User login
How physicians can provide better care to transgender patients
People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.
Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?
Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.
The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.
What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?
Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.
A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.
There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room. A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.
Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?
Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.
It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.
Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?
Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.
However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.
But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.
What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?
Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.
Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.
What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?
Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.
Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.
Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.
Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?
Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.
Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?
Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.
People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.
Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.
Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.
Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?
Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.
That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.
Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?
Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.
The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.
What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?
Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.
A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.
There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room. A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.
Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?
Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.
It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.
Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?
Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.
However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.
But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.
What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?
Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.
Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.
What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?
Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.
Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.
Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.
Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?
Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.
Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?
Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.
People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.
Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.
Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.
Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?
Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.
That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.
Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?
Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.
The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.
What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?
Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.
A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.
There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room. A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.
Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?
Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.
It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.
Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?
Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.
However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.
But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.
What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?
Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.
Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.
What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?
Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.
Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.
Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.
Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?
Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.
Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?
Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.
People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.
Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.
Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.
Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?
Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.
That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What’s the future of telehealth? It’s ‘complicated’
pre-AAD meeting.
“We have seen large numbers of children struggle with access to school and access to health care because of lack of access to devices, challenges of broadband Internet access, culture, language, and educational barriers – just having trouble being comfortable with this technology,” said Natalie Pageler, MD, a pediatric intensivist and chief medical information officer at Stanford Children’s Health, Palo Alto, Calif.
“There are also privacy concerns, especially in situations where there are multiple families within a household. Finally, it’s important to remember that policy and reimbursement issues may have a significant effect on some of the socioeconomic barriers,” she added. “For example, many of our families who don’t have access to audio and video may be able to do a telephone call, but it’s important that telephone calls be considered a form of telehealth and be reimbursed to help increase the access to health care by these families. It also makes it easier to facilitate coordination of care. All of this leads to decreased time and costs for patients, families, and providers.”
Within the first few weeks of the pandemic, Dr. Pageler and colleagues at Stanford Children’s Health observed an increase from about 20 telehealth visits per day to more than 700 per day, which has held stable. While the benefits of telehealth are clear, many perceived barriers exist. In a study conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers identified a wide variety of barriers to implementation of telehealth, led by reimbursement, followed by poor business model sustainability, lack of provider time, and provider interest.
“Some of the barriers, like patient preferences for inpatient care, lack of provider interest in telehealth, and lack of provider time were easily overcome during the COVID pandemic,” Dr. Pageler said. “We dedicated the time to train immediately, because the need was so great.”
In 2018, Patrick McMahon, MD, and colleagues at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, launched a teledermatology program that provided direct-to-patient “E-visits” and recently pivoted to using this service only for acne patients through a program called “Acne Express.” The out-of-pocket cost to patients is $50 per consult and nearly 1,500 cases have been completed since 2018, which has saved patients and their parents an estimated 65,000 miles driving to the clinic.
“In the last year we have piloted something called “E-Consults,” which is a provider-to-provider, store-and-forward service,” said Dr. McMahon, a pediatric dermatologist and director of teledermatology at CHOP. “That service is not currently reimbursable, but it’s funded through our hospital. We also have live video visits between provider and patient. That is reimbursable. We have done about 7,500 of those.”
In a 2020 unpublished membership survey of SPD members, Dr. McMahon and colleagues posed the question, “How has teledermatology positively impacted your practice over the past year?” The top three responses were that teledermatology was safe during COVID-19, it provided easy access for follow-up, and it was convenient. In response to the question, “What is the most fundamental change needed for successful delivery of pediatric teledermatology?” the top three responses were reimbursement, improved technology, and regulatory changes.
“When we asked about struggles and difficulties, a lot of responses surrounded the lack of connectivity, both from a technological standpoint and also that lack of connectivity we would feel in person – a lack of rapport,” Dr. McMahon said. “There’s also the inability for us to touch and feel when we examine, and we worry about misdiagnosing. There are also concerns about disparities and for us being sedentary – sitting in one place staring at a screen.”
To optimize the teledermatology experience, he suggested four pillars: educate, optimize, reach out, and tailor. “I think we need to draw upon some of the digital education we already have, including a handout for patients [on the SPD website] that offers tips on taking a clear photograph on their smartphones,” he said. “We’re also trying to use some of the cases and learnings from our teledermatology experiences to teach the providers. We are setting up CME modules that are sort of a flashcard-based teaching mechanism.”
To optimize teledermatology experiences, he continued, tracking demographics, diagnoses, number of cases, and turnaround time is helpful. “We can then track who’s coming in to see us at follow-up after a new visit through telehealth,” Dr. McMahon said. “This helps us repurpose things, pivot as needed, and find any glitches. Surveying the families is also critical. Finally, we need clinical support to tee-up visits and to ensure photos are submitted and efficient, and to match diagnoses and family preference with the right modality.”
Another panelist, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, who chairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, said that digitally enabled and artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented care delivery offers a “unique opportunity” for increasing access and increasing the value of care delivered to patients.
“The role that we play as clinicians is central, and I think we can make significant strides by doing two things,” said Dr. Ko, chief of medical dermatology for Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “One: extending the reach of our expertise, and the second: scaling the impact of the care we deliver by clinician-driven, patient-centered, digitally-enabled, AI-augmented care delivery innovation. This opportunity for digital care transformation is more than just a transition from in-person visits to video visits. We have to look at this as an opportunity to leverage the unique aspects of digital capabilities and fundamentally reimagine how we deliver care.”
The AAD’s Position Statement on Augmented Intelligence was published in 2019.
Between March and June of 2021, Neil S. Prose, MD, conducted about 300 televisits with patients. “I had a few spectacular visits where, for example, a teenage patient who had been challenging showed me all of her artwork and we became instantly more connected,” said Dr. Prose, professor of dermatology, pediatrics, and global health at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Then there’s the potential for a long-term improvement in health care for some patients.”
But there were also downsides to the process, he said, including dropped connections, poor picture and sound quality, patient no-shows, and patients reporting they were unable to schedule a telemedicine visit. “The problems I was experiencing were not just between me and my patients; the problems are systemic, and they have to do with various factors: the portal, the equipment, Internet access, and inadequate or no health insurance,” said Dr. Prose, past president of the SPD.
Portal-related challenges include a lack of focus on culture, literacy, and numeracy, “and these worsen inequities,” he said. “Another issue related to portal design has to do with language. Very few of the portals allow patients to participate in Spanish. This has been particularly difficult for those of us who use Epic. The next issue has to deal with the devices the patients are using. Cell phone visits can be very problematic. Unfortunately, lower-income Americans have a lower level of technology adoption, and many are relying on smartphones for their Internet access. That’s the root of some of our problems.”
To achieve digital health equity, Dr. Prose emphasized the need for federal mandates for tools for digital health access usable by underserved populations and federal policies that increase broadband access and view it as a human right. He also underscored the importance of federal policies that ensure continuation of adequate telemedicine reimbursement beyond the pandemic and urged health institutions to invest in portals that address the needs of the underserved.
“What is the future of telemedicine? The answer is complicated,” said Dr. Prose, who recommended a recently published article in JAMA on digital health equity. “There have been several rumblings of large insurers who plan to pull the rug on telemedicine as soon as the pandemic is more or less over. So, all of our projections about this being a wonderful trend for the future may be for naught if the insurers don’t step up to the table.”
None of the presenters reported having financial disclosures.
pre-AAD meeting.
“We have seen large numbers of children struggle with access to school and access to health care because of lack of access to devices, challenges of broadband Internet access, culture, language, and educational barriers – just having trouble being comfortable with this technology,” said Natalie Pageler, MD, a pediatric intensivist and chief medical information officer at Stanford Children’s Health, Palo Alto, Calif.
“There are also privacy concerns, especially in situations where there are multiple families within a household. Finally, it’s important to remember that policy and reimbursement issues may have a significant effect on some of the socioeconomic barriers,” she added. “For example, many of our families who don’t have access to audio and video may be able to do a telephone call, but it’s important that telephone calls be considered a form of telehealth and be reimbursed to help increase the access to health care by these families. It also makes it easier to facilitate coordination of care. All of this leads to decreased time and costs for patients, families, and providers.”
Within the first few weeks of the pandemic, Dr. Pageler and colleagues at Stanford Children’s Health observed an increase from about 20 telehealth visits per day to more than 700 per day, which has held stable. While the benefits of telehealth are clear, many perceived barriers exist. In a study conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers identified a wide variety of barriers to implementation of telehealth, led by reimbursement, followed by poor business model sustainability, lack of provider time, and provider interest.
“Some of the barriers, like patient preferences for inpatient care, lack of provider interest in telehealth, and lack of provider time were easily overcome during the COVID pandemic,” Dr. Pageler said. “We dedicated the time to train immediately, because the need was so great.”
In 2018, Patrick McMahon, MD, and colleagues at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, launched a teledermatology program that provided direct-to-patient “E-visits” and recently pivoted to using this service only for acne patients through a program called “Acne Express.” The out-of-pocket cost to patients is $50 per consult and nearly 1,500 cases have been completed since 2018, which has saved patients and their parents an estimated 65,000 miles driving to the clinic.
“In the last year we have piloted something called “E-Consults,” which is a provider-to-provider, store-and-forward service,” said Dr. McMahon, a pediatric dermatologist and director of teledermatology at CHOP. “That service is not currently reimbursable, but it’s funded through our hospital. We also have live video visits between provider and patient. That is reimbursable. We have done about 7,500 of those.”
In a 2020 unpublished membership survey of SPD members, Dr. McMahon and colleagues posed the question, “How has teledermatology positively impacted your practice over the past year?” The top three responses were that teledermatology was safe during COVID-19, it provided easy access for follow-up, and it was convenient. In response to the question, “What is the most fundamental change needed for successful delivery of pediatric teledermatology?” the top three responses were reimbursement, improved technology, and regulatory changes.
“When we asked about struggles and difficulties, a lot of responses surrounded the lack of connectivity, both from a technological standpoint and also that lack of connectivity we would feel in person – a lack of rapport,” Dr. McMahon said. “There’s also the inability for us to touch and feel when we examine, and we worry about misdiagnosing. There are also concerns about disparities and for us being sedentary – sitting in one place staring at a screen.”
To optimize the teledermatology experience, he suggested four pillars: educate, optimize, reach out, and tailor. “I think we need to draw upon some of the digital education we already have, including a handout for patients [on the SPD website] that offers tips on taking a clear photograph on their smartphones,” he said. “We’re also trying to use some of the cases and learnings from our teledermatology experiences to teach the providers. We are setting up CME modules that are sort of a flashcard-based teaching mechanism.”
To optimize teledermatology experiences, he continued, tracking demographics, diagnoses, number of cases, and turnaround time is helpful. “We can then track who’s coming in to see us at follow-up after a new visit through telehealth,” Dr. McMahon said. “This helps us repurpose things, pivot as needed, and find any glitches. Surveying the families is also critical. Finally, we need clinical support to tee-up visits and to ensure photos are submitted and efficient, and to match diagnoses and family preference with the right modality.”
Another panelist, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, who chairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, said that digitally enabled and artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented care delivery offers a “unique opportunity” for increasing access and increasing the value of care delivered to patients.
“The role that we play as clinicians is central, and I think we can make significant strides by doing two things,” said Dr. Ko, chief of medical dermatology for Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “One: extending the reach of our expertise, and the second: scaling the impact of the care we deliver by clinician-driven, patient-centered, digitally-enabled, AI-augmented care delivery innovation. This opportunity for digital care transformation is more than just a transition from in-person visits to video visits. We have to look at this as an opportunity to leverage the unique aspects of digital capabilities and fundamentally reimagine how we deliver care.”
The AAD’s Position Statement on Augmented Intelligence was published in 2019.
Between March and June of 2021, Neil S. Prose, MD, conducted about 300 televisits with patients. “I had a few spectacular visits where, for example, a teenage patient who had been challenging showed me all of her artwork and we became instantly more connected,” said Dr. Prose, professor of dermatology, pediatrics, and global health at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Then there’s the potential for a long-term improvement in health care for some patients.”
But there were also downsides to the process, he said, including dropped connections, poor picture and sound quality, patient no-shows, and patients reporting they were unable to schedule a telemedicine visit. “The problems I was experiencing were not just between me and my patients; the problems are systemic, and they have to do with various factors: the portal, the equipment, Internet access, and inadequate or no health insurance,” said Dr. Prose, past president of the SPD.
Portal-related challenges include a lack of focus on culture, literacy, and numeracy, “and these worsen inequities,” he said. “Another issue related to portal design has to do with language. Very few of the portals allow patients to participate in Spanish. This has been particularly difficult for those of us who use Epic. The next issue has to deal with the devices the patients are using. Cell phone visits can be very problematic. Unfortunately, lower-income Americans have a lower level of technology adoption, and many are relying on smartphones for their Internet access. That’s the root of some of our problems.”
To achieve digital health equity, Dr. Prose emphasized the need for federal mandates for tools for digital health access usable by underserved populations and federal policies that increase broadband access and view it as a human right. He also underscored the importance of federal policies that ensure continuation of adequate telemedicine reimbursement beyond the pandemic and urged health institutions to invest in portals that address the needs of the underserved.
“What is the future of telemedicine? The answer is complicated,” said Dr. Prose, who recommended a recently published article in JAMA on digital health equity. “There have been several rumblings of large insurers who plan to pull the rug on telemedicine as soon as the pandemic is more or less over. So, all of our projections about this being a wonderful trend for the future may be for naught if the insurers don’t step up to the table.”
None of the presenters reported having financial disclosures.
pre-AAD meeting.
“We have seen large numbers of children struggle with access to school and access to health care because of lack of access to devices, challenges of broadband Internet access, culture, language, and educational barriers – just having trouble being comfortable with this technology,” said Natalie Pageler, MD, a pediatric intensivist and chief medical information officer at Stanford Children’s Health, Palo Alto, Calif.
“There are also privacy concerns, especially in situations where there are multiple families within a household. Finally, it’s important to remember that policy and reimbursement issues may have a significant effect on some of the socioeconomic barriers,” she added. “For example, many of our families who don’t have access to audio and video may be able to do a telephone call, but it’s important that telephone calls be considered a form of telehealth and be reimbursed to help increase the access to health care by these families. It also makes it easier to facilitate coordination of care. All of this leads to decreased time and costs for patients, families, and providers.”
Within the first few weeks of the pandemic, Dr. Pageler and colleagues at Stanford Children’s Health observed an increase from about 20 telehealth visits per day to more than 700 per day, which has held stable. While the benefits of telehealth are clear, many perceived barriers exist. In a study conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers identified a wide variety of barriers to implementation of telehealth, led by reimbursement, followed by poor business model sustainability, lack of provider time, and provider interest.
“Some of the barriers, like patient preferences for inpatient care, lack of provider interest in telehealth, and lack of provider time were easily overcome during the COVID pandemic,” Dr. Pageler said. “We dedicated the time to train immediately, because the need was so great.”
In 2018, Patrick McMahon, MD, and colleagues at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, launched a teledermatology program that provided direct-to-patient “E-visits” and recently pivoted to using this service only for acne patients through a program called “Acne Express.” The out-of-pocket cost to patients is $50 per consult and nearly 1,500 cases have been completed since 2018, which has saved patients and their parents an estimated 65,000 miles driving to the clinic.
“In the last year we have piloted something called “E-Consults,” which is a provider-to-provider, store-and-forward service,” said Dr. McMahon, a pediatric dermatologist and director of teledermatology at CHOP. “That service is not currently reimbursable, but it’s funded through our hospital. We also have live video visits between provider and patient. That is reimbursable. We have done about 7,500 of those.”
In a 2020 unpublished membership survey of SPD members, Dr. McMahon and colleagues posed the question, “How has teledermatology positively impacted your practice over the past year?” The top three responses were that teledermatology was safe during COVID-19, it provided easy access for follow-up, and it was convenient. In response to the question, “What is the most fundamental change needed for successful delivery of pediatric teledermatology?” the top three responses were reimbursement, improved technology, and regulatory changes.
“When we asked about struggles and difficulties, a lot of responses surrounded the lack of connectivity, both from a technological standpoint and also that lack of connectivity we would feel in person – a lack of rapport,” Dr. McMahon said. “There’s also the inability for us to touch and feel when we examine, and we worry about misdiagnosing. There are also concerns about disparities and for us being sedentary – sitting in one place staring at a screen.”
To optimize the teledermatology experience, he suggested four pillars: educate, optimize, reach out, and tailor. “I think we need to draw upon some of the digital education we already have, including a handout for patients [on the SPD website] that offers tips on taking a clear photograph on their smartphones,” he said. “We’re also trying to use some of the cases and learnings from our teledermatology experiences to teach the providers. We are setting up CME modules that are sort of a flashcard-based teaching mechanism.”
To optimize teledermatology experiences, he continued, tracking demographics, diagnoses, number of cases, and turnaround time is helpful. “We can then track who’s coming in to see us at follow-up after a new visit through telehealth,” Dr. McMahon said. “This helps us repurpose things, pivot as needed, and find any glitches. Surveying the families is also critical. Finally, we need clinical support to tee-up visits and to ensure photos are submitted and efficient, and to match diagnoses and family preference with the right modality.”
Another panelist, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, who chairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, said that digitally enabled and artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented care delivery offers a “unique opportunity” for increasing access and increasing the value of care delivered to patients.
“The role that we play as clinicians is central, and I think we can make significant strides by doing two things,” said Dr. Ko, chief of medical dermatology for Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “One: extending the reach of our expertise, and the second: scaling the impact of the care we deliver by clinician-driven, patient-centered, digitally-enabled, AI-augmented care delivery innovation. This opportunity for digital care transformation is more than just a transition from in-person visits to video visits. We have to look at this as an opportunity to leverage the unique aspects of digital capabilities and fundamentally reimagine how we deliver care.”
The AAD’s Position Statement on Augmented Intelligence was published in 2019.
Between March and June of 2021, Neil S. Prose, MD, conducted about 300 televisits with patients. “I had a few spectacular visits where, for example, a teenage patient who had been challenging showed me all of her artwork and we became instantly more connected,” said Dr. Prose, professor of dermatology, pediatrics, and global health at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Then there’s the potential for a long-term improvement in health care for some patients.”
But there were also downsides to the process, he said, including dropped connections, poor picture and sound quality, patient no-shows, and patients reporting they were unable to schedule a telemedicine visit. “The problems I was experiencing were not just between me and my patients; the problems are systemic, and they have to do with various factors: the portal, the equipment, Internet access, and inadequate or no health insurance,” said Dr. Prose, past president of the SPD.
Portal-related challenges include a lack of focus on culture, literacy, and numeracy, “and these worsen inequities,” he said. “Another issue related to portal design has to do with language. Very few of the portals allow patients to participate in Spanish. This has been particularly difficult for those of us who use Epic. The next issue has to deal with the devices the patients are using. Cell phone visits can be very problematic. Unfortunately, lower-income Americans have a lower level of technology adoption, and many are relying on smartphones for their Internet access. That’s the root of some of our problems.”
To achieve digital health equity, Dr. Prose emphasized the need for federal mandates for tools for digital health access usable by underserved populations and federal policies that increase broadband access and view it as a human right. He also underscored the importance of federal policies that ensure continuation of adequate telemedicine reimbursement beyond the pandemic and urged health institutions to invest in portals that address the needs of the underserved.
“What is the future of telemedicine? The answer is complicated,” said Dr. Prose, who recommended a recently published article in JAMA on digital health equity. “There have been several rumblings of large insurers who plan to pull the rug on telemedicine as soon as the pandemic is more or less over. So, all of our projections about this being a wonderful trend for the future may be for naught if the insurers don’t step up to the table.”
None of the presenters reported having financial disclosures.
FROM THE SPD PRE-AAD MEETING
University taking aim at racial disparities in COVID vaccine trials
Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.
Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.
It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.
“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.
Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.
“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”
Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.
“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
Building more representative clinical trials
For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.
Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.
Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.
“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”
Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
A trial designed to engender trust
Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.
“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”
Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.
“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”
There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.
Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.
From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.
Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.
It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.
“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.
Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.
“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”
Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.
“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
Building more representative clinical trials
For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.
Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.
Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.
“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”
Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
A trial designed to engender trust
Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.
“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”
Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.
“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”
There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.
Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.
From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.
Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.
It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.
“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.
Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.
“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”
Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.
“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
Building more representative clinical trials
For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.
Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.
Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.
“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”
Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
A trial designed to engender trust
Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.
“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”
Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.
“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”
There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.
Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.
From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About one in five clinicians considers quitting because of pandemic
a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.
About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.
“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”
“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.
“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”
“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
When the pandemic hits home
A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.
“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”
To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.
Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”
Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.
The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.
A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
COVID-19 career concerns
Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.
The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.
Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.
“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.
Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.
“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.
“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.
Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
Potential solutions
“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.
Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.
Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.
“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”
The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.
About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.
“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”
“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.
“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”
“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
When the pandemic hits home
A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.
“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”
To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.
Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”
Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.
The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.
A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
COVID-19 career concerns
Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.
The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.
Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.
“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.
Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.
“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.
“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.
Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
Potential solutions
“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.
Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.
Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.
“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”
The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.
About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.
“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”
“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.
“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”
“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
When the pandemic hits home
A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.
“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”
To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.
Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”
Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.
The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.
A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
COVID-19 career concerns
Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.
The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.
Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.
“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.
Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.
“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.
“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.
Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
Potential solutions
“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.
Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.
Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.
“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”
The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Endocrinologist charged after bomb-making supplies found
An endocrinologist in Naples, Fla., faces multiple federal charges after police found homemade explosives and bomb-making supplies, as well as numerous illegal drugs, in his home.
Police were executing a search warrant at the home of Christy Daniel Cugini, MD, 63, on March 30 when they found the items, according to Collier County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO).
“An investigation continues and more charges could be brought,” the sheriff’s office said in a statement. As of April 1, Dr. Cugini was out on bond. His next court appearance is on April 26.
A search of his bedroom turned up marijuana, tramadol, oxycodone, and hydrocodone, the sheriff’s office said. According to nbcmiami.com, police also found 560 grams of marijuana and $20,000 in cash and jewelry in a safe.
“Some of the narcotics were in pill bottles with other people’s names on them. Many of the substances were of trafficking quantities. The search also turned up numerous items of narcotic paraphernalia, including heat seal bags, a vacuum sealer, and a scale,” the CCSO report said.
Charges against Dr. Cugini include narcotics trafficking; possession of marijuana with intent to sell/manufacture/deliver; possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana; possession of a controlled substance; and possession of narcotic paraphernalia, according to the report.
He was also charged with nine counts of making/possessing a destructive device.
The CCSO bomb squad was brought in to investigate the homemade explosive devices and supplies, including potassium nitrate and ammonium nitrate – which can be used as oxidizers – PVC pipe, and flash powders used in fireworks in Dr. Cugini’s house and garage.
Newsweek reported that the bomb squad found six red cylindrical devices about 4 inches long, according to information reported in an affidavit from Collier County Officer Jeffrey Tayar. They may have been intended to be a hand-tossed improvised explosive device, Mr. Tayar wrote.
An officer also found three other devices made up of PVC pipe attached to a small wood square. A rifle round was inserted into the PVC pipe, Mr. Tayar’s report said.
“The device could be placed on the ground in such a manner as to leave the rifle round facing up,” Mr. Tayar reportedly wrote. “If downward pressure were applied on the tip of the round ... the rifle round [would] discharge, launching the projectile portion of the round upward, presumably into the foot of the subject stepping on it.”
NBC News reported that deputies said Dr. Cugini appeared to live only with his young daughter.
He initially agreed to speak with deputies but then invoked his Miranda rights and stopped answering questions, NBC said.
Dr. Cugini’s profile has been removed from the Millennium Physician Group website.
His employer offered this statement via spokesperson Liza Fernandez: “We are shocked at the allegations regarding Dr. Christy Cugini. He has been placed on administrative leave until further notice. Millennium is committed to cooperating with law enforcement and is conducting an internal investigation.”
According to U.S. News & World Report, Dr. Cugini is affiliated with NCH Baker Hospital. He received his medical degree from Ross University School of Medicine, now located in Barbados, and has been practicing for more than 20 years.
Attempts to contact Dr. Cugini were unsuccessful.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An endocrinologist in Naples, Fla., faces multiple federal charges after police found homemade explosives and bomb-making supplies, as well as numerous illegal drugs, in his home.
Police were executing a search warrant at the home of Christy Daniel Cugini, MD, 63, on March 30 when they found the items, according to Collier County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO).
“An investigation continues and more charges could be brought,” the sheriff’s office said in a statement. As of April 1, Dr. Cugini was out on bond. His next court appearance is on April 26.
A search of his bedroom turned up marijuana, tramadol, oxycodone, and hydrocodone, the sheriff’s office said. According to nbcmiami.com, police also found 560 grams of marijuana and $20,000 in cash and jewelry in a safe.
“Some of the narcotics were in pill bottles with other people’s names on them. Many of the substances were of trafficking quantities. The search also turned up numerous items of narcotic paraphernalia, including heat seal bags, a vacuum sealer, and a scale,” the CCSO report said.
Charges against Dr. Cugini include narcotics trafficking; possession of marijuana with intent to sell/manufacture/deliver; possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana; possession of a controlled substance; and possession of narcotic paraphernalia, according to the report.
He was also charged with nine counts of making/possessing a destructive device.
The CCSO bomb squad was brought in to investigate the homemade explosive devices and supplies, including potassium nitrate and ammonium nitrate – which can be used as oxidizers – PVC pipe, and flash powders used in fireworks in Dr. Cugini’s house and garage.
Newsweek reported that the bomb squad found six red cylindrical devices about 4 inches long, according to information reported in an affidavit from Collier County Officer Jeffrey Tayar. They may have been intended to be a hand-tossed improvised explosive device, Mr. Tayar wrote.
An officer also found three other devices made up of PVC pipe attached to a small wood square. A rifle round was inserted into the PVC pipe, Mr. Tayar’s report said.
“The device could be placed on the ground in such a manner as to leave the rifle round facing up,” Mr. Tayar reportedly wrote. “If downward pressure were applied on the tip of the round ... the rifle round [would] discharge, launching the projectile portion of the round upward, presumably into the foot of the subject stepping on it.”
NBC News reported that deputies said Dr. Cugini appeared to live only with his young daughter.
He initially agreed to speak with deputies but then invoked his Miranda rights and stopped answering questions, NBC said.
Dr. Cugini’s profile has been removed from the Millennium Physician Group website.
His employer offered this statement via spokesperson Liza Fernandez: “We are shocked at the allegations regarding Dr. Christy Cugini. He has been placed on administrative leave until further notice. Millennium is committed to cooperating with law enforcement and is conducting an internal investigation.”
According to U.S. News & World Report, Dr. Cugini is affiliated with NCH Baker Hospital. He received his medical degree from Ross University School of Medicine, now located in Barbados, and has been practicing for more than 20 years.
Attempts to contact Dr. Cugini were unsuccessful.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An endocrinologist in Naples, Fla., faces multiple federal charges after police found homemade explosives and bomb-making supplies, as well as numerous illegal drugs, in his home.
Police were executing a search warrant at the home of Christy Daniel Cugini, MD, 63, on March 30 when they found the items, according to Collier County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO).
“An investigation continues and more charges could be brought,” the sheriff’s office said in a statement. As of April 1, Dr. Cugini was out on bond. His next court appearance is on April 26.
A search of his bedroom turned up marijuana, tramadol, oxycodone, and hydrocodone, the sheriff’s office said. According to nbcmiami.com, police also found 560 grams of marijuana and $20,000 in cash and jewelry in a safe.
“Some of the narcotics were in pill bottles with other people’s names on them. Many of the substances were of trafficking quantities. The search also turned up numerous items of narcotic paraphernalia, including heat seal bags, a vacuum sealer, and a scale,” the CCSO report said.
Charges against Dr. Cugini include narcotics trafficking; possession of marijuana with intent to sell/manufacture/deliver; possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana; possession of a controlled substance; and possession of narcotic paraphernalia, according to the report.
He was also charged with nine counts of making/possessing a destructive device.
The CCSO bomb squad was brought in to investigate the homemade explosive devices and supplies, including potassium nitrate and ammonium nitrate – which can be used as oxidizers – PVC pipe, and flash powders used in fireworks in Dr. Cugini’s house and garage.
Newsweek reported that the bomb squad found six red cylindrical devices about 4 inches long, according to information reported in an affidavit from Collier County Officer Jeffrey Tayar. They may have been intended to be a hand-tossed improvised explosive device, Mr. Tayar wrote.
An officer also found three other devices made up of PVC pipe attached to a small wood square. A rifle round was inserted into the PVC pipe, Mr. Tayar’s report said.
“The device could be placed on the ground in such a manner as to leave the rifle round facing up,” Mr. Tayar reportedly wrote. “If downward pressure were applied on the tip of the round ... the rifle round [would] discharge, launching the projectile portion of the round upward, presumably into the foot of the subject stepping on it.”
NBC News reported that deputies said Dr. Cugini appeared to live only with his young daughter.
He initially agreed to speak with deputies but then invoked his Miranda rights and stopped answering questions, NBC said.
Dr. Cugini’s profile has been removed from the Millennium Physician Group website.
His employer offered this statement via spokesperson Liza Fernandez: “We are shocked at the allegations regarding Dr. Christy Cugini. He has been placed on administrative leave until further notice. Millennium is committed to cooperating with law enforcement and is conducting an internal investigation.”
According to U.S. News & World Report, Dr. Cugini is affiliated with NCH Baker Hospital. He received his medical degree from Ross University School of Medicine, now located in Barbados, and has been practicing for more than 20 years.
Attempts to contact Dr. Cugini were unsuccessful.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hanging on to the memories
Sandy was placed in memory care recently.
In my world, as a 23-year veteran of the neurology frontline trenches, this is a pretty common occurrence for my patients.
But Sandy isn’t my patient.
She’s a longtime friend.
My parents met Sandy and her husband on New Year’s Eve, 1968. I was 2. Phoenix wasn’t a particularly big city back then.
Growing up we had summer pool parties and get-togethers with them and other families. My mom and Sandy have close birthdays, and when they both turned 50 their husbands threw them a combined 100-year surprise party. As couples they made occasional trips to Las Vegas.
In adolescence, when my voice changed, I sounded a lot like my dad, and Sandy could never tell us apart. So when I answered the phone and she thought it was him, I’d just fly with the conversation, becoming increasingly preposterous until she said: “Okay, now I know who this is. Let me talk to your mom.” Maybe she was just humoring me the whole time. But it was good for a laugh.
Ten years ago my mom mentioned Sandy had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease by another neurologist in town. For a long time her deterioration was slow.
I last saw her 8 years ago, at my dad’s services. At that time we had a nice conversation. I didn’t go into my trained “neurology mode” – I’ve never been her doctor – but enjoyed talking to her as a family friend I hadn’t seen in years. There were a few gaps in her memory, but she was still the person I’d always been fond of.
Eight years is a long time in Alzheimer’s disease, and she finally reached the point where placement was no longer an option. My mom had spoken to her the week before, but told me Sandy couldn’t really carry a conversation now.
Sandy isn’t dead, but by the same token she is. Placement in memory care is often the realization that the person we knew and loved isn’t there anymore. Such treatment isn’t even on the horizon ... yet.
As a neurologist, I know this reality. I explain it to families every day.
But when it comes to someone I know outside of my profession, that doesn’t make it any easier.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Sandy was placed in memory care recently.
In my world, as a 23-year veteran of the neurology frontline trenches, this is a pretty common occurrence for my patients.
But Sandy isn’t my patient.
She’s a longtime friend.
My parents met Sandy and her husband on New Year’s Eve, 1968. I was 2. Phoenix wasn’t a particularly big city back then.
Growing up we had summer pool parties and get-togethers with them and other families. My mom and Sandy have close birthdays, and when they both turned 50 their husbands threw them a combined 100-year surprise party. As couples they made occasional trips to Las Vegas.
In adolescence, when my voice changed, I sounded a lot like my dad, and Sandy could never tell us apart. So when I answered the phone and she thought it was him, I’d just fly with the conversation, becoming increasingly preposterous until she said: “Okay, now I know who this is. Let me talk to your mom.” Maybe she was just humoring me the whole time. But it was good for a laugh.
Ten years ago my mom mentioned Sandy had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease by another neurologist in town. For a long time her deterioration was slow.
I last saw her 8 years ago, at my dad’s services. At that time we had a nice conversation. I didn’t go into my trained “neurology mode” – I’ve never been her doctor – but enjoyed talking to her as a family friend I hadn’t seen in years. There were a few gaps in her memory, but she was still the person I’d always been fond of.
Eight years is a long time in Alzheimer’s disease, and she finally reached the point where placement was no longer an option. My mom had spoken to her the week before, but told me Sandy couldn’t really carry a conversation now.
Sandy isn’t dead, but by the same token she is. Placement in memory care is often the realization that the person we knew and loved isn’t there anymore. Such treatment isn’t even on the horizon ... yet.
As a neurologist, I know this reality. I explain it to families every day.
But when it comes to someone I know outside of my profession, that doesn’t make it any easier.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Sandy was placed in memory care recently.
In my world, as a 23-year veteran of the neurology frontline trenches, this is a pretty common occurrence for my patients.
But Sandy isn’t my patient.
She’s a longtime friend.
My parents met Sandy and her husband on New Year’s Eve, 1968. I was 2. Phoenix wasn’t a particularly big city back then.
Growing up we had summer pool parties and get-togethers with them and other families. My mom and Sandy have close birthdays, and when they both turned 50 their husbands threw them a combined 100-year surprise party. As couples they made occasional trips to Las Vegas.
In adolescence, when my voice changed, I sounded a lot like my dad, and Sandy could never tell us apart. So when I answered the phone and she thought it was him, I’d just fly with the conversation, becoming increasingly preposterous until she said: “Okay, now I know who this is. Let me talk to your mom.” Maybe she was just humoring me the whole time. But it was good for a laugh.
Ten years ago my mom mentioned Sandy had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease by another neurologist in town. For a long time her deterioration was slow.
I last saw her 8 years ago, at my dad’s services. At that time we had a nice conversation. I didn’t go into my trained “neurology mode” – I’ve never been her doctor – but enjoyed talking to her as a family friend I hadn’t seen in years. There were a few gaps in her memory, but she was still the person I’d always been fond of.
Eight years is a long time in Alzheimer’s disease, and she finally reached the point where placement was no longer an option. My mom had spoken to her the week before, but told me Sandy couldn’t really carry a conversation now.
Sandy isn’t dead, but by the same token she is. Placement in memory care is often the realization that the person we knew and loved isn’t there anymore. Such treatment isn’t even on the horizon ... yet.
As a neurologist, I know this reality. I explain it to families every day.
But when it comes to someone I know outside of my profession, that doesn’t make it any easier.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Servier and French drug safety agency found guilty on diet drug
More than 10 years after the withdrawal of the weight-loss drug Mediator (benfluorex) from the market in France, the Paris Court issued its judgment on March 29, 2021, against Servier Laboratories and the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).
Servier Laboratories was convicted of “aggravated deception” and fined 2.7 million euros (approximately $3.2 million) but were found not guilty of fraud. ANSM will also have to pay a fine.
Mediator was brought to the market in 1976 for the treatment of hyperlipidemia and for overweight patients with type 2 diabetes but was used off label as an appetite suppressant. It was taken by 5 million people and was only removed from the market in France in 2009 because of its toxic effects.
Mediator was taken off the market in Spain 6 years earlier, and in Switzerland 12 years earlier, and more than 30 years before in Belgium. It was never marketed in the United States.
The number of deaths because of heart valve damage related to the drug in France has been estimated at 220-300 in the short term (2.5 years) and 1,300-1,800 in the long term. In addition, the drug has been responsible for 3,100-4,200 hospital admissions for valvular insufficiency and pulmonary arterial hypertension.
“Despite knowing the risks for very many years ... [Servier Laboratories] never took the necessary measures and thus deceived” consumers of Mediator, declared the president of the criminal court, Sylvie Daunois.
Servier has “weakened confidence in the health system,” she added.
“I am very happy that ‘aggravated deception,’ the heart of the case, has been recognized and condemned,” Irène Frachon, MD, a pulmonologist at Brest (France) University Hospital and whistleblower on the Mediator scandal, said in an interview.
However, Dr. Frachon continued: “The major problem, putting a toxic agent on the market for years, is a given. But the weakness of the sentences gives a mixed message.
“The judgment is too cautious in its punishments,” she added, pointing out that, “in the case of contaminated blood, there were prison sentences.”
Servier deceived doctors and patients
The French trial in September 2019 was extraordinary, with about 100 witnesses, nearly 400 lawyers, and 5,000 victims.
On June 23, 2020, the prosecutor, Aude Le Guilcher, requested at the end of her indictment that the six companies of the Servier group be fined, notably for “deception, homicide, involuntary injuries, and fraud,” to the tune of 20.3 million euros (approximately $23.8 million).
Against the former No. 2 of Servier, Jean-Philippe Seta, Ms. Le Guilcher requested 5 years in prison, with 2 years suspended, and a 200,000 euro (approximately $235,000) fine.
The same sum was requested against ANSM for homicide and unintentional injuries.
In the end, Mr. Seta, the former right hand of Jacques Servier, who died in 2004, was sentenced to 4 years in prison, suspended. For their part, ANSM was fined 303,000 euros(approximately $350,000).
It is now clearly established that Servier Laboratories knowingly concealed the similarity of Mediator to the fenfluramine family of compounds, which was banned in 1990 because of adverse effects.
The group also deceived doctors who prescribed the drug and patients who took it by hiding its toxicity.
Mediator should never have been authorized for use
In terms of the fraud charges, the prosecutor estimated that the losses incurred by the primary health insurance industry were in the region of several hundred million euros.
She argued that Mediator should never have been reimbursed, as “it should never have benefited from market authorization, which it received solely due to the fraudulent actions of the company.”
But because of the statute of limitations, this argument was not heard, explained Dr. Frachon, “and the same is true of conflicts of interest, where limitations led to them being discharged.
“We understand the legal difficulties, but it’s a shame in terms of the signal sent.”
“I hope the medical world will learn the lesson and not continue with ‘business as usual’ with people who are delinquents. I think it will be essential to restore public confidence,” concluded Dr. Frachon.
No conflicts of interest or funding were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More than 10 years after the withdrawal of the weight-loss drug Mediator (benfluorex) from the market in France, the Paris Court issued its judgment on March 29, 2021, against Servier Laboratories and the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).
Servier Laboratories was convicted of “aggravated deception” and fined 2.7 million euros (approximately $3.2 million) but were found not guilty of fraud. ANSM will also have to pay a fine.
Mediator was brought to the market in 1976 for the treatment of hyperlipidemia and for overweight patients with type 2 diabetes but was used off label as an appetite suppressant. It was taken by 5 million people and was only removed from the market in France in 2009 because of its toxic effects.
Mediator was taken off the market in Spain 6 years earlier, and in Switzerland 12 years earlier, and more than 30 years before in Belgium. It was never marketed in the United States.
The number of deaths because of heart valve damage related to the drug in France has been estimated at 220-300 in the short term (2.5 years) and 1,300-1,800 in the long term. In addition, the drug has been responsible for 3,100-4,200 hospital admissions for valvular insufficiency and pulmonary arterial hypertension.
“Despite knowing the risks for very many years ... [Servier Laboratories] never took the necessary measures and thus deceived” consumers of Mediator, declared the president of the criminal court, Sylvie Daunois.
Servier has “weakened confidence in the health system,” she added.
“I am very happy that ‘aggravated deception,’ the heart of the case, has been recognized and condemned,” Irène Frachon, MD, a pulmonologist at Brest (France) University Hospital and whistleblower on the Mediator scandal, said in an interview.
However, Dr. Frachon continued: “The major problem, putting a toxic agent on the market for years, is a given. But the weakness of the sentences gives a mixed message.
“The judgment is too cautious in its punishments,” she added, pointing out that, “in the case of contaminated blood, there were prison sentences.”
Servier deceived doctors and patients
The French trial in September 2019 was extraordinary, with about 100 witnesses, nearly 400 lawyers, and 5,000 victims.
On June 23, 2020, the prosecutor, Aude Le Guilcher, requested at the end of her indictment that the six companies of the Servier group be fined, notably for “deception, homicide, involuntary injuries, and fraud,” to the tune of 20.3 million euros (approximately $23.8 million).
Against the former No. 2 of Servier, Jean-Philippe Seta, Ms. Le Guilcher requested 5 years in prison, with 2 years suspended, and a 200,000 euro (approximately $235,000) fine.
The same sum was requested against ANSM for homicide and unintentional injuries.
In the end, Mr. Seta, the former right hand of Jacques Servier, who died in 2004, was sentenced to 4 years in prison, suspended. For their part, ANSM was fined 303,000 euros(approximately $350,000).
It is now clearly established that Servier Laboratories knowingly concealed the similarity of Mediator to the fenfluramine family of compounds, which was banned in 1990 because of adverse effects.
The group also deceived doctors who prescribed the drug and patients who took it by hiding its toxicity.
Mediator should never have been authorized for use
In terms of the fraud charges, the prosecutor estimated that the losses incurred by the primary health insurance industry were in the region of several hundred million euros.
She argued that Mediator should never have been reimbursed, as “it should never have benefited from market authorization, which it received solely due to the fraudulent actions of the company.”
But because of the statute of limitations, this argument was not heard, explained Dr. Frachon, “and the same is true of conflicts of interest, where limitations led to them being discharged.
“We understand the legal difficulties, but it’s a shame in terms of the signal sent.”
“I hope the medical world will learn the lesson and not continue with ‘business as usual’ with people who are delinquents. I think it will be essential to restore public confidence,” concluded Dr. Frachon.
No conflicts of interest or funding were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More than 10 years after the withdrawal of the weight-loss drug Mediator (benfluorex) from the market in France, the Paris Court issued its judgment on March 29, 2021, against Servier Laboratories and the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).
Servier Laboratories was convicted of “aggravated deception” and fined 2.7 million euros (approximately $3.2 million) but were found not guilty of fraud. ANSM will also have to pay a fine.
Mediator was brought to the market in 1976 for the treatment of hyperlipidemia and for overweight patients with type 2 diabetes but was used off label as an appetite suppressant. It was taken by 5 million people and was only removed from the market in France in 2009 because of its toxic effects.
Mediator was taken off the market in Spain 6 years earlier, and in Switzerland 12 years earlier, and more than 30 years before in Belgium. It was never marketed in the United States.
The number of deaths because of heart valve damage related to the drug in France has been estimated at 220-300 in the short term (2.5 years) and 1,300-1,800 in the long term. In addition, the drug has been responsible for 3,100-4,200 hospital admissions for valvular insufficiency and pulmonary arterial hypertension.
“Despite knowing the risks for very many years ... [Servier Laboratories] never took the necessary measures and thus deceived” consumers of Mediator, declared the president of the criminal court, Sylvie Daunois.
Servier has “weakened confidence in the health system,” she added.
“I am very happy that ‘aggravated deception,’ the heart of the case, has been recognized and condemned,” Irène Frachon, MD, a pulmonologist at Brest (France) University Hospital and whistleblower on the Mediator scandal, said in an interview.
However, Dr. Frachon continued: “The major problem, putting a toxic agent on the market for years, is a given. But the weakness of the sentences gives a mixed message.
“The judgment is too cautious in its punishments,” she added, pointing out that, “in the case of contaminated blood, there were prison sentences.”
Servier deceived doctors and patients
The French trial in September 2019 was extraordinary, with about 100 witnesses, nearly 400 lawyers, and 5,000 victims.
On June 23, 2020, the prosecutor, Aude Le Guilcher, requested at the end of her indictment that the six companies of the Servier group be fined, notably for “deception, homicide, involuntary injuries, and fraud,” to the tune of 20.3 million euros (approximately $23.8 million).
Against the former No. 2 of Servier, Jean-Philippe Seta, Ms. Le Guilcher requested 5 years in prison, with 2 years suspended, and a 200,000 euro (approximately $235,000) fine.
The same sum was requested against ANSM for homicide and unintentional injuries.
In the end, Mr. Seta, the former right hand of Jacques Servier, who died in 2004, was sentenced to 4 years in prison, suspended. For their part, ANSM was fined 303,000 euros(approximately $350,000).
It is now clearly established that Servier Laboratories knowingly concealed the similarity of Mediator to the fenfluramine family of compounds, which was banned in 1990 because of adverse effects.
The group also deceived doctors who prescribed the drug and patients who took it by hiding its toxicity.
Mediator should never have been authorized for use
In terms of the fraud charges, the prosecutor estimated that the losses incurred by the primary health insurance industry were in the region of several hundred million euros.
She argued that Mediator should never have been reimbursed, as “it should never have benefited from market authorization, which it received solely due to the fraudulent actions of the company.”
But because of the statute of limitations, this argument was not heard, explained Dr. Frachon, “and the same is true of conflicts of interest, where limitations led to them being discharged.
“We understand the legal difficulties, but it’s a shame in terms of the signal sent.”
“I hope the medical world will learn the lesson and not continue with ‘business as usual’ with people who are delinquents. I think it will be essential to restore public confidence,” concluded Dr. Frachon.
No conflicts of interest or funding were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ob.Gyn. giant Dr. Charles Hammond dies
Ob.Gyn. News acknowledges the passing of Charles B. Hammond, MD, a longtime editorial board member, who died on Feb. 1, 2021.
Dr. Hammond served on the Ob.Gyn. News Advisory Board for 33 years. His service as a board member was one of many leadership roles to which he dedicated his time and expertise. Dr. Hammond served as president of the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) from 2002 to 2003, and received a Lifetime Achievement Award from ACOG in 2015. He also served as president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, president of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, and president of the North Carolina Obstetrical and Gynecological Society.
Dr. Hammond was honored by Duke University, Durham, N.C., as E.C. Hamblen Professor Emeritus in 2010, after more than 40 years in academia. He held the title of Edwin Crowell Hamblen Distinguished Professor of Reproductive Biology and Family Planning and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology from 1980 to 2002. During this time, he distinguished himself for his work in pioneering treatments for gestational trophoblastic disease. As an extension of this research, he was a founder of the Southeast Regional Trophoblastic Disease Center. In addition, Dr. Hammond was often consulted for his expertise on issues related to menopause and hormone replacement therapy.
Dr. Hammond began his medical career at Duke University after graduating from The Citadel with a bachelor of science degree in 1958. After earning his medical degree in 1961, he remained at Duke as a resident in obstetrics and gynecology, followed by completion of a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology in 1964. From 1964 to 1966, he served at the National Institutes of Health as a fellow in the National Cancer Institute and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A few years later, in 1969, Dr. Hammond launched his long and distinguished academic career with an assistant professor position in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Duke.
Dr. Hammond’s many honors include a National Association for Women’s Health Lifetime Achievement Award and membership in the Institute of Medicine, now the National Academy of Medicine. He also was named a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and an honorary member of the Canadian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Hammond will be remembered not only as a physician, researcher, educator, and mentor, but also an advocate for women’s health.
Ob.Gyn. News acknowledges the passing of Charles B. Hammond, MD, a longtime editorial board member, who died on Feb. 1, 2021.
Dr. Hammond served on the Ob.Gyn. News Advisory Board for 33 years. His service as a board member was one of many leadership roles to which he dedicated his time and expertise. Dr. Hammond served as president of the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) from 2002 to 2003, and received a Lifetime Achievement Award from ACOG in 2015. He also served as president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, president of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, and president of the North Carolina Obstetrical and Gynecological Society.
Dr. Hammond was honored by Duke University, Durham, N.C., as E.C. Hamblen Professor Emeritus in 2010, after more than 40 years in academia. He held the title of Edwin Crowell Hamblen Distinguished Professor of Reproductive Biology and Family Planning and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology from 1980 to 2002. During this time, he distinguished himself for his work in pioneering treatments for gestational trophoblastic disease. As an extension of this research, he was a founder of the Southeast Regional Trophoblastic Disease Center. In addition, Dr. Hammond was often consulted for his expertise on issues related to menopause and hormone replacement therapy.
Dr. Hammond began his medical career at Duke University after graduating from The Citadel with a bachelor of science degree in 1958. After earning his medical degree in 1961, he remained at Duke as a resident in obstetrics and gynecology, followed by completion of a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology in 1964. From 1964 to 1966, he served at the National Institutes of Health as a fellow in the National Cancer Institute and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A few years later, in 1969, Dr. Hammond launched his long and distinguished academic career with an assistant professor position in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Duke.
Dr. Hammond’s many honors include a National Association for Women’s Health Lifetime Achievement Award and membership in the Institute of Medicine, now the National Academy of Medicine. He also was named a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and an honorary member of the Canadian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Hammond will be remembered not only as a physician, researcher, educator, and mentor, but also an advocate for women’s health.
Ob.Gyn. News acknowledges the passing of Charles B. Hammond, MD, a longtime editorial board member, who died on Feb. 1, 2021.
Dr. Hammond served on the Ob.Gyn. News Advisory Board for 33 years. His service as a board member was one of many leadership roles to which he dedicated his time and expertise. Dr. Hammond served as president of the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ACOG) from 2002 to 2003, and received a Lifetime Achievement Award from ACOG in 2015. He also served as president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, president of the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, and president of the North Carolina Obstetrical and Gynecological Society.
Dr. Hammond was honored by Duke University, Durham, N.C., as E.C. Hamblen Professor Emeritus in 2010, after more than 40 years in academia. He held the title of Edwin Crowell Hamblen Distinguished Professor of Reproductive Biology and Family Planning and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology from 1980 to 2002. During this time, he distinguished himself for his work in pioneering treatments for gestational trophoblastic disease. As an extension of this research, he was a founder of the Southeast Regional Trophoblastic Disease Center. In addition, Dr. Hammond was often consulted for his expertise on issues related to menopause and hormone replacement therapy.
Dr. Hammond began his medical career at Duke University after graduating from The Citadel with a bachelor of science degree in 1958. After earning his medical degree in 1961, he remained at Duke as a resident in obstetrics and gynecology, followed by completion of a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology in 1964. From 1964 to 1966, he served at the National Institutes of Health as a fellow in the National Cancer Institute and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A few years later, in 1969, Dr. Hammond launched his long and distinguished academic career with an assistant professor position in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Duke.
Dr. Hammond’s many honors include a National Association for Women’s Health Lifetime Achievement Award and membership in the Institute of Medicine, now the National Academy of Medicine. He also was named a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and an honorary member of the Canadian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Dr. Hammond will be remembered not only as a physician, researcher, educator, and mentor, but also an advocate for women’s health.
Detroit cardiologists prevail in retaliation suit against Tenet
After losing at arbitration, as well as in federal court and partially on appeal, Tenet Healthcare is refusing to comment on whether it will continue to battle two Detroit-area cardiologists whom the hospital corporation fired from leadership positions in 2018.
The cardiologists were awarded $10.6 million from an arbitrator, who found that Detroit Medical Center (DMC) and its parent, Tenet, retaliated against Amir Kaki, MD, and Mahir Elder, MD, when the doctors repeatedly reported concerns about patient safety and potential fraud.
The award was made public when it was upheld in federal court in February 2021 and was partially upheld on appeal days later by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Tenet’s motion to bar Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder from returning to work with full privileges but said it would continue to consider the overall appeal. Tenet argued that it needed to keep the cardiologists out of DMC because of “behavioral issues.”
Those allegations are “complete nonsense,” said the cardiologists’ attorney, Deborah Gordon, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich. The alleged problems regarding Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were examined by an arbitrator, who “found that all of those complaints were unsubstantiated,” Ms. Gordon said in an interview.
In her final ruling, arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly wrote, “Both Kaki and Elder testified credibly regarding the humiliation, the emotional distress and the reputational damage they have suffered to their national reputations.”
A spokesperson for Tenet and DMC said the organizations had no further comment.
Ms. Gordon said she believes it’s unlikely Tenet will prevail in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that the court already had examined the merits of the case to determine whether Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder could go back to work. In the court’s opinion, shared in an interview, nothing substantive in Tenet’s appeal prevented the doctors from returning to the hospital, she said.
As of now, both cardiologists have 1 year of privileges at the DMC-affiliated hospitals. Only Dr. Kaki has returned to work, said Ms. Gordon. Neither is speaking to the media, she said.
From respected to reviled
Both Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were respected at DMC, according to court filings.
Dr. Kaki was recruited from Weill Cornell Medical College by a Detroit mayor because of his expertise in interventional cardiology. He had staff privileges at DMC beginning in 2012 and was a clinical associate professor and assistant program director of the interventional cardiology fellowship program at Wayne State University in Detroit. He became director of the cardiac catheterization services unit at the new DMC Heart Hospital at Harper-Hutzel Hospital in Detroit in 2014, and 4 years later was appointed director of the facility’s anticoagulation clinic. Dr. Kaki was nominated for and completed Tenet’s Leadership Academy.
Dr. Elder was a clinical professor and assistant fellowship director at Wayne State and was a clinical professor of medicine at Michigan State University. Beginning in 2008, he held directorships at DMC’s cardiac care unit, ambulatory services program, cardiac CT angiogram program, PERT program, and carotid stenting program. Dr. Elder was voted Teacher of the Year for 10 consecutive years by DMC cardiology fellows.
The two doctors aimed high when it came to quality of care and ethics, according to legal filings. Over the years, Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder repeatedly reported what they considered to be egregious violations of patient safety and of Medicare and Medicaid fraud laws. The clinicians complained about unsterile surgical instruments and the removal of a stat laboratory from the cardiac catheterization unit, noting that the removal would cause delays that would endanger lives.
At peer review meetings, as well as with administrators, they flagged colleagues who they said were performing unnecessary or dangerous procedures solely to generate revenue. At least one doctor falsified records of such a procedure after a patient died, alleged Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
Tenet hired outside attorneys in the fall of 2018, telling Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder that the legal team would investigate their complaints. However, the investigation was a sham: Filings allege that the investigation was used instead to build a case against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder and that Tenet leadership used the inquiry to pressure the cardiologists to resign.
They refused, and in October 2018, they were fired from their leadership positions. DMC and Tenet then held a press conference in which they said that Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder had been dismissed for “violations” of the “Tenet Standards of Conduct.”
Cardiologists push back
Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder, however, were not willing to just walk away. They sought reinstatement through an internal DMC appeals panel of their peers. The clinicians who participated on that panel ruled that neither firing was justified.
But DMC’s governing board voted in April 2020 to deny privileges to both cardiologists.
Tenet continued a campaign of retaliation, according to legal filings, by not paying the clinicians for being on call, by removing them from peer review committees, and by prohibiting them from teaching or giving lectures. DMC refused to give Dr. Kaki his personnel record, stating that he was never an employee when he was in the leadership position. Dr. Kaki sued, and a Wayne County Circuit Court judge granted his motion to get his file. DMC and Tenet appealed that ruling but lost.
Eventually, Ms. Gordon sued DMC and Tenet in federal court, alleging the hospital retaliated against the cardiologists, interfered with their ability to earn a living by disparaging them, refused to renew their privileges in 2019, and committed violations under multiple federal and state statutes, including the False Claims Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Tenet successfully argued that the case should go to arbitration.
Arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly, though, ruled in December 2020 that the vast majority of the complaints compiled against the two physicians in the external investigation were not verified or supported and that Tenet and DMC had retaliated against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
For that harm, Ms. Kelly awarded each clinician $1 million, according to the final ruling shared in an interview.
In addition, she awarded Dr. Kaki $2.3 million in back pay and 2 years of front pay (slightly more than $1 million). She awarded Dr. Elder $2.3 million in back pay and $2.1 million in front pay for 4 years, noting that “his strong association with DMC may make it more difficult for him to successfully transition into the situation he enjoyed prior to termination and nonrenewal.”
The clinicians also were awarded legal fees of $623,816 and court costs of $110,673.
“Wholesale retrial”
To secure the award, Ms. Gordon had to seek a ruling from the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan. Tenet asked that court to overturn the arbitrator’s award and to keep it sealed from public view.
In his February ruling, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow wrote that Tenet and DMC “not only attempt to relitigate the legal issues, but also endeavor to introduce a factual counternarrative unmoored from the findings of the Arbitrator and including evidence which the Arbitrator specifically found inadmissible.
“By seeking a wholesale retrial of their case after forcing plaintiffs to arbitrate in the first place,” Tenet and DMC basically ignored the goal of arbitration, which is to relieve judicial congestion and provide a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation, he wrote.
Judge Tarnow also warned Tenet and DMC against taking too long to reinstate privileges for Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder. If they “continue to delay the restoration of plaintiffs’ privileges in the hopes of a different result on appeal, they will be in violation of this Order,” said the judge.
Tenet, however, tried one more avenue to block the cardiologists from getting privileges, appealing to the Sixth Circuit, which again ordered the company to grant the 1-year privileges.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After losing at arbitration, as well as in federal court and partially on appeal, Tenet Healthcare is refusing to comment on whether it will continue to battle two Detroit-area cardiologists whom the hospital corporation fired from leadership positions in 2018.
The cardiologists were awarded $10.6 million from an arbitrator, who found that Detroit Medical Center (DMC) and its parent, Tenet, retaliated against Amir Kaki, MD, and Mahir Elder, MD, when the doctors repeatedly reported concerns about patient safety and potential fraud.
The award was made public when it was upheld in federal court in February 2021 and was partially upheld on appeal days later by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Tenet’s motion to bar Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder from returning to work with full privileges but said it would continue to consider the overall appeal. Tenet argued that it needed to keep the cardiologists out of DMC because of “behavioral issues.”
Those allegations are “complete nonsense,” said the cardiologists’ attorney, Deborah Gordon, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich. The alleged problems regarding Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were examined by an arbitrator, who “found that all of those complaints were unsubstantiated,” Ms. Gordon said in an interview.
In her final ruling, arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly wrote, “Both Kaki and Elder testified credibly regarding the humiliation, the emotional distress and the reputational damage they have suffered to their national reputations.”
A spokesperson for Tenet and DMC said the organizations had no further comment.
Ms. Gordon said she believes it’s unlikely Tenet will prevail in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that the court already had examined the merits of the case to determine whether Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder could go back to work. In the court’s opinion, shared in an interview, nothing substantive in Tenet’s appeal prevented the doctors from returning to the hospital, she said.
As of now, both cardiologists have 1 year of privileges at the DMC-affiliated hospitals. Only Dr. Kaki has returned to work, said Ms. Gordon. Neither is speaking to the media, she said.
From respected to reviled
Both Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were respected at DMC, according to court filings.
Dr. Kaki was recruited from Weill Cornell Medical College by a Detroit mayor because of his expertise in interventional cardiology. He had staff privileges at DMC beginning in 2012 and was a clinical associate professor and assistant program director of the interventional cardiology fellowship program at Wayne State University in Detroit. He became director of the cardiac catheterization services unit at the new DMC Heart Hospital at Harper-Hutzel Hospital in Detroit in 2014, and 4 years later was appointed director of the facility’s anticoagulation clinic. Dr. Kaki was nominated for and completed Tenet’s Leadership Academy.
Dr. Elder was a clinical professor and assistant fellowship director at Wayne State and was a clinical professor of medicine at Michigan State University. Beginning in 2008, he held directorships at DMC’s cardiac care unit, ambulatory services program, cardiac CT angiogram program, PERT program, and carotid stenting program. Dr. Elder was voted Teacher of the Year for 10 consecutive years by DMC cardiology fellows.
The two doctors aimed high when it came to quality of care and ethics, according to legal filings. Over the years, Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder repeatedly reported what they considered to be egregious violations of patient safety and of Medicare and Medicaid fraud laws. The clinicians complained about unsterile surgical instruments and the removal of a stat laboratory from the cardiac catheterization unit, noting that the removal would cause delays that would endanger lives.
At peer review meetings, as well as with administrators, they flagged colleagues who they said were performing unnecessary or dangerous procedures solely to generate revenue. At least one doctor falsified records of such a procedure after a patient died, alleged Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
Tenet hired outside attorneys in the fall of 2018, telling Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder that the legal team would investigate their complaints. However, the investigation was a sham: Filings allege that the investigation was used instead to build a case against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder and that Tenet leadership used the inquiry to pressure the cardiologists to resign.
They refused, and in October 2018, they were fired from their leadership positions. DMC and Tenet then held a press conference in which they said that Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder had been dismissed for “violations” of the “Tenet Standards of Conduct.”
Cardiologists push back
Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder, however, were not willing to just walk away. They sought reinstatement through an internal DMC appeals panel of their peers. The clinicians who participated on that panel ruled that neither firing was justified.
But DMC’s governing board voted in April 2020 to deny privileges to both cardiologists.
Tenet continued a campaign of retaliation, according to legal filings, by not paying the clinicians for being on call, by removing them from peer review committees, and by prohibiting them from teaching or giving lectures. DMC refused to give Dr. Kaki his personnel record, stating that he was never an employee when he was in the leadership position. Dr. Kaki sued, and a Wayne County Circuit Court judge granted his motion to get his file. DMC and Tenet appealed that ruling but lost.
Eventually, Ms. Gordon sued DMC and Tenet in federal court, alleging the hospital retaliated against the cardiologists, interfered with their ability to earn a living by disparaging them, refused to renew their privileges in 2019, and committed violations under multiple federal and state statutes, including the False Claims Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Tenet successfully argued that the case should go to arbitration.
Arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly, though, ruled in December 2020 that the vast majority of the complaints compiled against the two physicians in the external investigation were not verified or supported and that Tenet and DMC had retaliated against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
For that harm, Ms. Kelly awarded each clinician $1 million, according to the final ruling shared in an interview.
In addition, she awarded Dr. Kaki $2.3 million in back pay and 2 years of front pay (slightly more than $1 million). She awarded Dr. Elder $2.3 million in back pay and $2.1 million in front pay for 4 years, noting that “his strong association with DMC may make it more difficult for him to successfully transition into the situation he enjoyed prior to termination and nonrenewal.”
The clinicians also were awarded legal fees of $623,816 and court costs of $110,673.
“Wholesale retrial”
To secure the award, Ms. Gordon had to seek a ruling from the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan. Tenet asked that court to overturn the arbitrator’s award and to keep it sealed from public view.
In his February ruling, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow wrote that Tenet and DMC “not only attempt to relitigate the legal issues, but also endeavor to introduce a factual counternarrative unmoored from the findings of the Arbitrator and including evidence which the Arbitrator specifically found inadmissible.
“By seeking a wholesale retrial of their case after forcing plaintiffs to arbitrate in the first place,” Tenet and DMC basically ignored the goal of arbitration, which is to relieve judicial congestion and provide a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation, he wrote.
Judge Tarnow also warned Tenet and DMC against taking too long to reinstate privileges for Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder. If they “continue to delay the restoration of plaintiffs’ privileges in the hopes of a different result on appeal, they will be in violation of this Order,” said the judge.
Tenet, however, tried one more avenue to block the cardiologists from getting privileges, appealing to the Sixth Circuit, which again ordered the company to grant the 1-year privileges.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After losing at arbitration, as well as in federal court and partially on appeal, Tenet Healthcare is refusing to comment on whether it will continue to battle two Detroit-area cardiologists whom the hospital corporation fired from leadership positions in 2018.
The cardiologists were awarded $10.6 million from an arbitrator, who found that Detroit Medical Center (DMC) and its parent, Tenet, retaliated against Amir Kaki, MD, and Mahir Elder, MD, when the doctors repeatedly reported concerns about patient safety and potential fraud.
The award was made public when it was upheld in federal court in February 2021 and was partially upheld on appeal days later by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Tenet’s motion to bar Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder from returning to work with full privileges but said it would continue to consider the overall appeal. Tenet argued that it needed to keep the cardiologists out of DMC because of “behavioral issues.”
Those allegations are “complete nonsense,” said the cardiologists’ attorney, Deborah Gordon, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich. The alleged problems regarding Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were examined by an arbitrator, who “found that all of those complaints were unsubstantiated,” Ms. Gordon said in an interview.
In her final ruling, arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly wrote, “Both Kaki and Elder testified credibly regarding the humiliation, the emotional distress and the reputational damage they have suffered to their national reputations.”
A spokesperson for Tenet and DMC said the organizations had no further comment.
Ms. Gordon said she believes it’s unlikely Tenet will prevail in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that the court already had examined the merits of the case to determine whether Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder could go back to work. In the court’s opinion, shared in an interview, nothing substantive in Tenet’s appeal prevented the doctors from returning to the hospital, she said.
As of now, both cardiologists have 1 year of privileges at the DMC-affiliated hospitals. Only Dr. Kaki has returned to work, said Ms. Gordon. Neither is speaking to the media, she said.
From respected to reviled
Both Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder were respected at DMC, according to court filings.
Dr. Kaki was recruited from Weill Cornell Medical College by a Detroit mayor because of his expertise in interventional cardiology. He had staff privileges at DMC beginning in 2012 and was a clinical associate professor and assistant program director of the interventional cardiology fellowship program at Wayne State University in Detroit. He became director of the cardiac catheterization services unit at the new DMC Heart Hospital at Harper-Hutzel Hospital in Detroit in 2014, and 4 years later was appointed director of the facility’s anticoagulation clinic. Dr. Kaki was nominated for and completed Tenet’s Leadership Academy.
Dr. Elder was a clinical professor and assistant fellowship director at Wayne State and was a clinical professor of medicine at Michigan State University. Beginning in 2008, he held directorships at DMC’s cardiac care unit, ambulatory services program, cardiac CT angiogram program, PERT program, and carotid stenting program. Dr. Elder was voted Teacher of the Year for 10 consecutive years by DMC cardiology fellows.
The two doctors aimed high when it came to quality of care and ethics, according to legal filings. Over the years, Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder repeatedly reported what they considered to be egregious violations of patient safety and of Medicare and Medicaid fraud laws. The clinicians complained about unsterile surgical instruments and the removal of a stat laboratory from the cardiac catheterization unit, noting that the removal would cause delays that would endanger lives.
At peer review meetings, as well as with administrators, they flagged colleagues who they said were performing unnecessary or dangerous procedures solely to generate revenue. At least one doctor falsified records of such a procedure after a patient died, alleged Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
Tenet hired outside attorneys in the fall of 2018, telling Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder that the legal team would investigate their complaints. However, the investigation was a sham: Filings allege that the investigation was used instead to build a case against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder and that Tenet leadership used the inquiry to pressure the cardiologists to resign.
They refused, and in October 2018, they were fired from their leadership positions. DMC and Tenet then held a press conference in which they said that Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder had been dismissed for “violations” of the “Tenet Standards of Conduct.”
Cardiologists push back
Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder, however, were not willing to just walk away. They sought reinstatement through an internal DMC appeals panel of their peers. The clinicians who participated on that panel ruled that neither firing was justified.
But DMC’s governing board voted in April 2020 to deny privileges to both cardiologists.
Tenet continued a campaign of retaliation, according to legal filings, by not paying the clinicians for being on call, by removing them from peer review committees, and by prohibiting them from teaching or giving lectures. DMC refused to give Dr. Kaki his personnel record, stating that he was never an employee when he was in the leadership position. Dr. Kaki sued, and a Wayne County Circuit Court judge granted his motion to get his file. DMC and Tenet appealed that ruling but lost.
Eventually, Ms. Gordon sued DMC and Tenet in federal court, alleging the hospital retaliated against the cardiologists, interfered with their ability to earn a living by disparaging them, refused to renew their privileges in 2019, and committed violations under multiple federal and state statutes, including the False Claims Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Tenet successfully argued that the case should go to arbitration.
Arbitrator Mary Beth Kelly, though, ruled in December 2020 that the vast majority of the complaints compiled against the two physicians in the external investigation were not verified or supported and that Tenet and DMC had retaliated against Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder.
For that harm, Ms. Kelly awarded each clinician $1 million, according to the final ruling shared in an interview.
In addition, she awarded Dr. Kaki $2.3 million in back pay and 2 years of front pay (slightly more than $1 million). She awarded Dr. Elder $2.3 million in back pay and $2.1 million in front pay for 4 years, noting that “his strong association with DMC may make it more difficult for him to successfully transition into the situation he enjoyed prior to termination and nonrenewal.”
The clinicians also were awarded legal fees of $623,816 and court costs of $110,673.
“Wholesale retrial”
To secure the award, Ms. Gordon had to seek a ruling from the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan. Tenet asked that court to overturn the arbitrator’s award and to keep it sealed from public view.
In his February ruling, Judge Arthur J. Tarnow wrote that Tenet and DMC “not only attempt to relitigate the legal issues, but also endeavor to introduce a factual counternarrative unmoored from the findings of the Arbitrator and including evidence which the Arbitrator specifically found inadmissible.
“By seeking a wholesale retrial of their case after forcing plaintiffs to arbitrate in the first place,” Tenet and DMC basically ignored the goal of arbitration, which is to relieve judicial congestion and provide a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation, he wrote.
Judge Tarnow also warned Tenet and DMC against taking too long to reinstate privileges for Dr. Kaki and Dr. Elder. If they “continue to delay the restoration of plaintiffs’ privileges in the hopes of a different result on appeal, they will be in violation of this Order,” said the judge.
Tenet, however, tried one more avenue to block the cardiologists from getting privileges, appealing to the Sixth Circuit, which again ordered the company to grant the 1-year privileges.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s time to retire the president question
The president question – “Who’s the current president?” – has been a standard one of basic neurology assessments for years, probably since the answer was Ulysses S. Grant. It’s routinely asked by doctors, nurses, EEG techs, medical students, and pretty much anyone else trying to figure out someone’s mental status.
When I first began doing this, the answer was “George Bush” (at that time there’d only been one president by that name, so clarification wasn’t needed). Back then people answered the question (right or wrong) and we moved on. I don’t recall ever getting a dirty look, political lecture, or eye roll as a response.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple anymore. As people have become increasingly polarized, it’s become seemingly impossible to get a response without a statement of support or anger. At best I get a straight answer. At worst I get a lecture on the “perils of a non-White society” (that was last week). Then they want my opinion, and years of practice have taught me to never discuss politics with patients, regardless of which side they’re on.
I don’t recall this being a problem until the late ‘90s, when the answer was “Clinton.” Occasionally I’d get a sarcastic comment referring to the Lewinsky affair, but that was about it.
Since then it’s gradually escalated, to where the question has become worthless. I don’t have time to hear a political diatribe from either side. This is a doctor appointment, not a debate club. The insistence by some that Trump won leaves me guessing if the person is stubborn or serious, and either way it shouldn’t be my job to figure that out. I take your appointment seriously, so the least you can do is the same.
So I’ve ditched the question for good. The current date, the location of my office, and other less controversial things will have to do. I’m here to take care of you, not have you try to pick a fight or make a political statement.
You’d think such a simple, time-honored, assessment question wouldn’t become such a problem. But
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
The president question – “Who’s the current president?” – has been a standard one of basic neurology assessments for years, probably since the answer was Ulysses S. Grant. It’s routinely asked by doctors, nurses, EEG techs, medical students, and pretty much anyone else trying to figure out someone’s mental status.
When I first began doing this, the answer was “George Bush” (at that time there’d only been one president by that name, so clarification wasn’t needed). Back then people answered the question (right or wrong) and we moved on. I don’t recall ever getting a dirty look, political lecture, or eye roll as a response.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple anymore. As people have become increasingly polarized, it’s become seemingly impossible to get a response without a statement of support or anger. At best I get a straight answer. At worst I get a lecture on the “perils of a non-White society” (that was last week). Then they want my opinion, and years of practice have taught me to never discuss politics with patients, regardless of which side they’re on.
I don’t recall this being a problem until the late ‘90s, when the answer was “Clinton.” Occasionally I’d get a sarcastic comment referring to the Lewinsky affair, but that was about it.
Since then it’s gradually escalated, to where the question has become worthless. I don’t have time to hear a political diatribe from either side. This is a doctor appointment, not a debate club. The insistence by some that Trump won leaves me guessing if the person is stubborn or serious, and either way it shouldn’t be my job to figure that out. I take your appointment seriously, so the least you can do is the same.
So I’ve ditched the question for good. The current date, the location of my office, and other less controversial things will have to do. I’m here to take care of you, not have you try to pick a fight or make a political statement.
You’d think such a simple, time-honored, assessment question wouldn’t become such a problem. But
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
The president question – “Who’s the current president?” – has been a standard one of basic neurology assessments for years, probably since the answer was Ulysses S. Grant. It’s routinely asked by doctors, nurses, EEG techs, medical students, and pretty much anyone else trying to figure out someone’s mental status.
When I first began doing this, the answer was “George Bush” (at that time there’d only been one president by that name, so clarification wasn’t needed). Back then people answered the question (right or wrong) and we moved on. I don’t recall ever getting a dirty look, political lecture, or eye roll as a response.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple anymore. As people have become increasingly polarized, it’s become seemingly impossible to get a response without a statement of support or anger. At best I get a straight answer. At worst I get a lecture on the “perils of a non-White society” (that was last week). Then they want my opinion, and years of practice have taught me to never discuss politics with patients, regardless of which side they’re on.
I don’t recall this being a problem until the late ‘90s, when the answer was “Clinton.” Occasionally I’d get a sarcastic comment referring to the Lewinsky affair, but that was about it.
Since then it’s gradually escalated, to where the question has become worthless. I don’t have time to hear a political diatribe from either side. This is a doctor appointment, not a debate club. The insistence by some that Trump won leaves me guessing if the person is stubborn or serious, and either way it shouldn’t be my job to figure that out. I take your appointment seriously, so the least you can do is the same.
So I’ve ditched the question for good. The current date, the location of my office, and other less controversial things will have to do. I’m here to take care of you, not have you try to pick a fight or make a political statement.
You’d think such a simple, time-honored, assessment question wouldn’t become such a problem. But
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.