was 51.4 prescriptions per 100 persons.
Charged with one count each of conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and dispense controlled substances and maintaining drug-involved premises and conspiracy to commit health care fraud, Dr. Talbot is also charged with four counts of unlawfully distributing and dispensing controlled substances. He is scheduled for a federal court appearance on September 10.
In addition to presigning prescriptions for individuals he didn’t meet or examine, federal officials allege Dr. Talbot hired another health care provider to similarly presign prescriptions for people who weren’t examined at a medical practice in Slidell, where Dr. Talbot was employed. The DOJ says Dr. Talbot took a full-time job in Pineville, La., and presigned prescriptions while no longer physically present at the Slidell clinic.
A speaker’s bio for Dr. Talbot indicates he worked as chief of medical services for the Alexandria Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Pineville.
According to the DOJ’s indictment, Dr. Talbot was aware that patients were filling the prescriptions that were provided outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. This is what triggered the DOJ’s fraudulent billing claim.
Dr. Talbot faces a maximum penalty of 10 years for conspiracy to commit health care fraud and 20 years each for the other counts, if convicted.
Dr. Talbot was candidate for local coroner
In February 2015, Dr. Talbot announced his candidacy for coroner for St. Tammany Parish, about an hour’s drive south of New Orleans, reported the Times Picayune. The seat was open because the previous coroner had resigned and ultimately pleaded guilty to a federal corruption charge.
The Times Picayune reported at the time that Dr. Talbot was a U.S. Navy veteran, in addition to serving as medical director and a primary care physician at the Medical Care Center in Slidell. Among the services provided to his patients were evaluations and treatment for substance use and mental health disorders, according to a press release issued by Dr. Talbot’s campaign.
Dr. Talbot’s medical license was issued in 1999 and inactive as of 2017, per the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.
Louisiana expects $325M in multistate settlement with opioid companies
Louisiana is a party to a multistate and multijurisdictional lawsuit where the state is expected to receive more than $325 million in a settlement reached with drug distributors Cardinal, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen, and drug manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, reported the Louisiana Illuminator in July. The total settlement may reach $26 billion dollars.
The Associated Press reported in July that there have been at least $40 billion in completed or proposed settlements, penalties, and fines between governments as a result of the opioid epidemic since 2007.
That total doesn’t include a proposed settlement involving members of the Sackler family, who own Purdue Pharmaceuticals, which manufactured and marketed the opioid painkiller OxyContin. The Sackler family have agreed to pay approximately $4.3 billion and surrender ownership of their bankrupt company, reported NPR. The family’s proposed settlement is part of a deal involving Purdue Pharmaceuticals worth more than $10 billion, reported Reuters.
In 2020, there were more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths, the highest number recorded in a 12-month period, per the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fentanyl, an illicitly manufactured synthetic opioid, was the lead driver of those deaths.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PA gets prison time for knowingly prescribing unneeded addictive drugs
A U.S. District Judge sentenced William Soyke, 68, of Hanover, Penn., for acting outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland. The 37-month prison term will be followed by 3 years of supervised release.
According to the plea agreement, Mr. Soyke worked as a physician assistant with Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management from 2011 to 2018, where he treated patients during follow-up doctor appointments. As a physician assistant, Mr. Soyke had privileges to prescribe controlled substance medications, but was required to operate under a delegation agreement with the Rosen-Hoffberg owners.
In his plea, Mr. Soyke said that he believed the owners, Norman Rosen, MD, and Howard Hoffberg, MD, prescribed excessive levels of opioids. Despite Mr. Soyke’s attempts to lower patient’s prescription doses, both doctors overruled the PA’s opinion, according to the plea agreement. Also, if another health care provider within the practice declined to treat a patient because of the patient’s aberrant behavior – such as failing a drug screening test for illicit drugs or selling their prescriptions – Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg would assume that patient’s care, the report continued.
As stated in the plea agreement, Mr. Sokye was aware that many of the patients presenting to Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management did not have a legitimate medical need for the oxycodone, fentanyl, alprazolam, and methadone they were being prescribed. Nevertheless, Mr. Soyke issued prescriptions for these drugs to patients without a legitimate medical need and outside the bounds of acceptable medical practice, according to the release.
Mr. Soyke also admitted that in several instances he engaged in sexual, physical contact with female patients who were attempting to get prescriptions, the plea agreement stated. Specifically, Mr. Soyke asked some female customers to engage in a range of motion test, and while they were bending over, he would position himself behind them such that his genitalia would rub against the customers’ buttocks through their clothes. These patients often submitted to this sexual abuse for fear of not getting the medications to which they were addicted, according to the press release.
Although the female patients complained to Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg about Mr. Soyke’s behavior, the doctors did not fire Mr. Soyke because the PA saw the largest number of patients at the practice and generated significant revenue, according to federal officials.
Dr. Hoffberg, the associate medical director and part-owner of the practice, pleaded guilty in June to accepting kickbacks from pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics in exchange for prescribing an opioid drug called Subsys (a fentanyl sublingual spray) marketed by Insys for breakthrough pain in cancer patients for off-label purposes. He will be sentenced in September and faces a maximum of 5 years in federal prison.
Mr. Soyke pled guilty to a federal drug charge in July 2019. In announcing the guilty plea then, U.S. Attorney Robert Hur said, “Opioid overdoses are killing thousands of Marylanders each year, and opioid addiction is fueled by health care providers who prescribe drugs for people without a legitimate medical need. Doctors and other medical professionals who irresponsibly write opioid prescriptions are acting like street-corner drug pushers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A U.S. District Judge sentenced William Soyke, 68, of Hanover, Penn., for acting outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland. The 37-month prison term will be followed by 3 years of supervised release.
According to the plea agreement, Mr. Soyke worked as a physician assistant with Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management from 2011 to 2018, where he treated patients during follow-up doctor appointments. As a physician assistant, Mr. Soyke had privileges to prescribe controlled substance medications, but was required to operate under a delegation agreement with the Rosen-Hoffberg owners.
In his plea, Mr. Soyke said that he believed the owners, Norman Rosen, MD, and Howard Hoffberg, MD, prescribed excessive levels of opioids. Despite Mr. Soyke’s attempts to lower patient’s prescription doses, both doctors overruled the PA’s opinion, according to the plea agreement. Also, if another health care provider within the practice declined to treat a patient because of the patient’s aberrant behavior – such as failing a drug screening test for illicit drugs or selling their prescriptions – Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg would assume that patient’s care, the report continued.
As stated in the plea agreement, Mr. Sokye was aware that many of the patients presenting to Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management did not have a legitimate medical need for the oxycodone, fentanyl, alprazolam, and methadone they were being prescribed. Nevertheless, Mr. Soyke issued prescriptions for these drugs to patients without a legitimate medical need and outside the bounds of acceptable medical practice, according to the release.
Mr. Soyke also admitted that in several instances he engaged in sexual, physical contact with female patients who were attempting to get prescriptions, the plea agreement stated. Specifically, Mr. Soyke asked some female customers to engage in a range of motion test, and while they were bending over, he would position himself behind them such that his genitalia would rub against the customers’ buttocks through their clothes. These patients often submitted to this sexual abuse for fear of not getting the medications to which they were addicted, according to the press release.
Although the female patients complained to Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg about Mr. Soyke’s behavior, the doctors did not fire Mr. Soyke because the PA saw the largest number of patients at the practice and generated significant revenue, according to federal officials.
Dr. Hoffberg, the associate medical director and part-owner of the practice, pleaded guilty in June to accepting kickbacks from pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics in exchange for prescribing an opioid drug called Subsys (a fentanyl sublingual spray) marketed by Insys for breakthrough pain in cancer patients for off-label purposes. He will be sentenced in September and faces a maximum of 5 years in federal prison.
Mr. Soyke pled guilty to a federal drug charge in July 2019. In announcing the guilty plea then, U.S. Attorney Robert Hur said, “Opioid overdoses are killing thousands of Marylanders each year, and opioid addiction is fueled by health care providers who prescribe drugs for people without a legitimate medical need. Doctors and other medical professionals who irresponsibly write opioid prescriptions are acting like street-corner drug pushers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A U.S. District Judge sentenced William Soyke, 68, of Hanover, Penn., for acting outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland. The 37-month prison term will be followed by 3 years of supervised release.
According to the plea agreement, Mr. Soyke worked as a physician assistant with Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management from 2011 to 2018, where he treated patients during follow-up doctor appointments. As a physician assistant, Mr. Soyke had privileges to prescribe controlled substance medications, but was required to operate under a delegation agreement with the Rosen-Hoffberg owners.
In his plea, Mr. Soyke said that he believed the owners, Norman Rosen, MD, and Howard Hoffberg, MD, prescribed excessive levels of opioids. Despite Mr. Soyke’s attempts to lower patient’s prescription doses, both doctors overruled the PA’s opinion, according to the plea agreement. Also, if another health care provider within the practice declined to treat a patient because of the patient’s aberrant behavior – such as failing a drug screening test for illicit drugs or selling their prescriptions – Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg would assume that patient’s care, the report continued.
As stated in the plea agreement, Mr. Sokye was aware that many of the patients presenting to Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management did not have a legitimate medical need for the oxycodone, fentanyl, alprazolam, and methadone they were being prescribed. Nevertheless, Mr. Soyke issued prescriptions for these drugs to patients without a legitimate medical need and outside the bounds of acceptable medical practice, according to the release.
Mr. Soyke also admitted that in several instances he engaged in sexual, physical contact with female patients who were attempting to get prescriptions, the plea agreement stated. Specifically, Mr. Soyke asked some female customers to engage in a range of motion test, and while they were bending over, he would position himself behind them such that his genitalia would rub against the customers’ buttocks through their clothes. These patients often submitted to this sexual abuse for fear of not getting the medications to which they were addicted, according to the press release.
Although the female patients complained to Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg about Mr. Soyke’s behavior, the doctors did not fire Mr. Soyke because the PA saw the largest number of patients at the practice and generated significant revenue, according to federal officials.
Dr. Hoffberg, the associate medical director and part-owner of the practice, pleaded guilty in June to accepting kickbacks from pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics in exchange for prescribing an opioid drug called Subsys (a fentanyl sublingual spray) marketed by Insys for breakthrough pain in cancer patients for off-label purposes. He will be sentenced in September and faces a maximum of 5 years in federal prison.
Mr. Soyke pled guilty to a federal drug charge in July 2019. In announcing the guilty plea then, U.S. Attorney Robert Hur said, “Opioid overdoses are killing thousands of Marylanders each year, and opioid addiction is fueled by health care providers who prescribe drugs for people without a legitimate medical need. Doctors and other medical professionals who irresponsibly write opioid prescriptions are acting like street-corner drug pushers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The secret I’ll take to my grave: Doc reveals
An internist will never forget the dark secret his patient revealed during a routine visit – or the grim aftermath.
The patient, who had a progressive, incurable neurological condition, confided that he planned to kill himself. The patient intended to conceal the true manner and make the death look natural.
“[He planned to do it] very carefully at home so no one would know,” said the internist, who remains anonymous. “[He shared] the methods he would use.”
Perhaps more shocking than the patient’s confession was the physician’s response.
“He did not require my help to do what he planned, and I did not try to stop him,” said the internist. “I reported his death as ‘natural causes’ and never told anyone.”
An ob.gyn., for instance, wrote about struggling with whether to tell a father that his newborn baby was not his genetic child. The newborn had a blood type that made it impossible for the father to be biologically related to the infant, the anonymous doctor wrote.
“I told the wife who then informed me she had a lover,” the ob.gyn. said. “I never told the husband.”
It’s uncertain whether carrying the burden of such hidden knowledge affected the physicians involved in these cases. However, in general, secrets can weigh heavily on the minds of those who keep them and can contribute to stress, said Malia Mason, PhD, a psychologist and dean of research at Columbia Business School in New York. Holding onto secrets can cause depression and anxiety, research shows. The more often people think about the secret, the greater the impact, according to a recent study coauthored by Dr. Mason.
“Keeping a secret diminishes well-being,” Dr. Mason said. “It makes people feel socially distant. It lowers relationship satisfaction, and it leads people to feel inauthentic. The reason that secrets do this is because people think about them all the time. The more you think about it, the more you see these consequences.”
Feelings that stem from a secret depend on the content. The more immoral a secret is thought to be, the more people feel ashamed, according to a 2021 analysis of thousands of secrets, reported by Michael L. Slepian, PhD, and Alex Koch, PhD. However, secrets more related to a person’s profession are often internalized differently, the study found. The more a secret fell higher on the profession/goal-oriented dimension, the more people felt they had insight into the secret, according to the analysis. For example, having clear thinking about the secret and/or knowing how to handle it.
“The more shame participants felt from their secret, the more they indicated the secret hurt their well-being,” Dr. Slepian and Dr. Koch wrote in the study. “The more insight participants felt they had into their secret, the less they indicated the secret hurt their well-being.”
Suspicious deaths exposed after investigations
The internist’s account of keeping his patient’s suicide a secret raises many questions, such as how the patient masked his manner of death. The internist did not share any more details about the incident.
Suicides are among the most challenging manners of deaths to certify, according to James Gill, MD, a pathologist and president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. Death investigators must demonstrate intent, meaning the individuals caused the injury to intentionally harm themselves. Fewer than half of people who die by suicide leave a note, Dr. Gill said, so investigators can’t rely on the absence or the presence of a note in making their determination.
A decedent who had cancer or a severe neurological disorder presents further challenges, said Dr. Gill, who serves as chief medical examiner for the state of Connecticut.
“These [deaths] may not be unexpected and may not be reported to the medical examiner/coroner,” Dr. Gill said. “If there is no suspicion and the treating doctor is willing to sign the death certificate, the death will not come under the jurisdiction of the medical examiner.”
Dr. Gill recalled a death his colleague once investigated that appeared to be natural but emerged as something else after a deeper look.
A woman with metastatic breast cancer was about to be discharged from a hospital into hospice the next morning. The night before, she had a “going away” party with friends who came to visit her in the hospital. Shortly after the friends left, the woman was found dead. Because of her condition, she could have died at any time, Dr. Gill said, but she also had a history of depression and hospital staff were suspicious. The death was reported to the medical examiner’s office.
Toxicology testing found markedly elevated concentrations of phenytoin and pentobarbital, neither of which were prescribed during her hospital stay. Dr. Gill said it turned out that the woman and her friends worked at a veterinarian’s office, and the medication they used to euthanize dogs was a combination of phenytoin and pentobarbital.
“The death was certified as a homicide because of the direct actions of another, but a reasonable argument could be made for suicide,” Dr. Gill said.
In a similar case reported in the journal Science & Justice, a 64-year-old cardiologist was found lifeless by his wife after he collapsed near the stairs of his home. Next to his body was a bottle of whiskey and two cups, one that appeared to be used for the alcohol and one with a yellowish liquid smelling of honey. The wife reported that her husband always drank whiskey with honey before bed. The death was initially classified as natural, but after vehement protest by the family, a forensic autopsy was performed.
Prior to the autopsy, death investigators learned the decedent, who was a well-known and successful practitioner in his community, had Parkinson’s disease. At times, he could not sign his prescriptions because of the increasing tremor in his hands, according to the case study. Investigators learned the patient’s mother had also suffered from Parkinson’s, and that her son had witnessed her decline.
The autopsy revealed only nonspecific lesions such as acute stasis of the viscera, moderate pulmonary and cerebral edema, and moderate generalized atheromatosis. Histological examinations did not yield any unusual findings.
An analysis of the beverage containers detected pentobarbital in the yellowish syrup residue of the second cup. Testing of the doctor’s peripheral blood revealed the presence of a metabolite of pentobarbital, ethanol, and traces of phenobarbital. In addition, a urine analysis showed the presence of venlafaxine, an antidepressant, as well as the benzophenone of lorazepam, a sedating benzodiazepine, and metoclopramide, an antiemetic.
Lead author C. Brandt-Casadevall, MD, and colleagues wrote that the levels were clearly compatible with a scenario of a pentobarbital overdose with a lethal outcome.
“... It is obvious that the victim attempted to hide his suicide from his family circle,” Dr. Brandt-Casadevall and colleagues wrote. “Thus, we obtained no evidence indicating that he might have spoken at any point of putting an end to his life. There was no written note. The victim did not wait to be alone at home. Instead, he committed his act in a routine situation: his wife was watching television late at night and he was upstairs, presumably going to sleep. Thus, he had one to two hours at his disposal, and he ingested a very fast-acting drug which would make any attempt at reanimation impossible, even after a brief period of time. This may have induced the physician in charge to believe that the cause of death was cardiac origin, a likely hypothesis given the age of the victim.”
What to do when a terminally ill patient talks suicide
When a terminally ill patient expresses the desire to end his or her life, it’s important to understand that desire is often a result of existential suffering, a sense of hopelessness, and lack of social support, said Lynn A. Jansen, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
“The duty of beneficence requires that physicians attempt to provide the support and care that is needed,” said Dr. Jansen. “Here, interdisciplinary teamwork is important and should be utilized. Physicians should refer patients to professionals, such as social workers, pastoral care, psychologists, etc., who are better able to address these issues.”
The rate of desire for a hastened death among terminally ill patients ranges from 17% to 45%, depending on the population studied and how the desire is evaluated, according to an analysis in the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. In one study, 14% of about 130 palliative care patients with cancer had a strong desire to quicken the dying process.
In addition, patients with neurologic disorders have a significantly higher suicide rate than that of those without neurologic disorders, a recent JAMA study found. About 1 in 150 patients diagnosed with a neurological disorder dies by suicide, the analysis determined.
A tricky point to remember is that a desire by a terminally ill patient to hasten his or her death by suicide should not be taken by itself to indicate depression, Dr. Jansen noted.
“In principle, such patients can make an autonomous decision to end their lives,” she said. “However, the expression of such a desire is very often associated with depression and forms of suffering that can be effectively addressed by the health care team.”
Physicians can also explore other avenues with the patient such as palliative care or making sure adequate pain relief is available, added Robert Klitzman, MD, professor of psychiatry and academic director of the master of science in bioethics program at Columbia University, New York.
“If they are saying it’s because they are distressed, ethically, a doctor can and should find ways to decrease their distress,” he said.
Of course, those who practice in the U.S. jurisdictions that have physician-assisted-dying laws have different legal and ethical elements to consider. Physicians in these areas have no ethical duty to participate in the process, Dr. Jansen said, but they have a duty to refer patients who express a desire to pursue physician aid-in-dying to another provider who can assist them.
Physician aid-in-dying laws vary somewhat so it’s important that physicians in these areas be aware of their specific statute, Dr. Klitzman said. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia have these laws.
“In these states, if a terminally ill patient says they don’t want to live anymore, a physician would first decide if this is a result of depression or if it’s a request for physician aid-in-dying,” he said. “Even then, in most cases, the patient would be evaluated by not one, but two different health professionals at two different points. We want to see if it is a consistent decision that the person has made that they want physician aid-in-dying, and not just that they’ve had a bad day or a setback in their treatment.”
In the case of the internist who told no one of his patient’s suicide plan, Dr. Klitzman said he would have dug deeper into the patient’s mindset.
“Not knowing anything about the patient or the doctor, I would have responded differently,” he said. “I think a physician should address why a patient feels that way. They may feel their pain is unbearable, and we potentially offer more pain relief. Maybe the patient shows evidence of having depression, which may be treatable [with medication]. The patient would then feel better and be able to spend quality time with family and loved ones, make sure their affairs are in order, and have a chance to say goodbye.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An internist will never forget the dark secret his patient revealed during a routine visit – or the grim aftermath.
The patient, who had a progressive, incurable neurological condition, confided that he planned to kill himself. The patient intended to conceal the true manner and make the death look natural.
“[He planned to do it] very carefully at home so no one would know,” said the internist, who remains anonymous. “[He shared] the methods he would use.”
Perhaps more shocking than the patient’s confession was the physician’s response.
“He did not require my help to do what he planned, and I did not try to stop him,” said the internist. “I reported his death as ‘natural causes’ and never told anyone.”
An ob.gyn., for instance, wrote about struggling with whether to tell a father that his newborn baby was not his genetic child. The newborn had a blood type that made it impossible for the father to be biologically related to the infant, the anonymous doctor wrote.
“I told the wife who then informed me she had a lover,” the ob.gyn. said. “I never told the husband.”
It’s uncertain whether carrying the burden of such hidden knowledge affected the physicians involved in these cases. However, in general, secrets can weigh heavily on the minds of those who keep them and can contribute to stress, said Malia Mason, PhD, a psychologist and dean of research at Columbia Business School in New York. Holding onto secrets can cause depression and anxiety, research shows. The more often people think about the secret, the greater the impact, according to a recent study coauthored by Dr. Mason.
“Keeping a secret diminishes well-being,” Dr. Mason said. “It makes people feel socially distant. It lowers relationship satisfaction, and it leads people to feel inauthentic. The reason that secrets do this is because people think about them all the time. The more you think about it, the more you see these consequences.”
Feelings that stem from a secret depend on the content. The more immoral a secret is thought to be, the more people feel ashamed, according to a 2021 analysis of thousands of secrets, reported by Michael L. Slepian, PhD, and Alex Koch, PhD. However, secrets more related to a person’s profession are often internalized differently, the study found. The more a secret fell higher on the profession/goal-oriented dimension, the more people felt they had insight into the secret, according to the analysis. For example, having clear thinking about the secret and/or knowing how to handle it.
“The more shame participants felt from their secret, the more they indicated the secret hurt their well-being,” Dr. Slepian and Dr. Koch wrote in the study. “The more insight participants felt they had into their secret, the less they indicated the secret hurt their well-being.”
Suspicious deaths exposed after investigations
The internist’s account of keeping his patient’s suicide a secret raises many questions, such as how the patient masked his manner of death. The internist did not share any more details about the incident.
Suicides are among the most challenging manners of deaths to certify, according to James Gill, MD, a pathologist and president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. Death investigators must demonstrate intent, meaning the individuals caused the injury to intentionally harm themselves. Fewer than half of people who die by suicide leave a note, Dr. Gill said, so investigators can’t rely on the absence or the presence of a note in making their determination.
A decedent who had cancer or a severe neurological disorder presents further challenges, said Dr. Gill, who serves as chief medical examiner for the state of Connecticut.
“These [deaths] may not be unexpected and may not be reported to the medical examiner/coroner,” Dr. Gill said. “If there is no suspicion and the treating doctor is willing to sign the death certificate, the death will not come under the jurisdiction of the medical examiner.”
Dr. Gill recalled a death his colleague once investigated that appeared to be natural but emerged as something else after a deeper look.
A woman with metastatic breast cancer was about to be discharged from a hospital into hospice the next morning. The night before, she had a “going away” party with friends who came to visit her in the hospital. Shortly after the friends left, the woman was found dead. Because of her condition, she could have died at any time, Dr. Gill said, but she also had a history of depression and hospital staff were suspicious. The death was reported to the medical examiner’s office.
Toxicology testing found markedly elevated concentrations of phenytoin and pentobarbital, neither of which were prescribed during her hospital stay. Dr. Gill said it turned out that the woman and her friends worked at a veterinarian’s office, and the medication they used to euthanize dogs was a combination of phenytoin and pentobarbital.
“The death was certified as a homicide because of the direct actions of another, but a reasonable argument could be made for suicide,” Dr. Gill said.
In a similar case reported in the journal Science & Justice, a 64-year-old cardiologist was found lifeless by his wife after he collapsed near the stairs of his home. Next to his body was a bottle of whiskey and two cups, one that appeared to be used for the alcohol and one with a yellowish liquid smelling of honey. The wife reported that her husband always drank whiskey with honey before bed. The death was initially classified as natural, but after vehement protest by the family, a forensic autopsy was performed.
Prior to the autopsy, death investigators learned the decedent, who was a well-known and successful practitioner in his community, had Parkinson’s disease. At times, he could not sign his prescriptions because of the increasing tremor in his hands, according to the case study. Investigators learned the patient’s mother had also suffered from Parkinson’s, and that her son had witnessed her decline.
The autopsy revealed only nonspecific lesions such as acute stasis of the viscera, moderate pulmonary and cerebral edema, and moderate generalized atheromatosis. Histological examinations did not yield any unusual findings.
An analysis of the beverage containers detected pentobarbital in the yellowish syrup residue of the second cup. Testing of the doctor’s peripheral blood revealed the presence of a metabolite of pentobarbital, ethanol, and traces of phenobarbital. In addition, a urine analysis showed the presence of venlafaxine, an antidepressant, as well as the benzophenone of lorazepam, a sedating benzodiazepine, and metoclopramide, an antiemetic.
Lead author C. Brandt-Casadevall, MD, and colleagues wrote that the levels were clearly compatible with a scenario of a pentobarbital overdose with a lethal outcome.
“... It is obvious that the victim attempted to hide his suicide from his family circle,” Dr. Brandt-Casadevall and colleagues wrote. “Thus, we obtained no evidence indicating that he might have spoken at any point of putting an end to his life. There was no written note. The victim did not wait to be alone at home. Instead, he committed his act in a routine situation: his wife was watching television late at night and he was upstairs, presumably going to sleep. Thus, he had one to two hours at his disposal, and he ingested a very fast-acting drug which would make any attempt at reanimation impossible, even after a brief period of time. This may have induced the physician in charge to believe that the cause of death was cardiac origin, a likely hypothesis given the age of the victim.”
What to do when a terminally ill patient talks suicide
When a terminally ill patient expresses the desire to end his or her life, it’s important to understand that desire is often a result of existential suffering, a sense of hopelessness, and lack of social support, said Lynn A. Jansen, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
“The duty of beneficence requires that physicians attempt to provide the support and care that is needed,” said Dr. Jansen. “Here, interdisciplinary teamwork is important and should be utilized. Physicians should refer patients to professionals, such as social workers, pastoral care, psychologists, etc., who are better able to address these issues.”
The rate of desire for a hastened death among terminally ill patients ranges from 17% to 45%, depending on the population studied and how the desire is evaluated, according to an analysis in the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. In one study, 14% of about 130 palliative care patients with cancer had a strong desire to quicken the dying process.
In addition, patients with neurologic disorders have a significantly higher suicide rate than that of those without neurologic disorders, a recent JAMA study found. About 1 in 150 patients diagnosed with a neurological disorder dies by suicide, the analysis determined.
A tricky point to remember is that a desire by a terminally ill patient to hasten his or her death by suicide should not be taken by itself to indicate depression, Dr. Jansen noted.
“In principle, such patients can make an autonomous decision to end their lives,” she said. “However, the expression of such a desire is very often associated with depression and forms of suffering that can be effectively addressed by the health care team.”
Physicians can also explore other avenues with the patient such as palliative care or making sure adequate pain relief is available, added Robert Klitzman, MD, professor of psychiatry and academic director of the master of science in bioethics program at Columbia University, New York.
“If they are saying it’s because they are distressed, ethically, a doctor can and should find ways to decrease their distress,” he said.
Of course, those who practice in the U.S. jurisdictions that have physician-assisted-dying laws have different legal and ethical elements to consider. Physicians in these areas have no ethical duty to participate in the process, Dr. Jansen said, but they have a duty to refer patients who express a desire to pursue physician aid-in-dying to another provider who can assist them.
Physician aid-in-dying laws vary somewhat so it’s important that physicians in these areas be aware of their specific statute, Dr. Klitzman said. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia have these laws.
“In these states, if a terminally ill patient says they don’t want to live anymore, a physician would first decide if this is a result of depression or if it’s a request for physician aid-in-dying,” he said. “Even then, in most cases, the patient would be evaluated by not one, but two different health professionals at two different points. We want to see if it is a consistent decision that the person has made that they want physician aid-in-dying, and not just that they’ve had a bad day or a setback in their treatment.”
In the case of the internist who told no one of his patient’s suicide plan, Dr. Klitzman said he would have dug deeper into the patient’s mindset.
“Not knowing anything about the patient or the doctor, I would have responded differently,” he said. “I think a physician should address why a patient feels that way. They may feel their pain is unbearable, and we potentially offer more pain relief. Maybe the patient shows evidence of having depression, which may be treatable [with medication]. The patient would then feel better and be able to spend quality time with family and loved ones, make sure their affairs are in order, and have a chance to say goodbye.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An internist will never forget the dark secret his patient revealed during a routine visit – or the grim aftermath.
The patient, who had a progressive, incurable neurological condition, confided that he planned to kill himself. The patient intended to conceal the true manner and make the death look natural.
“[He planned to do it] very carefully at home so no one would know,” said the internist, who remains anonymous. “[He shared] the methods he would use.”
Perhaps more shocking than the patient’s confession was the physician’s response.
“He did not require my help to do what he planned, and I did not try to stop him,” said the internist. “I reported his death as ‘natural causes’ and never told anyone.”
An ob.gyn., for instance, wrote about struggling with whether to tell a father that his newborn baby was not his genetic child. The newborn had a blood type that made it impossible for the father to be biologically related to the infant, the anonymous doctor wrote.
“I told the wife who then informed me she had a lover,” the ob.gyn. said. “I never told the husband.”
It’s uncertain whether carrying the burden of such hidden knowledge affected the physicians involved in these cases. However, in general, secrets can weigh heavily on the minds of those who keep them and can contribute to stress, said Malia Mason, PhD, a psychologist and dean of research at Columbia Business School in New York. Holding onto secrets can cause depression and anxiety, research shows. The more often people think about the secret, the greater the impact, according to a recent study coauthored by Dr. Mason.
“Keeping a secret diminishes well-being,” Dr. Mason said. “It makes people feel socially distant. It lowers relationship satisfaction, and it leads people to feel inauthentic. The reason that secrets do this is because people think about them all the time. The more you think about it, the more you see these consequences.”
Feelings that stem from a secret depend on the content. The more immoral a secret is thought to be, the more people feel ashamed, according to a 2021 analysis of thousands of secrets, reported by Michael L. Slepian, PhD, and Alex Koch, PhD. However, secrets more related to a person’s profession are often internalized differently, the study found. The more a secret fell higher on the profession/goal-oriented dimension, the more people felt they had insight into the secret, according to the analysis. For example, having clear thinking about the secret and/or knowing how to handle it.
“The more shame participants felt from their secret, the more they indicated the secret hurt their well-being,” Dr. Slepian and Dr. Koch wrote in the study. “The more insight participants felt they had into their secret, the less they indicated the secret hurt their well-being.”
Suspicious deaths exposed after investigations
The internist’s account of keeping his patient’s suicide a secret raises many questions, such as how the patient masked his manner of death. The internist did not share any more details about the incident.
Suicides are among the most challenging manners of deaths to certify, according to James Gill, MD, a pathologist and president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. Death investigators must demonstrate intent, meaning the individuals caused the injury to intentionally harm themselves. Fewer than half of people who die by suicide leave a note, Dr. Gill said, so investigators can’t rely on the absence or the presence of a note in making their determination.
A decedent who had cancer or a severe neurological disorder presents further challenges, said Dr. Gill, who serves as chief medical examiner for the state of Connecticut.
“These [deaths] may not be unexpected and may not be reported to the medical examiner/coroner,” Dr. Gill said. “If there is no suspicion and the treating doctor is willing to sign the death certificate, the death will not come under the jurisdiction of the medical examiner.”
Dr. Gill recalled a death his colleague once investigated that appeared to be natural but emerged as something else after a deeper look.
A woman with metastatic breast cancer was about to be discharged from a hospital into hospice the next morning. The night before, she had a “going away” party with friends who came to visit her in the hospital. Shortly after the friends left, the woman was found dead. Because of her condition, she could have died at any time, Dr. Gill said, but she also had a history of depression and hospital staff were suspicious. The death was reported to the medical examiner’s office.
Toxicology testing found markedly elevated concentrations of phenytoin and pentobarbital, neither of which were prescribed during her hospital stay. Dr. Gill said it turned out that the woman and her friends worked at a veterinarian’s office, and the medication they used to euthanize dogs was a combination of phenytoin and pentobarbital.
“The death was certified as a homicide because of the direct actions of another, but a reasonable argument could be made for suicide,” Dr. Gill said.
In a similar case reported in the journal Science & Justice, a 64-year-old cardiologist was found lifeless by his wife after he collapsed near the stairs of his home. Next to his body was a bottle of whiskey and two cups, one that appeared to be used for the alcohol and one with a yellowish liquid smelling of honey. The wife reported that her husband always drank whiskey with honey before bed. The death was initially classified as natural, but after vehement protest by the family, a forensic autopsy was performed.
Prior to the autopsy, death investigators learned the decedent, who was a well-known and successful practitioner in his community, had Parkinson’s disease. At times, he could not sign his prescriptions because of the increasing tremor in his hands, according to the case study. Investigators learned the patient’s mother had also suffered from Parkinson’s, and that her son had witnessed her decline.
The autopsy revealed only nonspecific lesions such as acute stasis of the viscera, moderate pulmonary and cerebral edema, and moderate generalized atheromatosis. Histological examinations did not yield any unusual findings.
An analysis of the beverage containers detected pentobarbital in the yellowish syrup residue of the second cup. Testing of the doctor’s peripheral blood revealed the presence of a metabolite of pentobarbital, ethanol, and traces of phenobarbital. In addition, a urine analysis showed the presence of venlafaxine, an antidepressant, as well as the benzophenone of lorazepam, a sedating benzodiazepine, and metoclopramide, an antiemetic.
Lead author C. Brandt-Casadevall, MD, and colleagues wrote that the levels were clearly compatible with a scenario of a pentobarbital overdose with a lethal outcome.
“... It is obvious that the victim attempted to hide his suicide from his family circle,” Dr. Brandt-Casadevall and colleagues wrote. “Thus, we obtained no evidence indicating that he might have spoken at any point of putting an end to his life. There was no written note. The victim did not wait to be alone at home. Instead, he committed his act in a routine situation: his wife was watching television late at night and he was upstairs, presumably going to sleep. Thus, he had one to two hours at his disposal, and he ingested a very fast-acting drug which would make any attempt at reanimation impossible, even after a brief period of time. This may have induced the physician in charge to believe that the cause of death was cardiac origin, a likely hypothesis given the age of the victim.”
What to do when a terminally ill patient talks suicide
When a terminally ill patient expresses the desire to end his or her life, it’s important to understand that desire is often a result of existential suffering, a sense of hopelessness, and lack of social support, said Lynn A. Jansen, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
“The duty of beneficence requires that physicians attempt to provide the support and care that is needed,” said Dr. Jansen. “Here, interdisciplinary teamwork is important and should be utilized. Physicians should refer patients to professionals, such as social workers, pastoral care, psychologists, etc., who are better able to address these issues.”
The rate of desire for a hastened death among terminally ill patients ranges from 17% to 45%, depending on the population studied and how the desire is evaluated, according to an analysis in the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. In one study, 14% of about 130 palliative care patients with cancer had a strong desire to quicken the dying process.
In addition, patients with neurologic disorders have a significantly higher suicide rate than that of those without neurologic disorders, a recent JAMA study found. About 1 in 150 patients diagnosed with a neurological disorder dies by suicide, the analysis determined.
A tricky point to remember is that a desire by a terminally ill patient to hasten his or her death by suicide should not be taken by itself to indicate depression, Dr. Jansen noted.
“In principle, such patients can make an autonomous decision to end their lives,” she said. “However, the expression of such a desire is very often associated with depression and forms of suffering that can be effectively addressed by the health care team.”
Physicians can also explore other avenues with the patient such as palliative care or making sure adequate pain relief is available, added Robert Klitzman, MD, professor of psychiatry and academic director of the master of science in bioethics program at Columbia University, New York.
“If they are saying it’s because they are distressed, ethically, a doctor can and should find ways to decrease their distress,” he said.
Of course, those who practice in the U.S. jurisdictions that have physician-assisted-dying laws have different legal and ethical elements to consider. Physicians in these areas have no ethical duty to participate in the process, Dr. Jansen said, but they have a duty to refer patients who express a desire to pursue physician aid-in-dying to another provider who can assist them.
Physician aid-in-dying laws vary somewhat so it’s important that physicians in these areas be aware of their specific statute, Dr. Klitzman said. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia have these laws.
“In these states, if a terminally ill patient says they don’t want to live anymore, a physician would first decide if this is a result of depression or if it’s a request for physician aid-in-dying,” he said. “Even then, in most cases, the patient would be evaluated by not one, but two different health professionals at two different points. We want to see if it is a consistent decision that the person has made that they want physician aid-in-dying, and not just that they’ve had a bad day or a setback in their treatment.”
In the case of the internist who told no one of his patient’s suicide plan, Dr. Klitzman said he would have dug deeper into the patient’s mindset.
“Not knowing anything about the patient or the doctor, I would have responded differently,” he said. “I think a physician should address why a patient feels that way. They may feel their pain is unbearable, and we potentially offer more pain relief. Maybe the patient shows evidence of having depression, which may be treatable [with medication]. The patient would then feel better and be able to spend quality time with family and loved ones, make sure their affairs are in order, and have a chance to say goodbye.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After five fatal overdoses, doctor sentenced for unlawful prescriptions; more
Doctor sentenced for unlawful prescriptions leading to five patient deaths
Darrel R. Rinehart, MD, was sentenced to 3 years in prison in June 2021 for unlawfully distributing controlled substances, primarily opioids, out of his clinic in Columbia, Tenn. Five of his patients who received prescriptions died of fatal overdoses within a year, according to the Indianapolis Star. Dr. Rinehart agreed to leave Tennessee to avoid punishment in that state before setting up his Indiana clinic.
Dr. Rinehart, 66, admitted to distributing Schedule II controlled substances to four different patients without legitimate medical purpose on 18 occasions between December 2014 and December 2015. He also admitted to knowingly distributing hydrocodone, also a Schedule II controlled substance, in January 2016 to a patient who did not have any health issues justifying the prescription. His medical license has been revoked.
Judge approves $15 million settlement in patient’s sexual assault
An incapacitated woman at Hacienda Healthcare, a long-term care center in Phoenix, Ariz., gave birth in late 2018 after being raped by one of the nursing staff, according to Insurance Journal. In June 2021, a judge approved a $15 million settlement in a lawsuit by the woman’s parents against Phillip E. Gear Jr., MD, the woman’s caregiver for 26 years at the center. The woman had been in a vegetative state at Hacienda Healthcare since childhood, and the judge ruled that she had been the victim of numerous sexual assaults prior to the birth.
The pregnancy was discovered when an employee was changing the garments of the then 29-year-old victim and saw that she was delivering a child. Employees told police they had no idea the woman was pregnant. Police have said that DNA from Nathan Sutherland, a licensed practical nurse who worked at Hacienda and has since given up his nursing license, matched a genetic sample taken from the woman’s son.
The woman’s parents, who care for her son, also sued the state of Arizona and another doctor, Thanh Nguyen, MD, who cared for their daughter. Arizona, which contracts with companies like Hacienda to provide services to people with developmental disabilities, settled last year for $7.5 million. Both Hacienda and Dr. Nguyen, who cared for the woman in the months before the birth, settled for undisclosed amounts.
The insurer for Dr. Gear, who died in late 2020, said it has no obligation to pay the amount, arguing that the doctor’s policy didn’t cover claims arising from a sexual act. The insurer also argued that Dr. Gear wasn’t the woman’s primary care physician when she gave birth and couldn’t be held responsible for sexual assault.
The judge declared the $15 million settlement reasonable, concluding that Dr. Gear’s treatment of the woman had fallen below the standard of care, which included failing to examine her regularly and to diagnose her pregnancy. Requests by the woman’s mother to have exclusively female employees tend to her were not followed, as shown by medical records.
Doctor fired for contributing to suffering and death of prisoners
Washington’s prison system will pay $3.25 million and has fired the medical director of one of its facilities, stemming from the death of an inmate.
John Kleutsch, a 57-year-old prisoner, died in late 2018 of septic shock, acute pancreatitis, and a perforated intestine caused by an improperly treated abdominal wound, according to the Seattle Times. A lawsuit filed by his wife, Julia Kleutsch, said that the staff offered him only Tylenol for his pain and that Julia Barnett, MD, the former prison medical director, refused to take him to a hospital.
Dr. Barnett, whose medical license has been indefinitely suspended, was fired in 2019 after an internal investigation found that her medical care and supervision contributed to the suffering and deaths of several men in the prison, including Mr. Kleutsch.
Mr. Kleutsch, imprisoned for child molestation, was recovering from outpatient cancer surgery and sent back to the prison infirmary to recover. The lawsuit says that Mr. Kleutsch asked staff for help when his abdominal wound became excruciatingly painful, puffy, and oozing, and that at least one nurse asked Dr. Barnett to transfer him to a hospital, but she refused. Dr. Kleutsch’s causes of death were conditions never diagnosed at the prison.
Plaintiff attorney Marta O’Brien called the case “one of the worst medical malpractice cases I have encountered” and said it showed “a systemic failure” by the Department of Corrections.
SNF pays $11 million to resolve Medicare fraud allegations
SavaSeniorCare (Sava) and related entities agreed to pay $11.2 million in May 2021 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by making their skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) bill Medicare for rehabilitation therapy services that were not reasonable, necessary, or skilled. The payment was also to resolve allegations that Sava billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for substandard skilled nursing services, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Sava is based in Georgia but owns and operates SNFs across the country.
The government filed a complaint against Sava in 2015, alleging that between October 2008 and September 2012, Sava intentionally submitted false claims for rehabilitation therapy services as a result of a systematic effort to increase its Medicare and Medicaid billings. The claim alleged that Sava exerted significant pressure on its SNFs to meet unrealistic financial goals, resulting in the provision of medically unreasonable, unnecessary, or unskilled services to Medicare patients. Sava also allegedly sought to increase its Medicare payments by delaying the discharge of patients from its facilities, even though the patients were medically ready to be discharged.
Additionally, the government alleged that some of Sava’s nursing services failed to meet federal standards of care, including failing to have sufficient staffing at certain facilities, failing to follow appropriate pressure ulcer and falls protocols, and failing to appropriately administer medications.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctor sentenced for unlawful prescriptions leading to five patient deaths
Darrel R. Rinehart, MD, was sentenced to 3 years in prison in June 2021 for unlawfully distributing controlled substances, primarily opioids, out of his clinic in Columbia, Tenn. Five of his patients who received prescriptions died of fatal overdoses within a year, according to the Indianapolis Star. Dr. Rinehart agreed to leave Tennessee to avoid punishment in that state before setting up his Indiana clinic.
Dr. Rinehart, 66, admitted to distributing Schedule II controlled substances to four different patients without legitimate medical purpose on 18 occasions between December 2014 and December 2015. He also admitted to knowingly distributing hydrocodone, also a Schedule II controlled substance, in January 2016 to a patient who did not have any health issues justifying the prescription. His medical license has been revoked.
Judge approves $15 million settlement in patient’s sexual assault
An incapacitated woman at Hacienda Healthcare, a long-term care center in Phoenix, Ariz., gave birth in late 2018 after being raped by one of the nursing staff, according to Insurance Journal. In June 2021, a judge approved a $15 million settlement in a lawsuit by the woman’s parents against Phillip E. Gear Jr., MD, the woman’s caregiver for 26 years at the center. The woman had been in a vegetative state at Hacienda Healthcare since childhood, and the judge ruled that she had been the victim of numerous sexual assaults prior to the birth.
The pregnancy was discovered when an employee was changing the garments of the then 29-year-old victim and saw that she was delivering a child. Employees told police they had no idea the woman was pregnant. Police have said that DNA from Nathan Sutherland, a licensed practical nurse who worked at Hacienda and has since given up his nursing license, matched a genetic sample taken from the woman’s son.
The woman’s parents, who care for her son, also sued the state of Arizona and another doctor, Thanh Nguyen, MD, who cared for their daughter. Arizona, which contracts with companies like Hacienda to provide services to people with developmental disabilities, settled last year for $7.5 million. Both Hacienda and Dr. Nguyen, who cared for the woman in the months before the birth, settled for undisclosed amounts.
The insurer for Dr. Gear, who died in late 2020, said it has no obligation to pay the amount, arguing that the doctor’s policy didn’t cover claims arising from a sexual act. The insurer also argued that Dr. Gear wasn’t the woman’s primary care physician when she gave birth and couldn’t be held responsible for sexual assault.
The judge declared the $15 million settlement reasonable, concluding that Dr. Gear’s treatment of the woman had fallen below the standard of care, which included failing to examine her regularly and to diagnose her pregnancy. Requests by the woman’s mother to have exclusively female employees tend to her were not followed, as shown by medical records.
Doctor fired for contributing to suffering and death of prisoners
Washington’s prison system will pay $3.25 million and has fired the medical director of one of its facilities, stemming from the death of an inmate.
John Kleutsch, a 57-year-old prisoner, died in late 2018 of septic shock, acute pancreatitis, and a perforated intestine caused by an improperly treated abdominal wound, according to the Seattle Times. A lawsuit filed by his wife, Julia Kleutsch, said that the staff offered him only Tylenol for his pain and that Julia Barnett, MD, the former prison medical director, refused to take him to a hospital.
Dr. Barnett, whose medical license has been indefinitely suspended, was fired in 2019 after an internal investigation found that her medical care and supervision contributed to the suffering and deaths of several men in the prison, including Mr. Kleutsch.
Mr. Kleutsch, imprisoned for child molestation, was recovering from outpatient cancer surgery and sent back to the prison infirmary to recover. The lawsuit says that Mr. Kleutsch asked staff for help when his abdominal wound became excruciatingly painful, puffy, and oozing, and that at least one nurse asked Dr. Barnett to transfer him to a hospital, but she refused. Dr. Kleutsch’s causes of death were conditions never diagnosed at the prison.
Plaintiff attorney Marta O’Brien called the case “one of the worst medical malpractice cases I have encountered” and said it showed “a systemic failure” by the Department of Corrections.
SNF pays $11 million to resolve Medicare fraud allegations
SavaSeniorCare (Sava) and related entities agreed to pay $11.2 million in May 2021 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by making their skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) bill Medicare for rehabilitation therapy services that were not reasonable, necessary, or skilled. The payment was also to resolve allegations that Sava billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for substandard skilled nursing services, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Sava is based in Georgia but owns and operates SNFs across the country.
The government filed a complaint against Sava in 2015, alleging that between October 2008 and September 2012, Sava intentionally submitted false claims for rehabilitation therapy services as a result of a systematic effort to increase its Medicare and Medicaid billings. The claim alleged that Sava exerted significant pressure on its SNFs to meet unrealistic financial goals, resulting in the provision of medically unreasonable, unnecessary, or unskilled services to Medicare patients. Sava also allegedly sought to increase its Medicare payments by delaying the discharge of patients from its facilities, even though the patients were medically ready to be discharged.
Additionally, the government alleged that some of Sava’s nursing services failed to meet federal standards of care, including failing to have sufficient staffing at certain facilities, failing to follow appropriate pressure ulcer and falls protocols, and failing to appropriately administer medications.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctor sentenced for unlawful prescriptions leading to five patient deaths
Darrel R. Rinehart, MD, was sentenced to 3 years in prison in June 2021 for unlawfully distributing controlled substances, primarily opioids, out of his clinic in Columbia, Tenn. Five of his patients who received prescriptions died of fatal overdoses within a year, according to the Indianapolis Star. Dr. Rinehart agreed to leave Tennessee to avoid punishment in that state before setting up his Indiana clinic.
Dr. Rinehart, 66, admitted to distributing Schedule II controlled substances to four different patients without legitimate medical purpose on 18 occasions between December 2014 and December 2015. He also admitted to knowingly distributing hydrocodone, also a Schedule II controlled substance, in January 2016 to a patient who did not have any health issues justifying the prescription. His medical license has been revoked.
Judge approves $15 million settlement in patient’s sexual assault
An incapacitated woman at Hacienda Healthcare, a long-term care center in Phoenix, Ariz., gave birth in late 2018 after being raped by one of the nursing staff, according to Insurance Journal. In June 2021, a judge approved a $15 million settlement in a lawsuit by the woman’s parents against Phillip E. Gear Jr., MD, the woman’s caregiver for 26 years at the center. The woman had been in a vegetative state at Hacienda Healthcare since childhood, and the judge ruled that she had been the victim of numerous sexual assaults prior to the birth.
The pregnancy was discovered when an employee was changing the garments of the then 29-year-old victim and saw that she was delivering a child. Employees told police they had no idea the woman was pregnant. Police have said that DNA from Nathan Sutherland, a licensed practical nurse who worked at Hacienda and has since given up his nursing license, matched a genetic sample taken from the woman’s son.
The woman’s parents, who care for her son, also sued the state of Arizona and another doctor, Thanh Nguyen, MD, who cared for their daughter. Arizona, which contracts with companies like Hacienda to provide services to people with developmental disabilities, settled last year for $7.5 million. Both Hacienda and Dr. Nguyen, who cared for the woman in the months before the birth, settled for undisclosed amounts.
The insurer for Dr. Gear, who died in late 2020, said it has no obligation to pay the amount, arguing that the doctor’s policy didn’t cover claims arising from a sexual act. The insurer also argued that Dr. Gear wasn’t the woman’s primary care physician when she gave birth and couldn’t be held responsible for sexual assault.
The judge declared the $15 million settlement reasonable, concluding that Dr. Gear’s treatment of the woman had fallen below the standard of care, which included failing to examine her regularly and to diagnose her pregnancy. Requests by the woman’s mother to have exclusively female employees tend to her were not followed, as shown by medical records.
Doctor fired for contributing to suffering and death of prisoners
Washington’s prison system will pay $3.25 million and has fired the medical director of one of its facilities, stemming from the death of an inmate.
John Kleutsch, a 57-year-old prisoner, died in late 2018 of septic shock, acute pancreatitis, and a perforated intestine caused by an improperly treated abdominal wound, according to the Seattle Times. A lawsuit filed by his wife, Julia Kleutsch, said that the staff offered him only Tylenol for his pain and that Julia Barnett, MD, the former prison medical director, refused to take him to a hospital.
Dr. Barnett, whose medical license has been indefinitely suspended, was fired in 2019 after an internal investigation found that her medical care and supervision contributed to the suffering and deaths of several men in the prison, including Mr. Kleutsch.
Mr. Kleutsch, imprisoned for child molestation, was recovering from outpatient cancer surgery and sent back to the prison infirmary to recover. The lawsuit says that Mr. Kleutsch asked staff for help when his abdominal wound became excruciatingly painful, puffy, and oozing, and that at least one nurse asked Dr. Barnett to transfer him to a hospital, but she refused. Dr. Kleutsch’s causes of death were conditions never diagnosed at the prison.
Plaintiff attorney Marta O’Brien called the case “one of the worst medical malpractice cases I have encountered” and said it showed “a systemic failure” by the Department of Corrections.
SNF pays $11 million to resolve Medicare fraud allegations
SavaSeniorCare (Sava) and related entities agreed to pay $11.2 million in May 2021 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by making their skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) bill Medicare for rehabilitation therapy services that were not reasonable, necessary, or skilled. The payment was also to resolve allegations that Sava billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for substandard skilled nursing services, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Sava is based in Georgia but owns and operates SNFs across the country.
The government filed a complaint against Sava in 2015, alleging that between October 2008 and September 2012, Sava intentionally submitted false claims for rehabilitation therapy services as a result of a systematic effort to increase its Medicare and Medicaid billings. The claim alleged that Sava exerted significant pressure on its SNFs to meet unrealistic financial goals, resulting in the provision of medically unreasonable, unnecessary, or unskilled services to Medicare patients. Sava also allegedly sought to increase its Medicare payments by delaying the discharge of patients from its facilities, even though the patients were medically ready to be discharged.
Additionally, the government alleged that some of Sava’s nursing services failed to meet federal standards of care, including failing to have sufficient staffing at certain facilities, failing to follow appropriate pressure ulcer and falls protocols, and failing to appropriately administer medications.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Family physician Joseph E. Scherger champions lifestyle change
Joseph E. Scherger, MD, MPH, is a family physician of 40 years and an avid runner who has carried over his passion for fitness and nutrition into treating patients.
He achieved this through moving to practicing functional medicine a decade ago.
According to Dr. Scherger, functional medicine “shifts the whole approach [to family medicine], recognizing that people’s chronic diseases, like hypertension and diabetes, are completely reversible, and the reason why is because they’re caused by what we eat and how we live.”
Practicing functional medicine continues to make working exciting for Dr. Scherger, he says.
“Now that I’ve shifted into nutrition and lifestyle, I feel like I’m a healer, you know? I’m not just refilling prescriptions anymore,” he said.
The burden of disease brought about by bad nutrition and our profit-hungry food industry is staggering, explained Dr. Scherger, As such, he encourages his patients to adopt lifestyle and nutritional changes that allow the body to become healthy again.
Dr. Scherger’s shift into lifestyle-oriented medicine reflects his own experiences with healthy living, and how it has impacted his life.
“I’m 70 years old, and I’m still running, and I feel the same as when I was 40 or 50.” He has completed 40 marathons, ten 50K and five 50-mile ultramarathon trail runs, and, although retired from long-distance running, he is currently training for an upcoming 5K Thanksgiving turkey trot with his 6-year-old grandson. “He loves it. He’s faster than I am, I have trouble keeping up with him,” he confessed.
Earlier days of career
“I’ve been very blessed to have a career that kept changing every 5-10 years,” he said. “I’ve been able to evolve in a way of shifting my interests from one area to another,” he said.
Dr. Scherger has held many positions in the medical field, from serving in the National Health Service Corps in Dixon, Calif., as a migrant health physician during 1978-1980, to being chair of graduate medical education at Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, Calif., from 2009 to 2015. In between, he taught at the University of California, Davis, and served as founding dean of the Florida State University College of Medicine.
Originally from Ohio, Dr. Scherger was born in 1950 in the small town of Delphos. He graduated from the University of Dayton in 1971 before attending medical school at University of California, Los Angeles, for 4 years. He then completed a family medicine residency and a masters in public health at the University of Washington, Seattle, in 1978.
A resident of the Golden State for 50 years now, Dr. Scherger describes himself as a “true Californian.” Currently, he is in practice at Eisenhower Health in La Quinta, Calif., where he is a core faculty member in the family medicine residency program. He is also a physician under the health center’s Primary Care 365 program, which offers patients regular communication with and increased access to their physicians, emphasizing on telemedicine. He also founded Restore Health – Disease Reversal, a wellness center in Indian Wells, Calif., that focuses on improving patients’ health through changes in nutrition and lifestyle.
Within his medical practice, Dr. Scherger is seen by colleagues as a doctor who not only advocates for his patients, but also goes above and beyond to solve their problems.
“He’s a leader, an advocate, and he inspires others to do what they do,” said Julia L. Martin, MD, a fellow family medicine practitioner who has been working with Dr. Scherger at the Eisenhower Medical Center for the past 5 years. “Being a physician is a very challenging role. You need to be patient and understanding in trying to investigate what the patient wants and work through that to try to find the solution. Dr. Scherger is really good at that.”
Inspiration for writing
Apart from his roles as a physician and faculty member, Dr. Scherger is also an author of two books: “40 Years in Family Medicine” (Scotts Valley, Calif.: CreateSpace, 2014) and “Lean and Fit: A Doctor’s Journey to Healthy Nutrition and Greater Wellness” (Scotts Valley, Calif.: CreateSpace, 2015). He admits to not being a naturally gifted writer, and is more intrinsically skilled at speaking. When he was in medical school, however, a mentor told him that the written word is eternal, and this left a deep impression on him.
“When I think of something that’s worth writing about, that I think will be a contribution to my field, I don’t hesitate to begin to write and develop,” said Dr. Scherger. “ I’ve done some research that I’m proud of, but most of [my writings] are hopefully thoughtful essays to help move my field along, and it’s enormously satisfying to make these contributions.”
Awards and other contributions to family medicine
Dr. Scherger’s contributions to the field of family medicine have been recognized continuously over his career.
He has served on the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Board of Family Medicine. He is also the recipient of numerous awards, such as being chosen as Family Physician of the Year by the American Academy of Family Physicians and the California Academy of Family Physicians in 1989. From 1988 to 1991, he was a fellow in the Kellogg National Fellowship Program.
While he has managed to reinvent his own practice and medical focus, Dr. Scherger is also concerned with the need to remodel the current state of primary care and family medicine. Regarding challenges facing the field, he mentions the burnout faced by many doctors.
Nowadays, the work of family medicine includes much more than those common acute illnesses – it includes preventive medicine, chronic illness management and mental health counseling. “Yet, somehow, the whole economic and schedule model is based on brief visits,” said Dr. Scherger. “I think the most common reason that a lot of family doctors are burned out is that they’re expected to see so many people a day, and they know they don’t have enough time to do a really good job.”
He elaborated: “The real challenge now for family practice is to be re-engineered to be for the modern age, and not be still stuck in a ‘make an appointment, come and get it’ model of care, which is outdated. So I’ve been working a long time in trying to reinvent primary care. And, you know, it’s hard to make those changes, and it’s still a work in progress.”
One of the ways Dr. Scherger has been working on the primary care model is to help redesign it for the computer age. He started doing telemedicine and online care in 1997, even though other doctors gave him pushback for doing so at the time. Today, in his practice, half of his patients are remote, and under Eisenhower’s Primary Care 365 service, he uses telemedicine to its fullest potential.
Dr. Martin calls Dr. Scherger an “innovator,” adding: “He really tries to find what works for a solution, in different ways – not just one cookie cutter way.”
Despite nearly 50 years of being a doctor, the profession has not gotten any less rewarding for Dr. Scherger, who says he does not intend to retire as long as he is any good at it.
“My mother always said, ‘Joe, your life should be dedicated to making the world a better place.’ I really took that to heart and realized that my greatest joy is to help other people.”
Joseph E. Scherger, MD, MPH, is a family physician of 40 years and an avid runner who has carried over his passion for fitness and nutrition into treating patients.
He achieved this through moving to practicing functional medicine a decade ago.
According to Dr. Scherger, functional medicine “shifts the whole approach [to family medicine], recognizing that people’s chronic diseases, like hypertension and diabetes, are completely reversible, and the reason why is because they’re caused by what we eat and how we live.”
Practicing functional medicine continues to make working exciting for Dr. Scherger, he says.
“Now that I’ve shifted into nutrition and lifestyle, I feel like I’m a healer, you know? I’m not just refilling prescriptions anymore,” he said.
The burden of disease brought about by bad nutrition and our profit-hungry food industry is staggering, explained Dr. Scherger, As such, he encourages his patients to adopt lifestyle and nutritional changes that allow the body to become healthy again.
Dr. Scherger’s shift into lifestyle-oriented medicine reflects his own experiences with healthy living, and how it has impacted his life.
“I’m 70 years old, and I’m still running, and I feel the same as when I was 40 or 50.” He has completed 40 marathons, ten 50K and five 50-mile ultramarathon trail runs, and, although retired from long-distance running, he is currently training for an upcoming 5K Thanksgiving turkey trot with his 6-year-old grandson. “He loves it. He’s faster than I am, I have trouble keeping up with him,” he confessed.
Earlier days of career
“I’ve been very blessed to have a career that kept changing every 5-10 years,” he said. “I’ve been able to evolve in a way of shifting my interests from one area to another,” he said.
Dr. Scherger has held many positions in the medical field, from serving in the National Health Service Corps in Dixon, Calif., as a migrant health physician during 1978-1980, to being chair of graduate medical education at Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, Calif., from 2009 to 2015. In between, he taught at the University of California, Davis, and served as founding dean of the Florida State University College of Medicine.
Originally from Ohio, Dr. Scherger was born in 1950 in the small town of Delphos. He graduated from the University of Dayton in 1971 before attending medical school at University of California, Los Angeles, for 4 years. He then completed a family medicine residency and a masters in public health at the University of Washington, Seattle, in 1978.
A resident of the Golden State for 50 years now, Dr. Scherger describes himself as a “true Californian.” Currently, he is in practice at Eisenhower Health in La Quinta, Calif., where he is a core faculty member in the family medicine residency program. He is also a physician under the health center’s Primary Care 365 program, which offers patients regular communication with and increased access to their physicians, emphasizing on telemedicine. He also founded Restore Health – Disease Reversal, a wellness center in Indian Wells, Calif., that focuses on improving patients’ health through changes in nutrition and lifestyle.
Within his medical practice, Dr. Scherger is seen by colleagues as a doctor who not only advocates for his patients, but also goes above and beyond to solve their problems.
“He’s a leader, an advocate, and he inspires others to do what they do,” said Julia L. Martin, MD, a fellow family medicine practitioner who has been working with Dr. Scherger at the Eisenhower Medical Center for the past 5 years. “Being a physician is a very challenging role. You need to be patient and understanding in trying to investigate what the patient wants and work through that to try to find the solution. Dr. Scherger is really good at that.”
Inspiration for writing
Apart from his roles as a physician and faculty member, Dr. Scherger is also an author of two books: “40 Years in Family Medicine” (Scotts Valley, Calif.: CreateSpace, 2014) and “Lean and Fit: A Doctor’s Journey to Healthy Nutrition and Greater Wellness” (Scotts Valley, Calif.: CreateSpace, 2015). He admits to not being a naturally gifted writer, and is more intrinsically skilled at speaking. When he was in medical school, however, a mentor told him that the written word is eternal, and this left a deep impression on him.
“When I think of something that’s worth writing about, that I think will be a contribution to my field, I don’t hesitate to begin to write and develop,” said Dr. Scherger. “ I’ve done some research that I’m proud of, but most of [my writings] are hopefully thoughtful essays to help move my field along, and it’s enormously satisfying to make these contributions.”
Awards and other contributions to family medicine
Dr. Scherger’s contributions to the field of family medicine have been recognized continuously over his career.
He has served on the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Board of Family Medicine. He is also the recipient of numerous awards, such as being chosen as Family Physician of the Year by the American Academy of Family Physicians and the California Academy of Family Physicians in 1989. From 1988 to 1991, he was a fellow in the Kellogg National Fellowship Program.
While he has managed to reinvent his own practice and medical focus, Dr. Scherger is also concerned with the need to remodel the current state of primary care and family medicine. Regarding challenges facing the field, he mentions the burnout faced by many doctors.
Nowadays, the work of family medicine includes much more than those common acute illnesses – it includes preventive medicine, chronic illness management and mental health counseling. “Yet, somehow, the whole economic and schedule model is based on brief visits,” said Dr. Scherger. “I think the most common reason that a lot of family doctors are burned out is that they’re expected to see so many people a day, and they know they don’t have enough time to do a really good job.”
He elaborated: “The real challenge now for family practice is to be re-engineered to be for the modern age, and not be still stuck in a ‘make an appointment, come and get it’ model of care, which is outdated. So I’ve been working a long time in trying to reinvent primary care. And, you know, it’s hard to make those changes, and it’s still a work in progress.”
One of the ways Dr. Scherger has been working on the primary care model is to help redesign it for the computer age. He started doing telemedicine and online care in 1997, even though other doctors gave him pushback for doing so at the time. Today, in his practice, half of his patients are remote, and under Eisenhower’s Primary Care 365 service, he uses telemedicine to its fullest potential.
Dr. Martin calls Dr. Scherger an “innovator,” adding: “He really tries to find what works for a solution, in different ways – not just one cookie cutter way.”
Despite nearly 50 years of being a doctor, the profession has not gotten any less rewarding for Dr. Scherger, who says he does not intend to retire as long as he is any good at it.
“My mother always said, ‘Joe, your life should be dedicated to making the world a better place.’ I really took that to heart and realized that my greatest joy is to help other people.”
Joseph E. Scherger, MD, MPH, is a family physician of 40 years and an avid runner who has carried over his passion for fitness and nutrition into treating patients.
He achieved this through moving to practicing functional medicine a decade ago.
According to Dr. Scherger, functional medicine “shifts the whole approach [to family medicine], recognizing that people’s chronic diseases, like hypertension and diabetes, are completely reversible, and the reason why is because they’re caused by what we eat and how we live.”
Practicing functional medicine continues to make working exciting for Dr. Scherger, he says.
“Now that I’ve shifted into nutrition and lifestyle, I feel like I’m a healer, you know? I’m not just refilling prescriptions anymore,” he said.
The burden of disease brought about by bad nutrition and our profit-hungry food industry is staggering, explained Dr. Scherger, As such, he encourages his patients to adopt lifestyle and nutritional changes that allow the body to become healthy again.
Dr. Scherger’s shift into lifestyle-oriented medicine reflects his own experiences with healthy living, and how it has impacted his life.
“I’m 70 years old, and I’m still running, and I feel the same as when I was 40 or 50.” He has completed 40 marathons, ten 50K and five 50-mile ultramarathon trail runs, and, although retired from long-distance running, he is currently training for an upcoming 5K Thanksgiving turkey trot with his 6-year-old grandson. “He loves it. He’s faster than I am, I have trouble keeping up with him,” he confessed.
Earlier days of career
“I’ve been very blessed to have a career that kept changing every 5-10 years,” he said. “I’ve been able to evolve in a way of shifting my interests from one area to another,” he said.
Dr. Scherger has held many positions in the medical field, from serving in the National Health Service Corps in Dixon, Calif., as a migrant health physician during 1978-1980, to being chair of graduate medical education at Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, Calif., from 2009 to 2015. In between, he taught at the University of California, Davis, and served as founding dean of the Florida State University College of Medicine.
Originally from Ohio, Dr. Scherger was born in 1950 in the small town of Delphos. He graduated from the University of Dayton in 1971 before attending medical school at University of California, Los Angeles, for 4 years. He then completed a family medicine residency and a masters in public health at the University of Washington, Seattle, in 1978.
A resident of the Golden State for 50 years now, Dr. Scherger describes himself as a “true Californian.” Currently, he is in practice at Eisenhower Health in La Quinta, Calif., where he is a core faculty member in the family medicine residency program. He is also a physician under the health center’s Primary Care 365 program, which offers patients regular communication with and increased access to their physicians, emphasizing on telemedicine. He also founded Restore Health – Disease Reversal, a wellness center in Indian Wells, Calif., that focuses on improving patients’ health through changes in nutrition and lifestyle.
Within his medical practice, Dr. Scherger is seen by colleagues as a doctor who not only advocates for his patients, but also goes above and beyond to solve their problems.
“He’s a leader, an advocate, and he inspires others to do what they do,” said Julia L. Martin, MD, a fellow family medicine practitioner who has been working with Dr. Scherger at the Eisenhower Medical Center for the past 5 years. “Being a physician is a very challenging role. You need to be patient and understanding in trying to investigate what the patient wants and work through that to try to find the solution. Dr. Scherger is really good at that.”
Inspiration for writing
Apart from his roles as a physician and faculty member, Dr. Scherger is also an author of two books: “40 Years in Family Medicine” (Scotts Valley, Calif.: CreateSpace, 2014) and “Lean and Fit: A Doctor’s Journey to Healthy Nutrition and Greater Wellness” (Scotts Valley, Calif.: CreateSpace, 2015). He admits to not being a naturally gifted writer, and is more intrinsically skilled at speaking. When he was in medical school, however, a mentor told him that the written word is eternal, and this left a deep impression on him.
“When I think of something that’s worth writing about, that I think will be a contribution to my field, I don’t hesitate to begin to write and develop,” said Dr. Scherger. “ I’ve done some research that I’m proud of, but most of [my writings] are hopefully thoughtful essays to help move my field along, and it’s enormously satisfying to make these contributions.”
Awards and other contributions to family medicine
Dr. Scherger’s contributions to the field of family medicine have been recognized continuously over his career.
He has served on the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Board of Family Medicine. He is also the recipient of numerous awards, such as being chosen as Family Physician of the Year by the American Academy of Family Physicians and the California Academy of Family Physicians in 1989. From 1988 to 1991, he was a fellow in the Kellogg National Fellowship Program.
While he has managed to reinvent his own practice and medical focus, Dr. Scherger is also concerned with the need to remodel the current state of primary care and family medicine. Regarding challenges facing the field, he mentions the burnout faced by many doctors.
Nowadays, the work of family medicine includes much more than those common acute illnesses – it includes preventive medicine, chronic illness management and mental health counseling. “Yet, somehow, the whole economic and schedule model is based on brief visits,” said Dr. Scherger. “I think the most common reason that a lot of family doctors are burned out is that they’re expected to see so many people a day, and they know they don’t have enough time to do a really good job.”
He elaborated: “The real challenge now for family practice is to be re-engineered to be for the modern age, and not be still stuck in a ‘make an appointment, come and get it’ model of care, which is outdated. So I’ve been working a long time in trying to reinvent primary care. And, you know, it’s hard to make those changes, and it’s still a work in progress.”
One of the ways Dr. Scherger has been working on the primary care model is to help redesign it for the computer age. He started doing telemedicine and online care in 1997, even though other doctors gave him pushback for doing so at the time. Today, in his practice, half of his patients are remote, and under Eisenhower’s Primary Care 365 service, he uses telemedicine to its fullest potential.
Dr. Martin calls Dr. Scherger an “innovator,” adding: “He really tries to find what works for a solution, in different ways – not just one cookie cutter way.”
Despite nearly 50 years of being a doctor, the profession has not gotten any less rewarding for Dr. Scherger, who says he does not intend to retire as long as he is any good at it.
“My mother always said, ‘Joe, your life should be dedicated to making the world a better place.’ I really took that to heart and realized that my greatest joy is to help other people.”
Walking the dog and fetching happiness
To go back to last week’s column, some of the best advice I ever got came from those early days when I was just starting my solo practice.
One of the family docs I met was a bit off the path. He was in a small medical building, maybe three to four offices total. It wasn’t rundown, but was obviously an older building, and not located near the hospital.
When I went in, it was clear he’d been there a while, and hadn’t bothered to redecorate at all (granted, in 2021, neither have I). The lobby reminded me more of my grandparents’ living room than a medical practice. I watched as the receptionist artfully ran through answering several lines, putting people on hold, and scheduling appointments, before she turned to me.
As soon as I started my spiel (“Hi, I’m a new neurologist in the area”) she got up and went to get the doctor. She said he always wanted to meet the new doctors who came in.
Dr. Charlie took me back to his office. His desk was covered with charts in no obvious order, and the bookcases with various journals. There was a feeling of comfortable, intentional, messiness.
He was 67 at the time, obviously still enjoying his work. He told me he’d been in solo practice since day 1, recommended it to all starting out (23 years later I’ll agree with that), and offered me this piece of advice:
“Treat your practice like you would your dog. Enjoy it, take care of it, and it will serve you well. But never, ever, let it be your master. If you do, you’ll be miserable. Raise it the right way and you’ll always be happy.”
After the brief meeting he walked me up front and I went on to the next office.
In the years to come I encountered him on and off rounding at the hospital or sending each other letters about a patient. He retired a few years later and died in 2007.
I still think about him. I’ve had one practice and owned several dogs during that time, and he was really right.
In solo practice I probably haven’t made as much money as I would have in a larger group. But I have more time to do as I wish, no one else to argue with me about a new direction for the practice, computer upgrades, or staff changes. I see, within the limits allowed by my overhead, as many or as few patients as I want. I can take vacations and days off. I have time to goof off with my staff and spend extra minutes with patients who need it. Medicine is a high-stress field, but at least I can keep the stress as low as possible.
On the flip side, I see the people he warned me about. New docs who come out with guns blazing, cramming their schedule as full as possible until they can’t possibly see more patients. Their staff gets overworked and has a high turnover. They themselves burn out quickly and either melt down or close down.
So I’ll pass the same advice to all others starting out. I still recommend solo practice. And
As I say to my dogs every day, “you guys are awesome.”
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
To go back to last week’s column, some of the best advice I ever got came from those early days when I was just starting my solo practice.
One of the family docs I met was a bit off the path. He was in a small medical building, maybe three to four offices total. It wasn’t rundown, but was obviously an older building, and not located near the hospital.
When I went in, it was clear he’d been there a while, and hadn’t bothered to redecorate at all (granted, in 2021, neither have I). The lobby reminded me more of my grandparents’ living room than a medical practice. I watched as the receptionist artfully ran through answering several lines, putting people on hold, and scheduling appointments, before she turned to me.
As soon as I started my spiel (“Hi, I’m a new neurologist in the area”) she got up and went to get the doctor. She said he always wanted to meet the new doctors who came in.
Dr. Charlie took me back to his office. His desk was covered with charts in no obvious order, and the bookcases with various journals. There was a feeling of comfortable, intentional, messiness.
He was 67 at the time, obviously still enjoying his work. He told me he’d been in solo practice since day 1, recommended it to all starting out (23 years later I’ll agree with that), and offered me this piece of advice:
“Treat your practice like you would your dog. Enjoy it, take care of it, and it will serve you well. But never, ever, let it be your master. If you do, you’ll be miserable. Raise it the right way and you’ll always be happy.”
After the brief meeting he walked me up front and I went on to the next office.
In the years to come I encountered him on and off rounding at the hospital or sending each other letters about a patient. He retired a few years later and died in 2007.
I still think about him. I’ve had one practice and owned several dogs during that time, and he was really right.
In solo practice I probably haven’t made as much money as I would have in a larger group. But I have more time to do as I wish, no one else to argue with me about a new direction for the practice, computer upgrades, or staff changes. I see, within the limits allowed by my overhead, as many or as few patients as I want. I can take vacations and days off. I have time to goof off with my staff and spend extra minutes with patients who need it. Medicine is a high-stress field, but at least I can keep the stress as low as possible.
On the flip side, I see the people he warned me about. New docs who come out with guns blazing, cramming their schedule as full as possible until they can’t possibly see more patients. Their staff gets overworked and has a high turnover. They themselves burn out quickly and either melt down or close down.
So I’ll pass the same advice to all others starting out. I still recommend solo practice. And
As I say to my dogs every day, “you guys are awesome.”
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
To go back to last week’s column, some of the best advice I ever got came from those early days when I was just starting my solo practice.
One of the family docs I met was a bit off the path. He was in a small medical building, maybe three to four offices total. It wasn’t rundown, but was obviously an older building, and not located near the hospital.
When I went in, it was clear he’d been there a while, and hadn’t bothered to redecorate at all (granted, in 2021, neither have I). The lobby reminded me more of my grandparents’ living room than a medical practice. I watched as the receptionist artfully ran through answering several lines, putting people on hold, and scheduling appointments, before she turned to me.
As soon as I started my spiel (“Hi, I’m a new neurologist in the area”) she got up and went to get the doctor. She said he always wanted to meet the new doctors who came in.
Dr. Charlie took me back to his office. His desk was covered with charts in no obvious order, and the bookcases with various journals. There was a feeling of comfortable, intentional, messiness.
He was 67 at the time, obviously still enjoying his work. He told me he’d been in solo practice since day 1, recommended it to all starting out (23 years later I’ll agree with that), and offered me this piece of advice:
“Treat your practice like you would your dog. Enjoy it, take care of it, and it will serve you well. But never, ever, let it be your master. If you do, you’ll be miserable. Raise it the right way and you’ll always be happy.”
After the brief meeting he walked me up front and I went on to the next office.
In the years to come I encountered him on and off rounding at the hospital or sending each other letters about a patient. He retired a few years later and died in 2007.
I still think about him. I’ve had one practice and owned several dogs during that time, and he was really right.
In solo practice I probably haven’t made as much money as I would have in a larger group. But I have more time to do as I wish, no one else to argue with me about a new direction for the practice, computer upgrades, or staff changes. I see, within the limits allowed by my overhead, as many or as few patients as I want. I can take vacations and days off. I have time to goof off with my staff and spend extra minutes with patients who need it. Medicine is a high-stress field, but at least I can keep the stress as low as possible.
On the flip side, I see the people he warned me about. New docs who come out with guns blazing, cramming their schedule as full as possible until they can’t possibly see more patients. Their staff gets overworked and has a high turnover. They themselves burn out quickly and either melt down or close down.
So I’ll pass the same advice to all others starting out. I still recommend solo practice. And
As I say to my dogs every day, “you guys are awesome.”
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
PAs can do more under new laws, coast to coast
Another frustrated patient awaits transfer from the hospital to a nursing home. The do-not-resuscitate form must be signed by a physician. I – a physician assistant (PA) – am available, but the physician is with a medically unstable patient. Another patient in the ED waits for this hospital bed, lying uncomfortably on a stretcher in the hallway.
As a Florida PA who has practiced in other states with far fewer barriers to medical care, I applaud the advancement of HB 431. PAs can now sign certain documents, ensuring accelerated access to therapeutic interventions and honoring end-of-life wishes with timely do-not-resuscitate orders. Children now have improved access to psychiatric medications without a lengthy wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, given the demand for mental health services and limited physician availability.
HB 431 expands medical care to patients in a state experiencing exponential growth in patient health care demands. HB 431 removes the following barriers to patient care as summarized by the Florida Academy of Physician Assistants. HB 431:
- Changes the physician:PA ratio from 1:4 to 1:10
- Allows PAs to authenticate documents such as death certificates and involuntary examinations; to order durable medical equipment, home health services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy
- Allows do-not-resuscitate orders, workers’ compensation claims, and school physical examinations with the exception of medical marijuana documents and maximum medical improvement/impairment rating documents for workman’s compensation
- Allows a fully licensed PA to procure medical devices and drugs
- Codifies that a PA can supervise a medical assistant
- Allows PAs to receive direct payment for services rendered
- Removes the long-standing restriction of PAs to prescribe any controlled psychiatric medication to patients aged under 18 years, and now allows PAs working with a pediatrician, family practice physician, internal medicine physician, or psychiatrist to prescribe a 14-day supply of schedule II psychiatric medications for those aged under 18 years
- Removes the requirement that a PA must inform a patient that they have the right to see the physician before a prescription is prescribed or dispensed
- Removes outdated language regarding prescriber number
- Improves the supervision data form submission process
Oregon HB 3036, also passed this year, significantly expands medical care provided by PAs. The Oregon legislation allows collaborative agreements with physicians at the practice level and removes the submission requirement for board approval. In contrast to Florida, Oregon completely eliminated PA ratios, improved PA prescriptive and dispensing regulations, and developed an environment that fosters team-based collaboration with accelerated patient access to quality care.
Many other states reduced these supervisory barriers during the pandemic.
PAs are trained to be flexible and meet the needs of the patient through a medical rather than nursing model. By allowing PAs to determine how best to collaborate with their clinical teams, patients are provided more efficient, patient-centered health care. Team members rely on each other for operational and clinical support through a degree of autonomy that contributes to effective patient management. These skills are expanded with the modernization of PA clinical practice and the removal of legislative barriers. A benefit to physicians through collaborative practice agreements is the reduction of their own liability for the care that PAs provide. Unlike Oregon, the state of Florida has not approved collaborative practice agreements and has retained physician supervisory barriers.
There are misconceptions in the medical community regarding the PA profession’s legislative goals. These efforts are not aimed at replacing physicians and competing for employment. The goal is to expand access and reduce barriers to patient care. There are not enough providers available to support comprehensive patient care. This is a fact.
Gaps in medical care exist and have existed since the PA profession was developed in the 1970s. Our vision has been to expand medical care through collaboration with physicians and assist with recruitment and retention challenges in various medical disciplines, particularly primary care. This is why all PA programs are based on a primary care medical model to care for patients across the lifespan, from infant care to geriatrics.
The spirit of collaboration in a team-based environment is challenged by these misconceptions and compounded by supervisory legislative and outdated practice requirements. PAs not only collaborate but also consult with and refer patients to other health care providers whenever the patient›s condition falls outside the PA’s education, training, and experience.
The changes in Florida’s HB 431 do not remove the requirement to clearly identify our roles. PAs still continue to identify themselves as physician assistants, and should a patient refuse to see a PA, they have the right to see any other provider they choose. Finally, patients are safe in the hands of a PA, as supported by numerous patient studies comparing PA clinical skills with other providers, including nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, fellows, and physicians.
Nonetheless, Florida is still behind other states in providing patients access to collaborative, team-based medical care with skilled PAs practicing as trained. Removing the remaining legislative barriers, hospital credentialing barriers, and health care perspectives will successfully provide patients superior medical care and improve the health outcomes of Florida residents.
Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, and also serves as a physician assistant program director at South University in West Palm Beach, Fla.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Another frustrated patient awaits transfer from the hospital to a nursing home. The do-not-resuscitate form must be signed by a physician. I – a physician assistant (PA) – am available, but the physician is with a medically unstable patient. Another patient in the ED waits for this hospital bed, lying uncomfortably on a stretcher in the hallway.
As a Florida PA who has practiced in other states with far fewer barriers to medical care, I applaud the advancement of HB 431. PAs can now sign certain documents, ensuring accelerated access to therapeutic interventions and honoring end-of-life wishes with timely do-not-resuscitate orders. Children now have improved access to psychiatric medications without a lengthy wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, given the demand for mental health services and limited physician availability.
HB 431 expands medical care to patients in a state experiencing exponential growth in patient health care demands. HB 431 removes the following barriers to patient care as summarized by the Florida Academy of Physician Assistants. HB 431:
- Changes the physician:PA ratio from 1:4 to 1:10
- Allows PAs to authenticate documents such as death certificates and involuntary examinations; to order durable medical equipment, home health services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy
- Allows do-not-resuscitate orders, workers’ compensation claims, and school physical examinations with the exception of medical marijuana documents and maximum medical improvement/impairment rating documents for workman’s compensation
- Allows a fully licensed PA to procure medical devices and drugs
- Codifies that a PA can supervise a medical assistant
- Allows PAs to receive direct payment for services rendered
- Removes the long-standing restriction of PAs to prescribe any controlled psychiatric medication to patients aged under 18 years, and now allows PAs working with a pediatrician, family practice physician, internal medicine physician, or psychiatrist to prescribe a 14-day supply of schedule II psychiatric medications for those aged under 18 years
- Removes the requirement that a PA must inform a patient that they have the right to see the physician before a prescription is prescribed or dispensed
- Removes outdated language regarding prescriber number
- Improves the supervision data form submission process
Oregon HB 3036, also passed this year, significantly expands medical care provided by PAs. The Oregon legislation allows collaborative agreements with physicians at the practice level and removes the submission requirement for board approval. In contrast to Florida, Oregon completely eliminated PA ratios, improved PA prescriptive and dispensing regulations, and developed an environment that fosters team-based collaboration with accelerated patient access to quality care.
Many other states reduced these supervisory barriers during the pandemic.
PAs are trained to be flexible and meet the needs of the patient through a medical rather than nursing model. By allowing PAs to determine how best to collaborate with their clinical teams, patients are provided more efficient, patient-centered health care. Team members rely on each other for operational and clinical support through a degree of autonomy that contributes to effective patient management. These skills are expanded with the modernization of PA clinical practice and the removal of legislative barriers. A benefit to physicians through collaborative practice agreements is the reduction of their own liability for the care that PAs provide. Unlike Oregon, the state of Florida has not approved collaborative practice agreements and has retained physician supervisory barriers.
There are misconceptions in the medical community regarding the PA profession’s legislative goals. These efforts are not aimed at replacing physicians and competing for employment. The goal is to expand access and reduce barriers to patient care. There are not enough providers available to support comprehensive patient care. This is a fact.
Gaps in medical care exist and have existed since the PA profession was developed in the 1970s. Our vision has been to expand medical care through collaboration with physicians and assist with recruitment and retention challenges in various medical disciplines, particularly primary care. This is why all PA programs are based on a primary care medical model to care for patients across the lifespan, from infant care to geriatrics.
The spirit of collaboration in a team-based environment is challenged by these misconceptions and compounded by supervisory legislative and outdated practice requirements. PAs not only collaborate but also consult with and refer patients to other health care providers whenever the patient›s condition falls outside the PA’s education, training, and experience.
The changes in Florida’s HB 431 do not remove the requirement to clearly identify our roles. PAs still continue to identify themselves as physician assistants, and should a patient refuse to see a PA, they have the right to see any other provider they choose. Finally, patients are safe in the hands of a PA, as supported by numerous patient studies comparing PA clinical skills with other providers, including nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, fellows, and physicians.
Nonetheless, Florida is still behind other states in providing patients access to collaborative, team-based medical care with skilled PAs practicing as trained. Removing the remaining legislative barriers, hospital credentialing barriers, and health care perspectives will successfully provide patients superior medical care and improve the health outcomes of Florida residents.
Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, and also serves as a physician assistant program director at South University in West Palm Beach, Fla.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Another frustrated patient awaits transfer from the hospital to a nursing home. The do-not-resuscitate form must be signed by a physician. I – a physician assistant (PA) – am available, but the physician is with a medically unstable patient. Another patient in the ED waits for this hospital bed, lying uncomfortably on a stretcher in the hallway.
As a Florida PA who has practiced in other states with far fewer barriers to medical care, I applaud the advancement of HB 431. PAs can now sign certain documents, ensuring accelerated access to therapeutic interventions and honoring end-of-life wishes with timely do-not-resuscitate orders. Children now have improved access to psychiatric medications without a lengthy wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, given the demand for mental health services and limited physician availability.
HB 431 expands medical care to patients in a state experiencing exponential growth in patient health care demands. HB 431 removes the following barriers to patient care as summarized by the Florida Academy of Physician Assistants. HB 431:
- Changes the physician:PA ratio from 1:4 to 1:10
- Allows PAs to authenticate documents such as death certificates and involuntary examinations; to order durable medical equipment, home health services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy
- Allows do-not-resuscitate orders, workers’ compensation claims, and school physical examinations with the exception of medical marijuana documents and maximum medical improvement/impairment rating documents for workman’s compensation
- Allows a fully licensed PA to procure medical devices and drugs
- Codifies that a PA can supervise a medical assistant
- Allows PAs to receive direct payment for services rendered
- Removes the long-standing restriction of PAs to prescribe any controlled psychiatric medication to patients aged under 18 years, and now allows PAs working with a pediatrician, family practice physician, internal medicine physician, or psychiatrist to prescribe a 14-day supply of schedule II psychiatric medications for those aged under 18 years
- Removes the requirement that a PA must inform a patient that they have the right to see the physician before a prescription is prescribed or dispensed
- Removes outdated language regarding prescriber number
- Improves the supervision data form submission process
Oregon HB 3036, also passed this year, significantly expands medical care provided by PAs. The Oregon legislation allows collaborative agreements with physicians at the practice level and removes the submission requirement for board approval. In contrast to Florida, Oregon completely eliminated PA ratios, improved PA prescriptive and dispensing regulations, and developed an environment that fosters team-based collaboration with accelerated patient access to quality care.
Many other states reduced these supervisory barriers during the pandemic.
PAs are trained to be flexible and meet the needs of the patient through a medical rather than nursing model. By allowing PAs to determine how best to collaborate with their clinical teams, patients are provided more efficient, patient-centered health care. Team members rely on each other for operational and clinical support through a degree of autonomy that contributes to effective patient management. These skills are expanded with the modernization of PA clinical practice and the removal of legislative barriers. A benefit to physicians through collaborative practice agreements is the reduction of their own liability for the care that PAs provide. Unlike Oregon, the state of Florida has not approved collaborative practice agreements and has retained physician supervisory barriers.
There are misconceptions in the medical community regarding the PA profession’s legislative goals. These efforts are not aimed at replacing physicians and competing for employment. The goal is to expand access and reduce barriers to patient care. There are not enough providers available to support comprehensive patient care. This is a fact.
Gaps in medical care exist and have existed since the PA profession was developed in the 1970s. Our vision has been to expand medical care through collaboration with physicians and assist with recruitment and retention challenges in various medical disciplines, particularly primary care. This is why all PA programs are based on a primary care medical model to care for patients across the lifespan, from infant care to geriatrics.
The spirit of collaboration in a team-based environment is challenged by these misconceptions and compounded by supervisory legislative and outdated practice requirements. PAs not only collaborate but also consult with and refer patients to other health care providers whenever the patient›s condition falls outside the PA’s education, training, and experience.
The changes in Florida’s HB 431 do not remove the requirement to clearly identify our roles. PAs still continue to identify themselves as physician assistants, and should a patient refuse to see a PA, they have the right to see any other provider they choose. Finally, patients are safe in the hands of a PA, as supported by numerous patient studies comparing PA clinical skills with other providers, including nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, fellows, and physicians.
Nonetheless, Florida is still behind other states in providing patients access to collaborative, team-based medical care with skilled PAs practicing as trained. Removing the remaining legislative barriers, hospital credentialing barriers, and health care perspectives will successfully provide patients superior medical care and improve the health outcomes of Florida residents.
Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, and also serves as a physician assistant program director at South University in West Palm Beach, Fla.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Med student kicked out for microaggression dustup sues school
Kieran Bhattacharya was slated to graduate from University of Virginia (UVA) Medical School in 2021. But in late 2018, he was suspended. In early 2019, the University Threat Assessment Team went a step further, issuing Mr. Bhattacharya a no-trespass warning.
Mr. Bhattacharya claims the unraveling of his medical training was because of questions he asked at a UVA-hosted panel on microaggressions that took place 1 month before his suspension. His attorneys argue that, after making some admittedly less-than-collegial statements at a forum, the institution branded him as a threat. The school counters that Mr. Bhattacharya had a pattern of concerning, unprofessional behavior. The matter will now be settled in court.
UVA initially attempted to have Mr. Bhattacharya’s suit thrown out. A federal judge did dismiss three of four counts; however, he also ruled the lawsuit could move forward on the grounds that Mr. Bhattacharya’s First Amendment right to free speech was infringed.
Supporters claim that Mr. Bhattacharya was a student in good standing with the university, until he spoke publicly at the panel. They say the discipline he’s faced for those remarks is an egregious breach of free speech. Several experts say his case highlights the use – or rather misuse – of professionalism policies to undermine student freedoms and valuable discourse.
UVA argues that it’s not so simple and that the facts considered by the judge this spring were only part of the story. According to the defense, Mr. Bhattacharya’s side leaves out key details leading up to his suspension. The institution says Mr. Bhattacharya did and said things that provoked medical school officials to question the safety of the campus and his fitness to practice medicine. This news organization attempted to contact Mr. Bhattacharya several times through his attorneys and did not receive a response.
What happened at the microaggression panel
On this, both parties agree: A panel on microaggressions took place on Oct. 25, 2018. Mr. Bhattacharya, then a 2nd-year UVA medical student, was the first volunteer to speak when the floor was opened for questioning.
“Thank you for your presentation,” said Mr. Bhattacharya, according to an audio recording of the event. “I had a few questions, just to clarify your definition of microaggressions.” He then asked his first question: “Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group?”
The presenter, Beverly Colwell Adams, PhD, associate professor emeritus in the department of psychology and previously the assistant dean of UVA’s College of Arts and Sciences, said it was not. But before she could go on to explain, Mr. Bhattacharya interrupted, speaking quickly. “But in the definition, it just said you had to be a member of a marginalized group, in the definition you used on the last slide. So that’s contradictory.” Dr. Adams responded. “What I had there is kind of the generalized definition,” she said. “In fact, I extend it beyond that.”
Mr. Bhattacharya asked a second question – to which Dr. Adams responded – about defining a marginalized group. Then, during a third question about differentiating between microaggressions and unintentional rude statements, Mr. Bhattacharya sped up again, repeating some of Dr. Adams’ own presentation back to her. He then asked if she had done any other research on microaggression, after calling the evidence she provided “one anecdotal case.” Dr. Adams responded with an example.
Mr. Bhattacharya’s fourth question was then intercepted by a fellow panelist, Sara Rasmussen, MD. She offered an anecdote about her own experience with microaggression, as a person from rural West Virginia. She offered some advice on understanding the impact of your actions and then advised, “You have to learn to uncouple the intent of what you’re saying and the impact it has on the audience.”
Mr. Bhattacharya briefly disagreed with Dr. Rasmussen, and then called the evidence Dr. Adams presented “anecdotal” a second time. At that point, Dr. Rasmussen interrupted him to say that Dr. Adams had offered “a lot of citations from the literature” and then called on another student to ask a question.
In total, Mr. Bhattacharya engaged with the panel for just over 5 minutes. He is now arguing in court that those 5 minutes forever changed his life.
Blindsided
After the event, according to court documents, Nora Kern, MD, and one of the panelists filed a professionalism concern card about Mr. Bhattacharya’s discourse. “This student asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic toward the panel. He pressed on and stated one faculty member was being contradictory. His level of frustration/anger seemed to escalate until another faculty member defused the situation by calling on another student for questions,” Dr. Kern wrote on the card that was later included in Mr. Bhattacharya’s case filing.
According to Regina Rini, PhD, Canada research chair in philosophy of moral and social cognition at York University in Toronto, there are two layers to Mr. Bhattacharya’s discussion with the panel. She told this news organization that the first level is the content of the conversation: “His very first question was a very reasonable one.” Since the 1970s, when Chester Pierce first coined the term microaggression, most experts have agreed that the action must be directed at a person within a marginalized group. “It sounds like the presenter has a nuanced view,” Dr. Rini said. She added that his “was a fair question to ask.”
However, Dr. Rini said the second layer – the way conversation took place – is a separate concern. “Maybe two rounds of questions later, he starts speaking quickly” and fires off multiple questions one after the other, when asking if Dr. Adams had any evidence, and called her support anecdotal, Dr. Rini said. “That’s not a cooperative attempt to hear an answer.”
“He’s a little antagonistic,” Alana Nichols, JD, MD, attorney and a medical pediatrics intern at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said after listening to the recording. “He did sound like he had an agenda and was not being receptive to what they were saying.” However, Dr. Nichols said, “What brought me pause as someone in medicine was the way it escalated.”
After Dr. Kern filed the professionalism concern card, two faculty members contacted Mr. Bhattacharya. Christine Peterson, MD, assistant dean for medical education, emailed to ask if he wanted to discuss how to navigate uncomfortable conversations and how to cope with “unintended consequences of conversations.” The day after the panel, John Densmore, MD, associate dean for admissions and student affairs, emailed Mr. Bhattacharya, asking to meet the following week.
Mr. Bhattacharya met with both deans. Dr. Peterson only briefly mentioned the panel. Dr. Densmore didn’t at all, according to court documents. Dr. Densmore also didn’t mention the professionalism concern card to Mr. Bhattacharya. However, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee discussed it about 2 weeks later, at their monthly meeting.
Dr. Kern was the only voting member present who actually witnessed the microaggression panel. Dr. Peterson was there as a guest. The committee voted unanimously to send Mr. Bhattacharya a letter, reminding him of the importance of showing respect to everyone. The letter was sent the following day, Nov. 14, 2018. Mr. Bhattacharya still had no knowledge of the professionalism concern card.
On Nov. 26, Dr. Densmore sent Mr. Bhattacharya an email that read: “We were notified by the Dean of Students Office that you were heading back to Charlottesville. You will need to be seen by CAPS [Counseling and Psychological Services] before you can return to classes.”
On Nov. 27, court records show Mr. Bhattacharya emailed Dr. Densmore, questioning the school’s ability to mandate psychiatric evaluation. The decision was reinforced with an email from the then senior associate dean for education at UVA Medical School. Mr. Bhattacharya was not permitted to return to class without the evaluation.
“If I were in his situation, I would feel kind of blindsided,” Dr. Nichols said. Mr. Bhattacharya met with two deans immediately after the event, during which he said his conduct with the panel was barely or not at all mentioned. To him, the situation could well have seemed to be over, Dr. Nichols said. In her opinion, as a lawyer and doctor in training, the situation “escalated very quickly and not very transparently.”
More than microaggressions
UVA points to an entirely different timeline. In fact, the school claims that neither Mr. Bhattacharya’s statements at the panel nor the tone with which he spoke there had any bearing on the decision to suspend him.
According to court documents, UVA denies that Mr. Bhattacharya “ever faced discipline because of the content of [his] speech at the panel discussion.” It also denies that the mandate for psychological evaluation was related to or in any way triggered by his behavior at the panel discussion.
UVA’s official statement on the case states: “The student in question was dismissed from the School of Medicine after a series of incidents and repeated instances of erratic behavior that raised security concerns as well as questions about his professionalism and fitness to practice medicine.”
The university cites two such incidents. The first is a meeting with Dr. Densmore at which Mr. Bhattacharya’s behavior was so concerning that he was escorted to the counseling center. After meeting with the counselor, Mr. Bhattacharya was involuntarily hospitalized afterward. At a second meeting with Dr. Densmore, UVA’s filing alleges that Mr. Bhattacharya’s behavior was so “erratic, aggressive, and concerning” that Dr. Densmore called the police. The school also cites a second involuntarily hospitalization and a restraining order against Mr. Bhattacharya by his girlfriend, a fellow medical student, as reasons for his suspension.
Mr. Bhattacharya’s girlfriend, Angel Hsu, a recent graduate of UVA medical school, has since been added to the list of defendants. Mr. Bhattacharya’s attorneys have called her a third-party coconspirator, working with Dr. Peterson and Dr. Densmore to have Mr. Bhattacharya removed from the university. Mr. Bhattacharya alleges that Dr. Hsu’s schemes started when he broke up with her the day before the microaggression panel. He claims that, during their relationship, she admitted to framing two other men for sexual misconduct during her undergraduate education at Emory. All of this is detailed in the 87-page document filed by Mr. Bhattacharya’s attorneys regarding his relationship with Dr. Hsu.
Alex Morey, JD, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said Mr. Bhattacharya is also alleged to have exhibited other threatening behavior on social media and in chat rooms. However, if Mr. Bhattacharya was suspended for reasons other than what he said at the panel, Ms. Morey said, the burden of proof is on the school. They’ll need to prove that the incidents listed, and not his speech, are the motivation for Mr. Bhattacharya’s removal from the program. “We haven’t seen [that] yet,” she said.
In a statement sent to this news organization by UVA Health Public Information Officer Eric Swensen, the school said, “It is worth noting, however, that the court’s recent ruling is based only on the facts as alleged by the plaintiff and must accept all of those allegations as true at this stage of the proceedings.”
Problems with professionalism policies
The case brings into focus concerns about professionalism policies in medical education. “Traditionally it’s been assumed that a physician has certain values, attributes, and behaviors that constitute professionals, which, in some ways, boil down to inspiring trust in him or her,” said Edward Krupat, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard University.
However, many feel that these binding codes of student conduct allow institutions to inhibit civil rights under the guise of professionalism, a standard critics say is inconsistently and often ill-defined.
“They just didn’t like what he said and the way he said it,” Ms. Morey said about Mr. Bhattacharya. “That is not the same as someone engaging in behavior that fundamentally undermines the profession they are in.”
UVA Health’s professionalism policy prohibits conduct that is perceived as rude and says that a pattern of unprofessionalism – defined as three or more recorded events – or one egregious act of unprofessionalism can be punished with removal from the school. What remains to be seen is documented proof of the specific unprofessional or egregious acts that got Mr. Bhattacharya suspended. “Clearly it’s subjective,” Dr. Krupat said. And “there’s an ever-widening gray area” when it comes to these policies.
In a 2020 study of 108 medical graduates, Dr. Krupat and his collaborators found that those who had to go before their review board for professionalism concerns as students were more than five times more likely undergo disciplinary review during residency. They were two times more likely to be sued or sanctioned during their practice.
Dr. Krupat said that a traditional approach would be to look at the list of documented offenses and ask, “Would this be your first choice for a physician?” If the facts the dean alleges are true of Mr. Bhattacharya, then the answer may be no, Dr. Krupat said, based on his limited familiarity with the case. However, he said the situation may be “more complex than the dean says.”
What is unlikely, according to Dr. Krupat, is that medical staff were eager to quickly get rid of a student. In his experience, medical faculty often take extra precautions to understand, justify, and support medical students. There’s even a term in the medical education literature to describe faculty’s unrelenting tendency to stick with students: “failure to fail.” Dr. Krupat finds it “highly unusual that someone would say something in a gray area and be asked to leave.”
What a ruling may mean
Despite the many seemingly contradictory and gray areas, Ms. Morey sees it as cut-and-dried. “It’s a pretty clear First Amendment violation,” she said in an interview. “It’s been one of the more egregious cases we’ve seen lately.”
There are exceptions to free speech on college campuses, Ms. Morey said. Students have First Amendment rights; however, in the classroom setting, the professor and school also have the right to maintain an orderly environment. The panel opened the floor for questions. Thus, Mr. Bhattacharya’s counsel is arguing that the faculty essentially turned the program over to the students. According to Ms. Morey, because UVA hasn’t been able to prove that Mr. Bhattacharya’s discourse caused a “material disruption,” the First Amendment suit is moving forward.
“In a Q&A, the school has essentially created a public forum,” Ms. Morey said. “What they can’t do is open a forum for public speech and punish the speech [they] don’t like.” She said that the courts have historically ruled that a student still has their rights.
“A ruling against Kieran Bhattacharya, in this case, would hugely undermine the First Amendment rights of professional students at every program across the country,” Ms. Morey said.
However, Dr. Nichols said that there have also been cases where the judiciary chooses not to get involved with the self-governing of an individual institution. “It could be an uphill battle for the student,” she said. If UVA can prove their claim that Bhattacharya’s pattern of behavior – and not his commentary on microaggressions – is what put others at risk and was the cause of suspension, then the school’s decision will likely hold.
Dr. Krupat said this case comes at a time when everyone – both students and faculty – feel like they are walking on eggshells. Power dynamics are rightfully being called into question but “a pendulum stuck at one end never just swings to the middle and stops,” he said. Students are frightened that faculty will be insensitive. Faculty fear that if they give negative feedback they might be accused of bias. He does think this tension is “something that will resolve itself for the better in the future,” he said.
The jury trial is currently set for early January 2022. In the meantime, First Amendment advocates are “heartened” that the judge allowed the case to proceed while those concerned with professionalism policies continue to closely watch what happens next.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Kieran Bhattacharya was slated to graduate from University of Virginia (UVA) Medical School in 2021. But in late 2018, he was suspended. In early 2019, the University Threat Assessment Team went a step further, issuing Mr. Bhattacharya a no-trespass warning.
Mr. Bhattacharya claims the unraveling of his medical training was because of questions he asked at a UVA-hosted panel on microaggressions that took place 1 month before his suspension. His attorneys argue that, after making some admittedly less-than-collegial statements at a forum, the institution branded him as a threat. The school counters that Mr. Bhattacharya had a pattern of concerning, unprofessional behavior. The matter will now be settled in court.
UVA initially attempted to have Mr. Bhattacharya’s suit thrown out. A federal judge did dismiss three of four counts; however, he also ruled the lawsuit could move forward on the grounds that Mr. Bhattacharya’s First Amendment right to free speech was infringed.
Supporters claim that Mr. Bhattacharya was a student in good standing with the university, until he spoke publicly at the panel. They say the discipline he’s faced for those remarks is an egregious breach of free speech. Several experts say his case highlights the use – or rather misuse – of professionalism policies to undermine student freedoms and valuable discourse.
UVA argues that it’s not so simple and that the facts considered by the judge this spring were only part of the story. According to the defense, Mr. Bhattacharya’s side leaves out key details leading up to his suspension. The institution says Mr. Bhattacharya did and said things that provoked medical school officials to question the safety of the campus and his fitness to practice medicine. This news organization attempted to contact Mr. Bhattacharya several times through his attorneys and did not receive a response.
What happened at the microaggression panel
On this, both parties agree: A panel on microaggressions took place on Oct. 25, 2018. Mr. Bhattacharya, then a 2nd-year UVA medical student, was the first volunteer to speak when the floor was opened for questioning.
“Thank you for your presentation,” said Mr. Bhattacharya, according to an audio recording of the event. “I had a few questions, just to clarify your definition of microaggressions.” He then asked his first question: “Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group?”
The presenter, Beverly Colwell Adams, PhD, associate professor emeritus in the department of psychology and previously the assistant dean of UVA’s College of Arts and Sciences, said it was not. But before she could go on to explain, Mr. Bhattacharya interrupted, speaking quickly. “But in the definition, it just said you had to be a member of a marginalized group, in the definition you used on the last slide. So that’s contradictory.” Dr. Adams responded. “What I had there is kind of the generalized definition,” she said. “In fact, I extend it beyond that.”
Mr. Bhattacharya asked a second question – to which Dr. Adams responded – about defining a marginalized group. Then, during a third question about differentiating between microaggressions and unintentional rude statements, Mr. Bhattacharya sped up again, repeating some of Dr. Adams’ own presentation back to her. He then asked if she had done any other research on microaggression, after calling the evidence she provided “one anecdotal case.” Dr. Adams responded with an example.
Mr. Bhattacharya’s fourth question was then intercepted by a fellow panelist, Sara Rasmussen, MD. She offered an anecdote about her own experience with microaggression, as a person from rural West Virginia. She offered some advice on understanding the impact of your actions and then advised, “You have to learn to uncouple the intent of what you’re saying and the impact it has on the audience.”
Mr. Bhattacharya briefly disagreed with Dr. Rasmussen, and then called the evidence Dr. Adams presented “anecdotal” a second time. At that point, Dr. Rasmussen interrupted him to say that Dr. Adams had offered “a lot of citations from the literature” and then called on another student to ask a question.
In total, Mr. Bhattacharya engaged with the panel for just over 5 minutes. He is now arguing in court that those 5 minutes forever changed his life.
Blindsided
After the event, according to court documents, Nora Kern, MD, and one of the panelists filed a professionalism concern card about Mr. Bhattacharya’s discourse. “This student asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic toward the panel. He pressed on and stated one faculty member was being contradictory. His level of frustration/anger seemed to escalate until another faculty member defused the situation by calling on another student for questions,” Dr. Kern wrote on the card that was later included in Mr. Bhattacharya’s case filing.
According to Regina Rini, PhD, Canada research chair in philosophy of moral and social cognition at York University in Toronto, there are two layers to Mr. Bhattacharya’s discussion with the panel. She told this news organization that the first level is the content of the conversation: “His very first question was a very reasonable one.” Since the 1970s, when Chester Pierce first coined the term microaggression, most experts have agreed that the action must be directed at a person within a marginalized group. “It sounds like the presenter has a nuanced view,” Dr. Rini said. She added that his “was a fair question to ask.”
However, Dr. Rini said the second layer – the way conversation took place – is a separate concern. “Maybe two rounds of questions later, he starts speaking quickly” and fires off multiple questions one after the other, when asking if Dr. Adams had any evidence, and called her support anecdotal, Dr. Rini said. “That’s not a cooperative attempt to hear an answer.”
“He’s a little antagonistic,” Alana Nichols, JD, MD, attorney and a medical pediatrics intern at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said after listening to the recording. “He did sound like he had an agenda and was not being receptive to what they were saying.” However, Dr. Nichols said, “What brought me pause as someone in medicine was the way it escalated.”
After Dr. Kern filed the professionalism concern card, two faculty members contacted Mr. Bhattacharya. Christine Peterson, MD, assistant dean for medical education, emailed to ask if he wanted to discuss how to navigate uncomfortable conversations and how to cope with “unintended consequences of conversations.” The day after the panel, John Densmore, MD, associate dean for admissions and student affairs, emailed Mr. Bhattacharya, asking to meet the following week.
Mr. Bhattacharya met with both deans. Dr. Peterson only briefly mentioned the panel. Dr. Densmore didn’t at all, according to court documents. Dr. Densmore also didn’t mention the professionalism concern card to Mr. Bhattacharya. However, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee discussed it about 2 weeks later, at their monthly meeting.
Dr. Kern was the only voting member present who actually witnessed the microaggression panel. Dr. Peterson was there as a guest. The committee voted unanimously to send Mr. Bhattacharya a letter, reminding him of the importance of showing respect to everyone. The letter was sent the following day, Nov. 14, 2018. Mr. Bhattacharya still had no knowledge of the professionalism concern card.
On Nov. 26, Dr. Densmore sent Mr. Bhattacharya an email that read: “We were notified by the Dean of Students Office that you were heading back to Charlottesville. You will need to be seen by CAPS [Counseling and Psychological Services] before you can return to classes.”
On Nov. 27, court records show Mr. Bhattacharya emailed Dr. Densmore, questioning the school’s ability to mandate psychiatric evaluation. The decision was reinforced with an email from the then senior associate dean for education at UVA Medical School. Mr. Bhattacharya was not permitted to return to class without the evaluation.
“If I were in his situation, I would feel kind of blindsided,” Dr. Nichols said. Mr. Bhattacharya met with two deans immediately after the event, during which he said his conduct with the panel was barely or not at all mentioned. To him, the situation could well have seemed to be over, Dr. Nichols said. In her opinion, as a lawyer and doctor in training, the situation “escalated very quickly and not very transparently.”
More than microaggressions
UVA points to an entirely different timeline. In fact, the school claims that neither Mr. Bhattacharya’s statements at the panel nor the tone with which he spoke there had any bearing on the decision to suspend him.
According to court documents, UVA denies that Mr. Bhattacharya “ever faced discipline because of the content of [his] speech at the panel discussion.” It also denies that the mandate for psychological evaluation was related to or in any way triggered by his behavior at the panel discussion.
UVA’s official statement on the case states: “The student in question was dismissed from the School of Medicine after a series of incidents and repeated instances of erratic behavior that raised security concerns as well as questions about his professionalism and fitness to practice medicine.”
The university cites two such incidents. The first is a meeting with Dr. Densmore at which Mr. Bhattacharya’s behavior was so concerning that he was escorted to the counseling center. After meeting with the counselor, Mr. Bhattacharya was involuntarily hospitalized afterward. At a second meeting with Dr. Densmore, UVA’s filing alleges that Mr. Bhattacharya’s behavior was so “erratic, aggressive, and concerning” that Dr. Densmore called the police. The school also cites a second involuntarily hospitalization and a restraining order against Mr. Bhattacharya by his girlfriend, a fellow medical student, as reasons for his suspension.
Mr. Bhattacharya’s girlfriend, Angel Hsu, a recent graduate of UVA medical school, has since been added to the list of defendants. Mr. Bhattacharya’s attorneys have called her a third-party coconspirator, working with Dr. Peterson and Dr. Densmore to have Mr. Bhattacharya removed from the university. Mr. Bhattacharya alleges that Dr. Hsu’s schemes started when he broke up with her the day before the microaggression panel. He claims that, during their relationship, she admitted to framing two other men for sexual misconduct during her undergraduate education at Emory. All of this is detailed in the 87-page document filed by Mr. Bhattacharya’s attorneys regarding his relationship with Dr. Hsu.
Alex Morey, JD, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said Mr. Bhattacharya is also alleged to have exhibited other threatening behavior on social media and in chat rooms. However, if Mr. Bhattacharya was suspended for reasons other than what he said at the panel, Ms. Morey said, the burden of proof is on the school. They’ll need to prove that the incidents listed, and not his speech, are the motivation for Mr. Bhattacharya’s removal from the program. “We haven’t seen [that] yet,” she said.
In a statement sent to this news organization by UVA Health Public Information Officer Eric Swensen, the school said, “It is worth noting, however, that the court’s recent ruling is based only on the facts as alleged by the plaintiff and must accept all of those allegations as true at this stage of the proceedings.”
Problems with professionalism policies
The case brings into focus concerns about professionalism policies in medical education. “Traditionally it’s been assumed that a physician has certain values, attributes, and behaviors that constitute professionals, which, in some ways, boil down to inspiring trust in him or her,” said Edward Krupat, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard University.
However, many feel that these binding codes of student conduct allow institutions to inhibit civil rights under the guise of professionalism, a standard critics say is inconsistently and often ill-defined.
“They just didn’t like what he said and the way he said it,” Ms. Morey said about Mr. Bhattacharya. “That is not the same as someone engaging in behavior that fundamentally undermines the profession they are in.”
UVA Health’s professionalism policy prohibits conduct that is perceived as rude and says that a pattern of unprofessionalism – defined as three or more recorded events – or one egregious act of unprofessionalism can be punished with removal from the school. What remains to be seen is documented proof of the specific unprofessional or egregious acts that got Mr. Bhattacharya suspended. “Clearly it’s subjective,” Dr. Krupat said. And “there’s an ever-widening gray area” when it comes to these policies.
In a 2020 study of 108 medical graduates, Dr. Krupat and his collaborators found that those who had to go before their review board for professionalism concerns as students were more than five times more likely undergo disciplinary review during residency. They were two times more likely to be sued or sanctioned during their practice.
Dr. Krupat said that a traditional approach would be to look at the list of documented offenses and ask, “Would this be your first choice for a physician?” If the facts the dean alleges are true of Mr. Bhattacharya, then the answer may be no, Dr. Krupat said, based on his limited familiarity with the case. However, he said the situation may be “more complex than the dean says.”
What is unlikely, according to Dr. Krupat, is that medical staff were eager to quickly get rid of a student. In his experience, medical faculty often take extra precautions to understand, justify, and support medical students. There’s even a term in the medical education literature to describe faculty’s unrelenting tendency to stick with students: “failure to fail.” Dr. Krupat finds it “highly unusual that someone would say something in a gray area and be asked to leave.”
What a ruling may mean
Despite the many seemingly contradictory and gray areas, Ms. Morey sees it as cut-and-dried. “It’s a pretty clear First Amendment violation,” she said in an interview. “It’s been one of the more egregious cases we’ve seen lately.”
There are exceptions to free speech on college campuses, Ms. Morey said. Students have First Amendment rights; however, in the classroom setting, the professor and school also have the right to maintain an orderly environment. The panel opened the floor for questions. Thus, Mr. Bhattacharya’s counsel is arguing that the faculty essentially turned the program over to the students. According to Ms. Morey, because UVA hasn’t been able to prove that Mr. Bhattacharya’s discourse caused a “material disruption,” the First Amendment suit is moving forward.
“In a Q&A, the school has essentially created a public forum,” Ms. Morey said. “What they can’t do is open a forum for public speech and punish the speech [they] don’t like.” She said that the courts have historically ruled that a student still has their rights.
“A ruling against Kieran Bhattacharya, in this case, would hugely undermine the First Amendment rights of professional students at every program across the country,” Ms. Morey said.
However, Dr. Nichols said that there have also been cases where the judiciary chooses not to get involved with the self-governing of an individual institution. “It could be an uphill battle for the student,” she said. If UVA can prove their claim that Bhattacharya’s pattern of behavior – and not his commentary on microaggressions – is what put others at risk and was the cause of suspension, then the school’s decision will likely hold.
Dr. Krupat said this case comes at a time when everyone – both students and faculty – feel like they are walking on eggshells. Power dynamics are rightfully being called into question but “a pendulum stuck at one end never just swings to the middle and stops,” he said. Students are frightened that faculty will be insensitive. Faculty fear that if they give negative feedback they might be accused of bias. He does think this tension is “something that will resolve itself for the better in the future,” he said.
The jury trial is currently set for early January 2022. In the meantime, First Amendment advocates are “heartened” that the judge allowed the case to proceed while those concerned with professionalism policies continue to closely watch what happens next.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Kieran Bhattacharya was slated to graduate from University of Virginia (UVA) Medical School in 2021. But in late 2018, he was suspended. In early 2019, the University Threat Assessment Team went a step further, issuing Mr. Bhattacharya a no-trespass warning.
Mr. Bhattacharya claims the unraveling of his medical training was because of questions he asked at a UVA-hosted panel on microaggressions that took place 1 month before his suspension. His attorneys argue that, after making some admittedly less-than-collegial statements at a forum, the institution branded him as a threat. The school counters that Mr. Bhattacharya had a pattern of concerning, unprofessional behavior. The matter will now be settled in court.
UVA initially attempted to have Mr. Bhattacharya’s suit thrown out. A federal judge did dismiss three of four counts; however, he also ruled the lawsuit could move forward on the grounds that Mr. Bhattacharya’s First Amendment right to free speech was infringed.
Supporters claim that Mr. Bhattacharya was a student in good standing with the university, until he spoke publicly at the panel. They say the discipline he’s faced for those remarks is an egregious breach of free speech. Several experts say his case highlights the use – or rather misuse – of professionalism policies to undermine student freedoms and valuable discourse.
UVA argues that it’s not so simple and that the facts considered by the judge this spring were only part of the story. According to the defense, Mr. Bhattacharya’s side leaves out key details leading up to his suspension. The institution says Mr. Bhattacharya did and said things that provoked medical school officials to question the safety of the campus and his fitness to practice medicine. This news organization attempted to contact Mr. Bhattacharya several times through his attorneys and did not receive a response.
What happened at the microaggression panel
On this, both parties agree: A panel on microaggressions took place on Oct. 25, 2018. Mr. Bhattacharya, then a 2nd-year UVA medical student, was the first volunteer to speak when the floor was opened for questioning.
“Thank you for your presentation,” said Mr. Bhattacharya, according to an audio recording of the event. “I had a few questions, just to clarify your definition of microaggressions.” He then asked his first question: “Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group?”
The presenter, Beverly Colwell Adams, PhD, associate professor emeritus in the department of psychology and previously the assistant dean of UVA’s College of Arts and Sciences, said it was not. But before she could go on to explain, Mr. Bhattacharya interrupted, speaking quickly. “But in the definition, it just said you had to be a member of a marginalized group, in the definition you used on the last slide. So that’s contradictory.” Dr. Adams responded. “What I had there is kind of the generalized definition,” she said. “In fact, I extend it beyond that.”
Mr. Bhattacharya asked a second question – to which Dr. Adams responded – about defining a marginalized group. Then, during a third question about differentiating between microaggressions and unintentional rude statements, Mr. Bhattacharya sped up again, repeating some of Dr. Adams’ own presentation back to her. He then asked if she had done any other research on microaggression, after calling the evidence she provided “one anecdotal case.” Dr. Adams responded with an example.
Mr. Bhattacharya’s fourth question was then intercepted by a fellow panelist, Sara Rasmussen, MD. She offered an anecdote about her own experience with microaggression, as a person from rural West Virginia. She offered some advice on understanding the impact of your actions and then advised, “You have to learn to uncouple the intent of what you’re saying and the impact it has on the audience.”
Mr. Bhattacharya briefly disagreed with Dr. Rasmussen, and then called the evidence Dr. Adams presented “anecdotal” a second time. At that point, Dr. Rasmussen interrupted him to say that Dr. Adams had offered “a lot of citations from the literature” and then called on another student to ask a question.
In total, Mr. Bhattacharya engaged with the panel for just over 5 minutes. He is now arguing in court that those 5 minutes forever changed his life.
Blindsided
After the event, according to court documents, Nora Kern, MD, and one of the panelists filed a professionalism concern card about Mr. Bhattacharya’s discourse. “This student asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic toward the panel. He pressed on and stated one faculty member was being contradictory. His level of frustration/anger seemed to escalate until another faculty member defused the situation by calling on another student for questions,” Dr. Kern wrote on the card that was later included in Mr. Bhattacharya’s case filing.
According to Regina Rini, PhD, Canada research chair in philosophy of moral and social cognition at York University in Toronto, there are two layers to Mr. Bhattacharya’s discussion with the panel. She told this news organization that the first level is the content of the conversation: “His very first question was a very reasonable one.” Since the 1970s, when Chester Pierce first coined the term microaggression, most experts have agreed that the action must be directed at a person within a marginalized group. “It sounds like the presenter has a nuanced view,” Dr. Rini said. She added that his “was a fair question to ask.”
However, Dr. Rini said the second layer – the way conversation took place – is a separate concern. “Maybe two rounds of questions later, he starts speaking quickly” and fires off multiple questions one after the other, when asking if Dr. Adams had any evidence, and called her support anecdotal, Dr. Rini said. “That’s not a cooperative attempt to hear an answer.”
“He’s a little antagonistic,” Alana Nichols, JD, MD, attorney and a medical pediatrics intern at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said after listening to the recording. “He did sound like he had an agenda and was not being receptive to what they were saying.” However, Dr. Nichols said, “What brought me pause as someone in medicine was the way it escalated.”
After Dr. Kern filed the professionalism concern card, two faculty members contacted Mr. Bhattacharya. Christine Peterson, MD, assistant dean for medical education, emailed to ask if he wanted to discuss how to navigate uncomfortable conversations and how to cope with “unintended consequences of conversations.” The day after the panel, John Densmore, MD, associate dean for admissions and student affairs, emailed Mr. Bhattacharya, asking to meet the following week.
Mr. Bhattacharya met with both deans. Dr. Peterson only briefly mentioned the panel. Dr. Densmore didn’t at all, according to court documents. Dr. Densmore also didn’t mention the professionalism concern card to Mr. Bhattacharya. However, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee discussed it about 2 weeks later, at their monthly meeting.
Dr. Kern was the only voting member present who actually witnessed the microaggression panel. Dr. Peterson was there as a guest. The committee voted unanimously to send Mr. Bhattacharya a letter, reminding him of the importance of showing respect to everyone. The letter was sent the following day, Nov. 14, 2018. Mr. Bhattacharya still had no knowledge of the professionalism concern card.
On Nov. 26, Dr. Densmore sent Mr. Bhattacharya an email that read: “We were notified by the Dean of Students Office that you were heading back to Charlottesville. You will need to be seen by CAPS [Counseling and Psychological Services] before you can return to classes.”
On Nov. 27, court records show Mr. Bhattacharya emailed Dr. Densmore, questioning the school’s ability to mandate psychiatric evaluation. The decision was reinforced with an email from the then senior associate dean for education at UVA Medical School. Mr. Bhattacharya was not permitted to return to class without the evaluation.
“If I were in his situation, I would feel kind of blindsided,” Dr. Nichols said. Mr. Bhattacharya met with two deans immediately after the event, during which he said his conduct with the panel was barely or not at all mentioned. To him, the situation could well have seemed to be over, Dr. Nichols said. In her opinion, as a lawyer and doctor in training, the situation “escalated very quickly and not very transparently.”
More than microaggressions
UVA points to an entirely different timeline. In fact, the school claims that neither Mr. Bhattacharya’s statements at the panel nor the tone with which he spoke there had any bearing on the decision to suspend him.
According to court documents, UVA denies that Mr. Bhattacharya “ever faced discipline because of the content of [his] speech at the panel discussion.” It also denies that the mandate for psychological evaluation was related to or in any way triggered by his behavior at the panel discussion.
UVA’s official statement on the case states: “The student in question was dismissed from the School of Medicine after a series of incidents and repeated instances of erratic behavior that raised security concerns as well as questions about his professionalism and fitness to practice medicine.”
The university cites two such incidents. The first is a meeting with Dr. Densmore at which Mr. Bhattacharya’s behavior was so concerning that he was escorted to the counseling center. After meeting with the counselor, Mr. Bhattacharya was involuntarily hospitalized afterward. At a second meeting with Dr. Densmore, UVA’s filing alleges that Mr. Bhattacharya’s behavior was so “erratic, aggressive, and concerning” that Dr. Densmore called the police. The school also cites a second involuntarily hospitalization and a restraining order against Mr. Bhattacharya by his girlfriend, a fellow medical student, as reasons for his suspension.
Mr. Bhattacharya’s girlfriend, Angel Hsu, a recent graduate of UVA medical school, has since been added to the list of defendants. Mr. Bhattacharya’s attorneys have called her a third-party coconspirator, working with Dr. Peterson and Dr. Densmore to have Mr. Bhattacharya removed from the university. Mr. Bhattacharya alleges that Dr. Hsu’s schemes started when he broke up with her the day before the microaggression panel. He claims that, during their relationship, she admitted to framing two other men for sexual misconduct during her undergraduate education at Emory. All of this is detailed in the 87-page document filed by Mr. Bhattacharya’s attorneys regarding his relationship with Dr. Hsu.
Alex Morey, JD, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said Mr. Bhattacharya is also alleged to have exhibited other threatening behavior on social media and in chat rooms. However, if Mr. Bhattacharya was suspended for reasons other than what he said at the panel, Ms. Morey said, the burden of proof is on the school. They’ll need to prove that the incidents listed, and not his speech, are the motivation for Mr. Bhattacharya’s removal from the program. “We haven’t seen [that] yet,” she said.
In a statement sent to this news organization by UVA Health Public Information Officer Eric Swensen, the school said, “It is worth noting, however, that the court’s recent ruling is based only on the facts as alleged by the plaintiff and must accept all of those allegations as true at this stage of the proceedings.”
Problems with professionalism policies
The case brings into focus concerns about professionalism policies in medical education. “Traditionally it’s been assumed that a physician has certain values, attributes, and behaviors that constitute professionals, which, in some ways, boil down to inspiring trust in him or her,” said Edward Krupat, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard University.
However, many feel that these binding codes of student conduct allow institutions to inhibit civil rights under the guise of professionalism, a standard critics say is inconsistently and often ill-defined.
“They just didn’t like what he said and the way he said it,” Ms. Morey said about Mr. Bhattacharya. “That is not the same as someone engaging in behavior that fundamentally undermines the profession they are in.”
UVA Health’s professionalism policy prohibits conduct that is perceived as rude and says that a pattern of unprofessionalism – defined as three or more recorded events – or one egregious act of unprofessionalism can be punished with removal from the school. What remains to be seen is documented proof of the specific unprofessional or egregious acts that got Mr. Bhattacharya suspended. “Clearly it’s subjective,” Dr. Krupat said. And “there’s an ever-widening gray area” when it comes to these policies.
In a 2020 study of 108 medical graduates, Dr. Krupat and his collaborators found that those who had to go before their review board for professionalism concerns as students were more than five times more likely undergo disciplinary review during residency. They were two times more likely to be sued or sanctioned during their practice.
Dr. Krupat said that a traditional approach would be to look at the list of documented offenses and ask, “Would this be your first choice for a physician?” If the facts the dean alleges are true of Mr. Bhattacharya, then the answer may be no, Dr. Krupat said, based on his limited familiarity with the case. However, he said the situation may be “more complex than the dean says.”
What is unlikely, according to Dr. Krupat, is that medical staff were eager to quickly get rid of a student. In his experience, medical faculty often take extra precautions to understand, justify, and support medical students. There’s even a term in the medical education literature to describe faculty’s unrelenting tendency to stick with students: “failure to fail.” Dr. Krupat finds it “highly unusual that someone would say something in a gray area and be asked to leave.”
What a ruling may mean
Despite the many seemingly contradictory and gray areas, Ms. Morey sees it as cut-and-dried. “It’s a pretty clear First Amendment violation,” she said in an interview. “It’s been one of the more egregious cases we’ve seen lately.”
There are exceptions to free speech on college campuses, Ms. Morey said. Students have First Amendment rights; however, in the classroom setting, the professor and school also have the right to maintain an orderly environment. The panel opened the floor for questions. Thus, Mr. Bhattacharya’s counsel is arguing that the faculty essentially turned the program over to the students. According to Ms. Morey, because UVA hasn’t been able to prove that Mr. Bhattacharya’s discourse caused a “material disruption,” the First Amendment suit is moving forward.
“In a Q&A, the school has essentially created a public forum,” Ms. Morey said. “What they can’t do is open a forum for public speech and punish the speech [they] don’t like.” She said that the courts have historically ruled that a student still has their rights.
“A ruling against Kieran Bhattacharya, in this case, would hugely undermine the First Amendment rights of professional students at every program across the country,” Ms. Morey said.
However, Dr. Nichols said that there have also been cases where the judiciary chooses not to get involved with the self-governing of an individual institution. “It could be an uphill battle for the student,” she said. If UVA can prove their claim that Bhattacharya’s pattern of behavior – and not his commentary on microaggressions – is what put others at risk and was the cause of suspension, then the school’s decision will likely hold.
Dr. Krupat said this case comes at a time when everyone – both students and faculty – feel like they are walking on eggshells. Power dynamics are rightfully being called into question but “a pendulum stuck at one end never just swings to the middle and stops,” he said. Students are frightened that faculty will be insensitive. Faculty fear that if they give negative feedback they might be accused of bias. He does think this tension is “something that will resolve itself for the better in the future,” he said.
The jury trial is currently set for early January 2022. In the meantime, First Amendment advocates are “heartened” that the judge allowed the case to proceed while those concerned with professionalism policies continue to closely watch what happens next.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Inflation will be the end of medicine
Inflation is the senility of democracies.
–Sylvia Townsend Warner
Electronic medical records? No, all of these are minor annoyances in the face of the practice killer, inflation.
Physicians live in a closed box where medical reimbursements are fixed, directly or by contract proxy to the government (Medicare) pay rate. Inflation is projected to be between 5% and 10% this year. We cannot increase our rates to increase the salaries of our employees, cover our increased medical disposable costs, and pay more for our state licensures and DEA registrations. No, we must try to find savings in our budget, which we have been squeezing for years.
Currently, medicine is facing a 9.75% cut in Medicare reimbursements, which will reset most private insurance rates, based on a percentage of Medicare. The temporary 3.75% conversion factor (CF) increase for all services is expiring. Also expiring is the 2% sequester from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), signed into law in August 2011. This was originally scheduled to sunset in 2021, but is going to continue to 2030.
A 4% statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sequester resulting from passage of the American Rescue Plan Act is being imposed. Statutory PAYGO is a policy written into law (it can be changed only through new legislation) that requires deficit neutrality overall in the laws (other than annual appropriations) enacted by Congress and imposes automatic spending reductions at the end of the year if such laws increase the deficit when they are added together.
There is a statutory freeze on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates until 2026, at which time an annual increase of 0.25%, which is lower than inflation, will be enacted. This adds up to a 9.75% cut in Medicare pay until at least 2026. Recall that almost all of your private insurance contracts are tied to Medicare (some more, some less) and that this cut to the physician is doubled if your overhead is fixed at the typical 50% for most practices. This means an almost 20% cut in take-home pay for most physicians.
Now, when considering the most recent inflation number, which projects 5%-10% inflation for this year and at least 2% annually in the future, which compounds yearly (the Fed target), you are looking at catastrophic numbers.
The conversion factor – the pool of money doled out to physicians – has failed to keep pace with inflation – even at 2%-3% a year – and reimbursement is only 50% of what it was when created in 1998, despite small increases by Congress along the way. A recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial claimed that Medicare payments benefited from cost of living adjustments, same as Social Security. I do not agree, hence the 50% pay gap since 1998.
In addition, the costs of running a practice have increased by 37% between 2001 and 2020, 1.7% per year, according to the Medicare Economic Index.
Some of this may include general inflation, but certainly new OSHA rules, electronic medical records, Medicare quality improvement measures, and assorted other costs do not. So based on my own conservative estimate, on top of the 50% decline in the payment pool, physicians’ noninflationary operating costs increased by at least another 10% over the last 20 odd years. This is a 60% decline in reimbursements!
Medicare payments have been under pressure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anti-inflationary payment policies for more than 20 years. While physician services represent a very modest portion of the overall growth in health care costs, they are an easy target for cuts when policymakers seek to limit spending. Although we avoided direct cuts to reimbursements caused by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) – which was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 2015 – Medicare provider payments have remained constrained by a budget-neutral financing system.
There used to be ways out of the box. Physicians could go to work for hospitals or have their practices acquired by them, resulting in much better hospital-based reimbursement. This has been eliminated by site-neutral payments, which while instituted by President Trump, are unopposed by President Biden. You could also join larger groups with some loss of autonomy, which could presumably negotiate better rates with private insurers as another way out, but these rates are almost always based on a percentage of Medicare as noted above.
There may be a bit of good news, with price transparency being instituted, which again is unopposed by the Biden administration. At least private practice physicians may be able to show their services are a bargain compared to hospitals.
One could also take the low road, and sell out to private equity, but I suspect these deals will become much less attractive since some of these entities are going broke and all will feel the bite of lower reimbursements.
Physicians and patients should rise up and demand better reimbursements for physicians, or there will be no physicians to see. This is not greed, a bigger house, or a newer car, this is becoming a matter of practice survival. And seniors are not greedy, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Medicare in taxes for health insurance in retirement.
Physicians and retirees should contact their federal legislators and let them know a 9.75% cut is untenable and ask for Medicare rates to be fixed to the cost of living, just as Social Security is. Before we fund trillions of dollars in new government programs, perhaps we should look to the solvency of the existing ones we have.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].
Inflation is the senility of democracies.
–Sylvia Townsend Warner
Electronic medical records? No, all of these are minor annoyances in the face of the practice killer, inflation.
Physicians live in a closed box where medical reimbursements are fixed, directly or by contract proxy to the government (Medicare) pay rate. Inflation is projected to be between 5% and 10% this year. We cannot increase our rates to increase the salaries of our employees, cover our increased medical disposable costs, and pay more for our state licensures and DEA registrations. No, we must try to find savings in our budget, which we have been squeezing for years.
Currently, medicine is facing a 9.75% cut in Medicare reimbursements, which will reset most private insurance rates, based on a percentage of Medicare. The temporary 3.75% conversion factor (CF) increase for all services is expiring. Also expiring is the 2% sequester from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), signed into law in August 2011. This was originally scheduled to sunset in 2021, but is going to continue to 2030.
A 4% statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sequester resulting from passage of the American Rescue Plan Act is being imposed. Statutory PAYGO is a policy written into law (it can be changed only through new legislation) that requires deficit neutrality overall in the laws (other than annual appropriations) enacted by Congress and imposes automatic spending reductions at the end of the year if such laws increase the deficit when they are added together.
There is a statutory freeze on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates until 2026, at which time an annual increase of 0.25%, which is lower than inflation, will be enacted. This adds up to a 9.75% cut in Medicare pay until at least 2026. Recall that almost all of your private insurance contracts are tied to Medicare (some more, some less) and that this cut to the physician is doubled if your overhead is fixed at the typical 50% for most practices. This means an almost 20% cut in take-home pay for most physicians.
Now, when considering the most recent inflation number, which projects 5%-10% inflation for this year and at least 2% annually in the future, which compounds yearly (the Fed target), you are looking at catastrophic numbers.
The conversion factor – the pool of money doled out to physicians – has failed to keep pace with inflation – even at 2%-3% a year – and reimbursement is only 50% of what it was when created in 1998, despite small increases by Congress along the way. A recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial claimed that Medicare payments benefited from cost of living adjustments, same as Social Security. I do not agree, hence the 50% pay gap since 1998.
In addition, the costs of running a practice have increased by 37% between 2001 and 2020, 1.7% per year, according to the Medicare Economic Index.
Some of this may include general inflation, but certainly new OSHA rules, electronic medical records, Medicare quality improvement measures, and assorted other costs do not. So based on my own conservative estimate, on top of the 50% decline in the payment pool, physicians’ noninflationary operating costs increased by at least another 10% over the last 20 odd years. This is a 60% decline in reimbursements!
Medicare payments have been under pressure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anti-inflationary payment policies for more than 20 years. While physician services represent a very modest portion of the overall growth in health care costs, they are an easy target for cuts when policymakers seek to limit spending. Although we avoided direct cuts to reimbursements caused by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) – which was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 2015 – Medicare provider payments have remained constrained by a budget-neutral financing system.
There used to be ways out of the box. Physicians could go to work for hospitals or have their practices acquired by them, resulting in much better hospital-based reimbursement. This has been eliminated by site-neutral payments, which while instituted by President Trump, are unopposed by President Biden. You could also join larger groups with some loss of autonomy, which could presumably negotiate better rates with private insurers as another way out, but these rates are almost always based on a percentage of Medicare as noted above.
There may be a bit of good news, with price transparency being instituted, which again is unopposed by the Biden administration. At least private practice physicians may be able to show their services are a bargain compared to hospitals.
One could also take the low road, and sell out to private equity, but I suspect these deals will become much less attractive since some of these entities are going broke and all will feel the bite of lower reimbursements.
Physicians and patients should rise up and demand better reimbursements for physicians, or there will be no physicians to see. This is not greed, a bigger house, or a newer car, this is becoming a matter of practice survival. And seniors are not greedy, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Medicare in taxes for health insurance in retirement.
Physicians and retirees should contact their federal legislators and let them know a 9.75% cut is untenable and ask for Medicare rates to be fixed to the cost of living, just as Social Security is. Before we fund trillions of dollars in new government programs, perhaps we should look to the solvency of the existing ones we have.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].
Inflation is the senility of democracies.
–Sylvia Townsend Warner
Electronic medical records? No, all of these are minor annoyances in the face of the practice killer, inflation.
Physicians live in a closed box where medical reimbursements are fixed, directly or by contract proxy to the government (Medicare) pay rate. Inflation is projected to be between 5% and 10% this year. We cannot increase our rates to increase the salaries of our employees, cover our increased medical disposable costs, and pay more for our state licensures and DEA registrations. No, we must try to find savings in our budget, which we have been squeezing for years.
Currently, medicine is facing a 9.75% cut in Medicare reimbursements, which will reset most private insurance rates, based on a percentage of Medicare. The temporary 3.75% conversion factor (CF) increase for all services is expiring. Also expiring is the 2% sequester from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), signed into law in August 2011. This was originally scheduled to sunset in 2021, but is going to continue to 2030.
A 4% statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sequester resulting from passage of the American Rescue Plan Act is being imposed. Statutory PAYGO is a policy written into law (it can be changed only through new legislation) that requires deficit neutrality overall in the laws (other than annual appropriations) enacted by Congress and imposes automatic spending reductions at the end of the year if such laws increase the deficit when they are added together.
There is a statutory freeze on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates until 2026, at which time an annual increase of 0.25%, which is lower than inflation, will be enacted. This adds up to a 9.75% cut in Medicare pay until at least 2026. Recall that almost all of your private insurance contracts are tied to Medicare (some more, some less) and that this cut to the physician is doubled if your overhead is fixed at the typical 50% for most practices. This means an almost 20% cut in take-home pay for most physicians.
Now, when considering the most recent inflation number, which projects 5%-10% inflation for this year and at least 2% annually in the future, which compounds yearly (the Fed target), you are looking at catastrophic numbers.
The conversion factor – the pool of money doled out to physicians – has failed to keep pace with inflation – even at 2%-3% a year – and reimbursement is only 50% of what it was when created in 1998, despite small increases by Congress along the way. A recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial claimed that Medicare payments benefited from cost of living adjustments, same as Social Security. I do not agree, hence the 50% pay gap since 1998.
In addition, the costs of running a practice have increased by 37% between 2001 and 2020, 1.7% per year, according to the Medicare Economic Index.
Some of this may include general inflation, but certainly new OSHA rules, electronic medical records, Medicare quality improvement measures, and assorted other costs do not. So based on my own conservative estimate, on top of the 50% decline in the payment pool, physicians’ noninflationary operating costs increased by at least another 10% over the last 20 odd years. This is a 60% decline in reimbursements!
Medicare payments have been under pressure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anti-inflationary payment policies for more than 20 years. While physician services represent a very modest portion of the overall growth in health care costs, they are an easy target for cuts when policymakers seek to limit spending. Although we avoided direct cuts to reimbursements caused by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) – which was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 2015 – Medicare provider payments have remained constrained by a budget-neutral financing system.
There used to be ways out of the box. Physicians could go to work for hospitals or have their practices acquired by them, resulting in much better hospital-based reimbursement. This has been eliminated by site-neutral payments, which while instituted by President Trump, are unopposed by President Biden. You could also join larger groups with some loss of autonomy, which could presumably negotiate better rates with private insurers as another way out, but these rates are almost always based on a percentage of Medicare as noted above.
There may be a bit of good news, with price transparency being instituted, which again is unopposed by the Biden administration. At least private practice physicians may be able to show their services are a bargain compared to hospitals.
One could also take the low road, and sell out to private equity, but I suspect these deals will become much less attractive since some of these entities are going broke and all will feel the bite of lower reimbursements.
Physicians and patients should rise up and demand better reimbursements for physicians, or there will be no physicians to see. This is not greed, a bigger house, or a newer car, this is becoming a matter of practice survival. And seniors are not greedy, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Medicare in taxes for health insurance in retirement.
Physicians and retirees should contact their federal legislators and let them know a 9.75% cut is untenable and ask for Medicare rates to be fixed to the cost of living, just as Social Security is. Before we fund trillions of dollars in new government programs, perhaps we should look to the solvency of the existing ones we have.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].