User login
Cancer research foundation awards ‘breakthrough scientists’
The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation has awarded $100,000 each to six “breakthrough scientists.”
The Damon Runyon–Dale F. Frey Award for Breakthrough Scientists provides additional funding to scientists completing a Damon Runyon Fellowship Award who “are most likely to make paradigm-shifting breakthroughs that transform the way we prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer,” according to the foundation announcement.
Lindsay B. Case, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, received the award for her research investigating the molecular interactions that contribute to integrin signaling and focal adhesion function. This work could reveal new strategies for disrupting integrin signaling in cancer.
Ivana Gasic, DrSc, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, was awarded for her research on tubulin autoregulation and the microtubule integrity response. Her research could provide insight into the workings of microtubule-targeting chemotherapeutic drugs and reveal new pathways to target cancer cells.
Natasha M. O’Brown, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, was awarded for her research using CRISPR technology and zebrafish to investigate the molecular mechanisms that regulate the blood-brain barrier. This work could reveal new approaches to drug delivery for patients with brain tumors.
Benjamin M. Stinson, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, was awarded for his work investigating the mechanisms of two main DNA double-strand break repair pathways. This research could shed light on the causes of cancers and have applications for cancer treatment.
Iva A. Tchasovnikarova, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was awarded for epigenetics research that may reveal targets for cancer therapy. She developed a method to identify cell-based reporters of any epigenetic process inside the nucleus and aims to use this method to better understand the biology underlying epigenetic mechanisms.
Yi Yin, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, was awarded for work that may help inform the treatment of many cancers. Dr. Yin developed single-cell assays that she will combine with statistical modeling to better understand homologous recombination.
The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation has awarded $100,000 each to six “breakthrough scientists.”
The Damon Runyon–Dale F. Frey Award for Breakthrough Scientists provides additional funding to scientists completing a Damon Runyon Fellowship Award who “are most likely to make paradigm-shifting breakthroughs that transform the way we prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer,” according to the foundation announcement.
Lindsay B. Case, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, received the award for her research investigating the molecular interactions that contribute to integrin signaling and focal adhesion function. This work could reveal new strategies for disrupting integrin signaling in cancer.
Ivana Gasic, DrSc, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, was awarded for her research on tubulin autoregulation and the microtubule integrity response. Her research could provide insight into the workings of microtubule-targeting chemotherapeutic drugs and reveal new pathways to target cancer cells.
Natasha M. O’Brown, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, was awarded for her research using CRISPR technology and zebrafish to investigate the molecular mechanisms that regulate the blood-brain barrier. This work could reveal new approaches to drug delivery for patients with brain tumors.
Benjamin M. Stinson, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, was awarded for his work investigating the mechanisms of two main DNA double-strand break repair pathways. This research could shed light on the causes of cancers and have applications for cancer treatment.
Iva A. Tchasovnikarova, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was awarded for epigenetics research that may reveal targets for cancer therapy. She developed a method to identify cell-based reporters of any epigenetic process inside the nucleus and aims to use this method to better understand the biology underlying epigenetic mechanisms.
Yi Yin, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, was awarded for work that may help inform the treatment of many cancers. Dr. Yin developed single-cell assays that she will combine with statistical modeling to better understand homologous recombination.
The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation has awarded $100,000 each to six “breakthrough scientists.”
The Damon Runyon–Dale F. Frey Award for Breakthrough Scientists provides additional funding to scientists completing a Damon Runyon Fellowship Award who “are most likely to make paradigm-shifting breakthroughs that transform the way we prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer,” according to the foundation announcement.
Lindsay B. Case, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, received the award for her research investigating the molecular interactions that contribute to integrin signaling and focal adhesion function. This work could reveal new strategies for disrupting integrin signaling in cancer.
Ivana Gasic, DrSc, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, was awarded for her research on tubulin autoregulation and the microtubule integrity response. Her research could provide insight into the workings of microtubule-targeting chemotherapeutic drugs and reveal new pathways to target cancer cells.
Natasha M. O’Brown, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, was awarded for her research using CRISPR technology and zebrafish to investigate the molecular mechanisms that regulate the blood-brain barrier. This work could reveal new approaches to drug delivery for patients with brain tumors.
Benjamin M. Stinson, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, was awarded for his work investigating the mechanisms of two main DNA double-strand break repair pathways. This research could shed light on the causes of cancers and have applications for cancer treatment.
Iva A. Tchasovnikarova, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was awarded for epigenetics research that may reveal targets for cancer therapy. She developed a method to identify cell-based reporters of any epigenetic process inside the nucleus and aims to use this method to better understand the biology underlying epigenetic mechanisms.
Yi Yin, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, was awarded for work that may help inform the treatment of many cancers. Dr. Yin developed single-cell assays that she will combine with statistical modeling to better understand homologous recombination.
CMS proposes second specialty tier for Medicare drugs
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.
The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.
In a fact sheet highlighting various elements of the overall proposal, CMS noted that Part D plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers have been requesting the option to add a second “preferred” specialty tier that would “encourage the use of more preferred, less expensive agents, reduce enrollee cost sharing, and reduce costs to CMS.”
Currently, all pharmaceuticals with a cost greater than $670 are placed in a single specialty tier.
During a Feb. 5 press briefing, CMS Administrator Seema Verma described this change as “giving plans more negotiating power so they can lower prices for beneficiaries even further.”
Ms. Verma used a hypothetical example of two rheumatoid arthritis drugs to illustrate how the change will work. Currently, if both are over the $670 threshold, they would both be on the specialty tier with the same cost sharing. “Creating a second preferred specialty tier would allow for a different copay and fosters a more competitive environment that places Part D plans in a better position to negotiate the price of similar drugs and pass those savings onto the patient through lower cost sharing,” she said.
CMS is proposing to allow plans to implement a preferred specialty tier for the 2021 plan year.
The agency is also seeking to drive more generic drug use as a means of lowering costs.
Ms. Verma noted that, typically, even after a generic drug is launched, health plan sponsors prefer to drive patients to the brand name product, if they can secure a greater rebate from the manufacturer.
In a separate Feb. 5 blog post, Ms. Verma noted that when a brand was included on a formulary, the generic was also on the formulary 91.8% of the time. For the times in which the generic was not, it was typically because the wholesale cost of the generic was only 5%-15% lower than the brand wholesale cost.
In an effort to encourage use of generics, CMS is seeking comment on the development of measures of generic and biosimilar use in Medicare Part D that could be incorporated in health plan star ratings.
Some of the measures proposed in the blog post include the generic substitution rate, the generic therapeutic alternative opportunity rate (which measures the number of brand fills divided by the sum of the brand and generic fills when both are available), and the biosimilar utilization rate.
[email protected]
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.
The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.
In a fact sheet highlighting various elements of the overall proposal, CMS noted that Part D plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers have been requesting the option to add a second “preferred” specialty tier that would “encourage the use of more preferred, less expensive agents, reduce enrollee cost sharing, and reduce costs to CMS.”
Currently, all pharmaceuticals with a cost greater than $670 are placed in a single specialty tier.
During a Feb. 5 press briefing, CMS Administrator Seema Verma described this change as “giving plans more negotiating power so they can lower prices for beneficiaries even further.”
Ms. Verma used a hypothetical example of two rheumatoid arthritis drugs to illustrate how the change will work. Currently, if both are over the $670 threshold, they would both be on the specialty tier with the same cost sharing. “Creating a second preferred specialty tier would allow for a different copay and fosters a more competitive environment that places Part D plans in a better position to negotiate the price of similar drugs and pass those savings onto the patient through lower cost sharing,” she said.
CMS is proposing to allow plans to implement a preferred specialty tier for the 2021 plan year.
The agency is also seeking to drive more generic drug use as a means of lowering costs.
Ms. Verma noted that, typically, even after a generic drug is launched, health plan sponsors prefer to drive patients to the brand name product, if they can secure a greater rebate from the manufacturer.
In a separate Feb. 5 blog post, Ms. Verma noted that when a brand was included on a formulary, the generic was also on the formulary 91.8% of the time. For the times in which the generic was not, it was typically because the wholesale cost of the generic was only 5%-15% lower than the brand wholesale cost.
In an effort to encourage use of generics, CMS is seeking comment on the development of measures of generic and biosimilar use in Medicare Part D that could be incorporated in health plan star ratings.
Some of the measures proposed in the blog post include the generic substitution rate, the generic therapeutic alternative opportunity rate (which measures the number of brand fills divided by the sum of the brand and generic fills when both are available), and the biosimilar utilization rate.
[email protected]
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.
The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.
In a fact sheet highlighting various elements of the overall proposal, CMS noted that Part D plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers have been requesting the option to add a second “preferred” specialty tier that would “encourage the use of more preferred, less expensive agents, reduce enrollee cost sharing, and reduce costs to CMS.”
Currently, all pharmaceuticals with a cost greater than $670 are placed in a single specialty tier.
During a Feb. 5 press briefing, CMS Administrator Seema Verma described this change as “giving plans more negotiating power so they can lower prices for beneficiaries even further.”
Ms. Verma used a hypothetical example of two rheumatoid arthritis drugs to illustrate how the change will work. Currently, if both are over the $670 threshold, they would both be on the specialty tier with the same cost sharing. “Creating a second preferred specialty tier would allow for a different copay and fosters a more competitive environment that places Part D plans in a better position to negotiate the price of similar drugs and pass those savings onto the patient through lower cost sharing,” she said.
CMS is proposing to allow plans to implement a preferred specialty tier for the 2021 plan year.
The agency is also seeking to drive more generic drug use as a means of lowering costs.
Ms. Verma noted that, typically, even after a generic drug is launched, health plan sponsors prefer to drive patients to the brand name product, if they can secure a greater rebate from the manufacturer.
In a separate Feb. 5 blog post, Ms. Verma noted that when a brand was included on a formulary, the generic was also on the formulary 91.8% of the time. For the times in which the generic was not, it was typically because the wholesale cost of the generic was only 5%-15% lower than the brand wholesale cost.
In an effort to encourage use of generics, CMS is seeking comment on the development of measures of generic and biosimilar use in Medicare Part D that could be incorporated in health plan star ratings.
Some of the measures proposed in the blog post include the generic substitution rate, the generic therapeutic alternative opportunity rate (which measures the number of brand fills divided by the sum of the brand and generic fills when both are available), and the biosimilar utilization rate.
[email protected]
Treating those who taught us
I was surprised when the name came up on my hospital census as a new consult.
Many years ago he’d been one of my attendings in residency. Someone I’d trained under. He’d been patient, almost grandfatherly, in the way he taught residents on his service. Never angry or impatient. I’d genuinely liked him as a person and respected him as a teacher.
And here he was now, a new consult on my daily hospital patient list.
A quick look at his chart brought the irony that I’m the same age now that he was when I worked under him. Time flies.
He didn’t remember me, nor did I expect him to. In my training from 1993 to 1997, I’d only dealt with him directly for a few months here and there. He’d seen a lot of residents come and go over his career.
He was, like me, older now. I wouldn’t have recognized him if I didn’t know the name in advance. He was frail now, seemingly smaller than I remembered, his mind and health damaged by his own neurologic issues.
Like all of us, I’ve taken care of other physicians, but this was the first time I’d encountered one of my former teachers in that role, and felt bad that he was in a situation I really couldn’t do much about.
I wrote some orders and moved on to the next consult, but haven’t stopped thinking about him.
Time comes for all of us sooner or later, though it’s never easy to reflect on. I’d certainly do what I could to help him, but was well aware (as I’m sure he was) that there was only so much I could.
When I came back the next day he’d left. At his own insistence, he wanted us to stop what we were doing and opted to be kept comfortable. It was certainly not an easy choice to make for any of us, but in character with the person and physician I still liked and respected.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I was surprised when the name came up on my hospital census as a new consult.
Many years ago he’d been one of my attendings in residency. Someone I’d trained under. He’d been patient, almost grandfatherly, in the way he taught residents on his service. Never angry or impatient. I’d genuinely liked him as a person and respected him as a teacher.
And here he was now, a new consult on my daily hospital patient list.
A quick look at his chart brought the irony that I’m the same age now that he was when I worked under him. Time flies.
He didn’t remember me, nor did I expect him to. In my training from 1993 to 1997, I’d only dealt with him directly for a few months here and there. He’d seen a lot of residents come and go over his career.
He was, like me, older now. I wouldn’t have recognized him if I didn’t know the name in advance. He was frail now, seemingly smaller than I remembered, his mind and health damaged by his own neurologic issues.
Like all of us, I’ve taken care of other physicians, but this was the first time I’d encountered one of my former teachers in that role, and felt bad that he was in a situation I really couldn’t do much about.
I wrote some orders and moved on to the next consult, but haven’t stopped thinking about him.
Time comes for all of us sooner or later, though it’s never easy to reflect on. I’d certainly do what I could to help him, but was well aware (as I’m sure he was) that there was only so much I could.
When I came back the next day he’d left. At his own insistence, he wanted us to stop what we were doing and opted to be kept comfortable. It was certainly not an easy choice to make for any of us, but in character with the person and physician I still liked and respected.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I was surprised when the name came up on my hospital census as a new consult.
Many years ago he’d been one of my attendings in residency. Someone I’d trained under. He’d been patient, almost grandfatherly, in the way he taught residents on his service. Never angry or impatient. I’d genuinely liked him as a person and respected him as a teacher.
And here he was now, a new consult on my daily hospital patient list.
A quick look at his chart brought the irony that I’m the same age now that he was when I worked under him. Time flies.
He didn’t remember me, nor did I expect him to. In my training from 1993 to 1997, I’d only dealt with him directly for a few months here and there. He’d seen a lot of residents come and go over his career.
He was, like me, older now. I wouldn’t have recognized him if I didn’t know the name in advance. He was frail now, seemingly smaller than I remembered, his mind and health damaged by his own neurologic issues.
Like all of us, I’ve taken care of other physicians, but this was the first time I’d encountered one of my former teachers in that role, and felt bad that he was in a situation I really couldn’t do much about.
I wrote some orders and moved on to the next consult, but haven’t stopped thinking about him.
Time comes for all of us sooner or later, though it’s never easy to reflect on. I’d certainly do what I could to help him, but was well aware (as I’m sure he was) that there was only so much I could.
When I came back the next day he’d left. At his own insistence, he wanted us to stop what we were doing and opted to be kept comfortable. It was certainly not an easy choice to make for any of us, but in character with the person and physician I still liked and respected.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Helping patients at the end of their lives
My wife thinks I am a little morbid, because I still read the local Sunday newspaper not to catch up on the news, and certainly not for the ads, but mostly to read the obituaries.
All of us have elderly patients, and I am growing old with many of my older patients. Now after treating many thousands of patients whom I have grown to know well, it is not unusual to see an obituary of someone my office staff and I know in the newspaper on a weekly basis.
We send sympathy cards, sometimes I write a personal note to the spouse or family, and several times a year, some of my staff and I will go to the funeral or memorial ceremony.
I usually ask if they died well, comfortably with family, or better yet, suddenly, dropping dead like a stone. This is the unspoken, though usually unrealized, goal of many of us from the world of medicine.
All physicians who have been surrounded by death, some horrible deaths, want to die well. I think it is difficult to do, although my mother came close.
One day when dropping off her best little friend (my 10-year-old daughter), she said “look here, I’ve got a knot in my belly button.” I felt the blood rushing to my head and before I could stop her, she showed me her Sister Mary Joseph nodule, a sign of metastatic internal malignancy. I sat stunned as she looked at me; her eyes showed she already knew my answer.
She lasted at home for 6 weeks, went into hospice, and died 36 hours later.
The last morning before she died, I took my daughter to see her before school. She woke up and called her “sugar” and had her climb into bed with her and snuggle. I got choked up and tearful and started telling her how much I loved her and how sorry I was and how much we would miss her. She looked over at me, and with anger in her voice, told me to be quiet, and explained that death comes to everyone eventually and just to get over it. In retrospect, I understand now that I was not helping her die well.
I am telling this story to bring up a point about professionalism. , this becomes important as the life cycle ends. Aged patients sometimes start blossoming with skin cancers. You must carefully gauge how much “treatment” a patient really needs.
You have a conflict. You get paid to diagnose and treat skin cancers. You must shift roles and become the patient’s protector, and treat the patient as if he or she was your parent. Less, sometimes much less, is often more. Perhaps you only biopsy and treat rapidly growing cancers that endanger crucial structures. You ignore the noninvasive tumors on the trunk and extremities. It is a fine and difficult line to walk.
Patients know they are dying, and at certain stages of grieving will want everything possible done, especially if it is visible. Skin wounds, even from curetting, salves, and cryotherapy, can be painful and sometimes disabling. You must resist unnecessary treatments, temporize if possible, discuss quality time with the patient and the family, and reach a consensus on how aggressive not to be. You must help them die well.
You are not only a healer, but as a master physician you – yes, even you the dermatologist – must also be a helpful guide at the end of life. I am sad to see patients, my old friends, in the newspaper, but feel secretly satisfied if I have spared them unnecessary suffering.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].
My wife thinks I am a little morbid, because I still read the local Sunday newspaper not to catch up on the news, and certainly not for the ads, but mostly to read the obituaries.
All of us have elderly patients, and I am growing old with many of my older patients. Now after treating many thousands of patients whom I have grown to know well, it is not unusual to see an obituary of someone my office staff and I know in the newspaper on a weekly basis.
We send sympathy cards, sometimes I write a personal note to the spouse or family, and several times a year, some of my staff and I will go to the funeral or memorial ceremony.
I usually ask if they died well, comfortably with family, or better yet, suddenly, dropping dead like a stone. This is the unspoken, though usually unrealized, goal of many of us from the world of medicine.
All physicians who have been surrounded by death, some horrible deaths, want to die well. I think it is difficult to do, although my mother came close.
One day when dropping off her best little friend (my 10-year-old daughter), she said “look here, I’ve got a knot in my belly button.” I felt the blood rushing to my head and before I could stop her, she showed me her Sister Mary Joseph nodule, a sign of metastatic internal malignancy. I sat stunned as she looked at me; her eyes showed she already knew my answer.
She lasted at home for 6 weeks, went into hospice, and died 36 hours later.
The last morning before she died, I took my daughter to see her before school. She woke up and called her “sugar” and had her climb into bed with her and snuggle. I got choked up and tearful and started telling her how much I loved her and how sorry I was and how much we would miss her. She looked over at me, and with anger in her voice, told me to be quiet, and explained that death comes to everyone eventually and just to get over it. In retrospect, I understand now that I was not helping her die well.
I am telling this story to bring up a point about professionalism. , this becomes important as the life cycle ends. Aged patients sometimes start blossoming with skin cancers. You must carefully gauge how much “treatment” a patient really needs.
You have a conflict. You get paid to diagnose and treat skin cancers. You must shift roles and become the patient’s protector, and treat the patient as if he or she was your parent. Less, sometimes much less, is often more. Perhaps you only biopsy and treat rapidly growing cancers that endanger crucial structures. You ignore the noninvasive tumors on the trunk and extremities. It is a fine and difficult line to walk.
Patients know they are dying, and at certain stages of grieving will want everything possible done, especially if it is visible. Skin wounds, even from curetting, salves, and cryotherapy, can be painful and sometimes disabling. You must resist unnecessary treatments, temporize if possible, discuss quality time with the patient and the family, and reach a consensus on how aggressive not to be. You must help them die well.
You are not only a healer, but as a master physician you – yes, even you the dermatologist – must also be a helpful guide at the end of life. I am sad to see patients, my old friends, in the newspaper, but feel secretly satisfied if I have spared them unnecessary suffering.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].
My wife thinks I am a little morbid, because I still read the local Sunday newspaper not to catch up on the news, and certainly not for the ads, but mostly to read the obituaries.
All of us have elderly patients, and I am growing old with many of my older patients. Now after treating many thousands of patients whom I have grown to know well, it is not unusual to see an obituary of someone my office staff and I know in the newspaper on a weekly basis.
We send sympathy cards, sometimes I write a personal note to the spouse or family, and several times a year, some of my staff and I will go to the funeral or memorial ceremony.
I usually ask if they died well, comfortably with family, or better yet, suddenly, dropping dead like a stone. This is the unspoken, though usually unrealized, goal of many of us from the world of medicine.
All physicians who have been surrounded by death, some horrible deaths, want to die well. I think it is difficult to do, although my mother came close.
One day when dropping off her best little friend (my 10-year-old daughter), she said “look here, I’ve got a knot in my belly button.” I felt the blood rushing to my head and before I could stop her, she showed me her Sister Mary Joseph nodule, a sign of metastatic internal malignancy. I sat stunned as she looked at me; her eyes showed she already knew my answer.
She lasted at home for 6 weeks, went into hospice, and died 36 hours later.
The last morning before she died, I took my daughter to see her before school. She woke up and called her “sugar” and had her climb into bed with her and snuggle. I got choked up and tearful and started telling her how much I loved her and how sorry I was and how much we would miss her. She looked over at me, and with anger in her voice, told me to be quiet, and explained that death comes to everyone eventually and just to get over it. In retrospect, I understand now that I was not helping her die well.
I am telling this story to bring up a point about professionalism. , this becomes important as the life cycle ends. Aged patients sometimes start blossoming with skin cancers. You must carefully gauge how much “treatment” a patient really needs.
You have a conflict. You get paid to diagnose and treat skin cancers. You must shift roles and become the patient’s protector, and treat the patient as if he or she was your parent. Less, sometimes much less, is often more. Perhaps you only biopsy and treat rapidly growing cancers that endanger crucial structures. You ignore the noninvasive tumors on the trunk and extremities. It is a fine and difficult line to walk.
Patients know they are dying, and at certain stages of grieving will want everything possible done, especially if it is visible. Skin wounds, even from curetting, salves, and cryotherapy, can be painful and sometimes disabling. You must resist unnecessary treatments, temporize if possible, discuss quality time with the patient and the family, and reach a consensus on how aggressive not to be. You must help them die well.
You are not only a healer, but as a master physician you – yes, even you the dermatologist – must also be a helpful guide at the end of life. I am sad to see patients, my old friends, in the newspaper, but feel secretly satisfied if I have spared them unnecessary suffering.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].
Funding failures: Tobacco prevention and cessation
When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.
Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.
The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.
States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.
Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.
The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”
When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.
Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.
The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.
States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.
Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.
The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”
When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.
Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.
The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.
States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.
Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.
The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”
Like a hot potato
Most of us did our postgraduate training in tertiary medical centers, ivory towers of medicine often attached to or closely affiliated with medical schools. These are the places where the buck stops. Occasionally, a very complex patient might be sent to another tertiary center that claims to have a supersubspecialist, a one-of-a-kind physician with nationally recognized expertise. But for most patients, the tertiary medical center is the end of the line, and his or her physicians must manage with the resources at hand. They may confer with one another but there is no place for them to pass the buck.
But most of us who chose primary care left the comforting cocoon of the teaching hospital complex when we finished our training. Those first few months and years in the hinterland can be angst producing. Until we have established our own personal networks of consultants and mentors, patients with more than run-of-the-mill complaints may prompt us to reach for the phone or fire off an email call for help to our recently departed mother ship.
It can take awhile to establish the self-confidence – or at least the appearance of self-confidence – that physicians are expected to exude. But even after years of experience, none of us wants to watch a patient die or suffer preventable complications under our care when we know there is another facility that can provide a higher lever of care just an ambulance ride or short helicopter trip away.
Our primary concern is of course assuring that our patient is receiving the best care. How quickly we reach for the phone to refer out the most fragile patients depends on several factors. Do we practice in a community that has a historic reputation of having a low threshold for malpractice suits? How well do we know the patient and her family? Have we had time to establish bidirectional trust?
Is the patient’s diagnosis one that we feel comfortable with or is the diagnosis one that we believe could quickly deteriorate without warning? For example, a recently published study revealed that 20% of pediatric trauma patients were overtriaged and that the mechanism of injury – firearms or motor vehicle accidents – appeared to have an outsized influence in the triage decision (Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2019 Dec 29. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2019-000300).
Because I have no experience with firearm injuries and minimal experience with motor vehicle injuries I can understand why the emergency medical technicians might be quick to ship these patients to the trauma center. However, I hope that, were I offered better training and more opportunities to gain experience with these types of injuries, I would have a lower overtriage percentage.
Which begs the question of what is an acceptable rate of overtriage or overreferral? It’s the same old question of how many normal appendixes should one remove to avoid a fatal outcome. Each of us arrives at a given clinical crossroads with our own level of experience and comfort level.
But in the final analysis it boils down to a personal decision and our own basic level of anxiety. Let’s face it, some of us worry more than others. Physicians come in all shades of anxiety. A hot potato in your hands may feel only room temperature to me.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Most of us did our postgraduate training in tertiary medical centers, ivory towers of medicine often attached to or closely affiliated with medical schools. These are the places where the buck stops. Occasionally, a very complex patient might be sent to another tertiary center that claims to have a supersubspecialist, a one-of-a-kind physician with nationally recognized expertise. But for most patients, the tertiary medical center is the end of the line, and his or her physicians must manage with the resources at hand. They may confer with one another but there is no place for them to pass the buck.
But most of us who chose primary care left the comforting cocoon of the teaching hospital complex when we finished our training. Those first few months and years in the hinterland can be angst producing. Until we have established our own personal networks of consultants and mentors, patients with more than run-of-the-mill complaints may prompt us to reach for the phone or fire off an email call for help to our recently departed mother ship.
It can take awhile to establish the self-confidence – or at least the appearance of self-confidence – that physicians are expected to exude. But even after years of experience, none of us wants to watch a patient die or suffer preventable complications under our care when we know there is another facility that can provide a higher lever of care just an ambulance ride or short helicopter trip away.
Our primary concern is of course assuring that our patient is receiving the best care. How quickly we reach for the phone to refer out the most fragile patients depends on several factors. Do we practice in a community that has a historic reputation of having a low threshold for malpractice suits? How well do we know the patient and her family? Have we had time to establish bidirectional trust?
Is the patient’s diagnosis one that we feel comfortable with or is the diagnosis one that we believe could quickly deteriorate without warning? For example, a recently published study revealed that 20% of pediatric trauma patients were overtriaged and that the mechanism of injury – firearms or motor vehicle accidents – appeared to have an outsized influence in the triage decision (Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2019 Dec 29. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2019-000300).
Because I have no experience with firearm injuries and minimal experience with motor vehicle injuries I can understand why the emergency medical technicians might be quick to ship these patients to the trauma center. However, I hope that, were I offered better training and more opportunities to gain experience with these types of injuries, I would have a lower overtriage percentage.
Which begs the question of what is an acceptable rate of overtriage or overreferral? It’s the same old question of how many normal appendixes should one remove to avoid a fatal outcome. Each of us arrives at a given clinical crossroads with our own level of experience and comfort level.
But in the final analysis it boils down to a personal decision and our own basic level of anxiety. Let’s face it, some of us worry more than others. Physicians come in all shades of anxiety. A hot potato in your hands may feel only room temperature to me.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Most of us did our postgraduate training in tertiary medical centers, ivory towers of medicine often attached to or closely affiliated with medical schools. These are the places where the buck stops. Occasionally, a very complex patient might be sent to another tertiary center that claims to have a supersubspecialist, a one-of-a-kind physician with nationally recognized expertise. But for most patients, the tertiary medical center is the end of the line, and his or her physicians must manage with the resources at hand. They may confer with one another but there is no place for them to pass the buck.
But most of us who chose primary care left the comforting cocoon of the teaching hospital complex when we finished our training. Those first few months and years in the hinterland can be angst producing. Until we have established our own personal networks of consultants and mentors, patients with more than run-of-the-mill complaints may prompt us to reach for the phone or fire off an email call for help to our recently departed mother ship.
It can take awhile to establish the self-confidence – or at least the appearance of self-confidence – that physicians are expected to exude. But even after years of experience, none of us wants to watch a patient die or suffer preventable complications under our care when we know there is another facility that can provide a higher lever of care just an ambulance ride or short helicopter trip away.
Our primary concern is of course assuring that our patient is receiving the best care. How quickly we reach for the phone to refer out the most fragile patients depends on several factors. Do we practice in a community that has a historic reputation of having a low threshold for malpractice suits? How well do we know the patient and her family? Have we had time to establish bidirectional trust?
Is the patient’s diagnosis one that we feel comfortable with or is the diagnosis one that we believe could quickly deteriorate without warning? For example, a recently published study revealed that 20% of pediatric trauma patients were overtriaged and that the mechanism of injury – firearms or motor vehicle accidents – appeared to have an outsized influence in the triage decision (Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2019 Dec 29. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2019-000300).
Because I have no experience with firearm injuries and minimal experience with motor vehicle injuries I can understand why the emergency medical technicians might be quick to ship these patients to the trauma center. However, I hope that, were I offered better training and more opportunities to gain experience with these types of injuries, I would have a lower overtriage percentage.
Which begs the question of what is an acceptable rate of overtriage or overreferral? It’s the same old question of how many normal appendixes should one remove to avoid a fatal outcome. Each of us arrives at a given clinical crossroads with our own level of experience and comfort level.
But in the final analysis it boils down to a personal decision and our own basic level of anxiety. Let’s face it, some of us worry more than others. Physicians come in all shades of anxiety. A hot potato in your hands may feel only room temperature to me.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
The Mississippi solution
I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. William G. Wilkoff’s doubts that an increase in medical schools/students and/or foreign medical graduates is the answer to the physician shortage felt by many areas of the country (Letters From Maine, “Help Wanted,” Nov. 2019, page 19). All you have to do is look at the glut of physicians – and just about any other profession – in metropolitan areas versus rural America, and ask basic questions regarding why those doctors practice where they do. You will quickly discover that most are willing to trade the possibility of a higher salary in areas where their presence is more needed to achieve more school choices, jobs for a spouse, and likely a more favorable call schedule. Something more attractive than salary or the prospect of more “elbow room” is desired.
Here in Mississippi we may have found an answer to the problem. A few years ago our state legislature started the Mississippi Rural Health Scholarship Program that pays for recipients to attend a state-run medical school on scholarship in exchange for agreeing to practice at least 4 years in a rural area of the state (less than 20k population) following their primary care residency (family medicine, pediatrics, ob.gyn., med-peds, internal medicine, and, recently added, psychiatry). Although a recent increase in the number of pediatric residency slots at our state’s sole program will no doubt also have a positive effect to this end, such a scholarship program as the one implemented by Mississippi is the best way to compete with the various intangibles that lead people to choose bigger cities over rural areas of the state to practice their trade. Once there, many – like myself – will find that such a practice is not only a good business decision but often is a wonderful place to raise a family. Meanwhile, our own practice just added a fourth physician as a result of said Rural Health Scholarship Program, and we could not be more satisfied with the result.
I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. William G. Wilkoff’s doubts that an increase in medical schools/students and/or foreign medical graduates is the answer to the physician shortage felt by many areas of the country (Letters From Maine, “Help Wanted,” Nov. 2019, page 19). All you have to do is look at the glut of physicians – and just about any other profession – in metropolitan areas versus rural America, and ask basic questions regarding why those doctors practice where they do. You will quickly discover that most are willing to trade the possibility of a higher salary in areas where their presence is more needed to achieve more school choices, jobs for a spouse, and likely a more favorable call schedule. Something more attractive than salary or the prospect of more “elbow room” is desired.
Here in Mississippi we may have found an answer to the problem. A few years ago our state legislature started the Mississippi Rural Health Scholarship Program that pays for recipients to attend a state-run medical school on scholarship in exchange for agreeing to practice at least 4 years in a rural area of the state (less than 20k population) following their primary care residency (family medicine, pediatrics, ob.gyn., med-peds, internal medicine, and, recently added, psychiatry). Although a recent increase in the number of pediatric residency slots at our state’s sole program will no doubt also have a positive effect to this end, such a scholarship program as the one implemented by Mississippi is the best way to compete with the various intangibles that lead people to choose bigger cities over rural areas of the state to practice their trade. Once there, many – like myself – will find that such a practice is not only a good business decision but often is a wonderful place to raise a family. Meanwhile, our own practice just added a fourth physician as a result of said Rural Health Scholarship Program, and we could not be more satisfied with the result.
I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. William G. Wilkoff’s doubts that an increase in medical schools/students and/or foreign medical graduates is the answer to the physician shortage felt by many areas of the country (Letters From Maine, “Help Wanted,” Nov. 2019, page 19). All you have to do is look at the glut of physicians – and just about any other profession – in metropolitan areas versus rural America, and ask basic questions regarding why those doctors practice where they do. You will quickly discover that most are willing to trade the possibility of a higher salary in areas where their presence is more needed to achieve more school choices, jobs for a spouse, and likely a more favorable call schedule. Something more attractive than salary or the prospect of more “elbow room” is desired.
Here in Mississippi we may have found an answer to the problem. A few years ago our state legislature started the Mississippi Rural Health Scholarship Program that pays for recipients to attend a state-run medical school on scholarship in exchange for agreeing to practice at least 4 years in a rural area of the state (less than 20k population) following their primary care residency (family medicine, pediatrics, ob.gyn., med-peds, internal medicine, and, recently added, psychiatry). Although a recent increase in the number of pediatric residency slots at our state’s sole program will no doubt also have a positive effect to this end, such a scholarship program as the one implemented by Mississippi is the best way to compete with the various intangibles that lead people to choose bigger cities over rural areas of the state to practice their trade. Once there, many – like myself – will find that such a practice is not only a good business decision but often is a wonderful place to raise a family. Meanwhile, our own practice just added a fourth physician as a result of said Rural Health Scholarship Program, and we could not be more satisfied with the result.
The power of an odd couple
The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.
Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.
You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.
But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.
Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.
The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.
Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.
You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.
But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.
Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.
The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.
Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.
You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.
But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.
Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.
The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Is primary care relevant?
You probably still remember your pediatrician. Your relationship with her may have influenced your decision to become a physician. She was your parents’ go-to source for pretty much anything to do with your health. You had a primary care physician in large part because your parents felt that children were particularly vulnerable to disease and wanted to avoid any missteps on your road to maturity. On the other hand, while you were growing up your parents probably were much less concerned about their own health. Their peers and friends seemed healthy enough; why would they need annual checkups? Your folks made sure they had life insurance because accidental death and injury felt like more pressing concerns. If they had a primary physician, they may have visited him infrequently. They may have been more likely to visit their dentist, in part because the office put a strong emphasis on the value of preventive care.
A recent survey from Harvard Medical School, Boston, determined that, in 2015, 75% of adult Americans had an established source of primary care. (“Fewer Americans are getting primary care,” Jake Miller, the Harvard Gazette, Dec. 16, 2019). This number sounds pretty good and not unexpected until you learn that in 2002 that number was 77%. While 2% seems like a drop in the bucket, remember we live in a very populous bucket, and that 2% translates to millions fewer Americans who are not receiving primary care than did more than a decade ago.
While the researchers don’t have data to explain the decline in primary care, they suggest raising the pay of primary care physicians, incentivizing rural practice, and making health insurance more available and affordable as solutions. Of course these recommendations are not surprising. We’ve heard them before. More supply might translate into more usage. But could some of the decline in primary care be because it no longer feels relevant to a population that has become accustomed to instant gratification? One click and the thing you didn’t feel like waiting for in line today is on your doorstep tomorrow, or even sooner.
If we want to create meaningful change, we need to learn a thing or two about marketing from the competition and from the successful businesses who are shaping consumer behavior. It’s not surprising that, when people feel healthy (whether they are or not), they will devalue primary care. But if they sprain an ankle or have a cough that is keeping them up at night, they would like some medical attention ... now. And that will drive them away from primary care toward sources of fragmented care – the doc-in-the-box, the walk-in clinic, or even more unfortunately to the local emergency department.
If we want more people to establish relationships with primary care providers, we need to welcome them in the door ... when they feel a need. Once in the door we can establish rapport and show them there is a value to primary care while they are feeling grateful for the prompt attention we gave them. But too many primary care practices are shunting potential patients into fragmented care by appearing unwelcome to minor emergencies and by creating customer-unfriendly communication networks. Most people I know would be happy to go back to the old days of “take two aspirin and call me in the morning” primary care. At least you had talked to a doctor in real time, and you knew that he or she would see you the next day if you still had a problem.
You may think I’ve suddenly gone utopian. But there are ways to run a practice that welcomes patients with minor complaints on short notice. It requires some flexibility, some willingness to work longer on some days, and being more efficient.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
You probably still remember your pediatrician. Your relationship with her may have influenced your decision to become a physician. She was your parents’ go-to source for pretty much anything to do with your health. You had a primary care physician in large part because your parents felt that children were particularly vulnerable to disease and wanted to avoid any missteps on your road to maturity. On the other hand, while you were growing up your parents probably were much less concerned about their own health. Their peers and friends seemed healthy enough; why would they need annual checkups? Your folks made sure they had life insurance because accidental death and injury felt like more pressing concerns. If they had a primary physician, they may have visited him infrequently. They may have been more likely to visit their dentist, in part because the office put a strong emphasis on the value of preventive care.
A recent survey from Harvard Medical School, Boston, determined that, in 2015, 75% of adult Americans had an established source of primary care. (“Fewer Americans are getting primary care,” Jake Miller, the Harvard Gazette, Dec. 16, 2019). This number sounds pretty good and not unexpected until you learn that in 2002 that number was 77%. While 2% seems like a drop in the bucket, remember we live in a very populous bucket, and that 2% translates to millions fewer Americans who are not receiving primary care than did more than a decade ago.
While the researchers don’t have data to explain the decline in primary care, they suggest raising the pay of primary care physicians, incentivizing rural practice, and making health insurance more available and affordable as solutions. Of course these recommendations are not surprising. We’ve heard them before. More supply might translate into more usage. But could some of the decline in primary care be because it no longer feels relevant to a population that has become accustomed to instant gratification? One click and the thing you didn’t feel like waiting for in line today is on your doorstep tomorrow, or even sooner.
If we want to create meaningful change, we need to learn a thing or two about marketing from the competition and from the successful businesses who are shaping consumer behavior. It’s not surprising that, when people feel healthy (whether they are or not), they will devalue primary care. But if they sprain an ankle or have a cough that is keeping them up at night, they would like some medical attention ... now. And that will drive them away from primary care toward sources of fragmented care – the doc-in-the-box, the walk-in clinic, or even more unfortunately to the local emergency department.
If we want more people to establish relationships with primary care providers, we need to welcome them in the door ... when they feel a need. Once in the door we can establish rapport and show them there is a value to primary care while they are feeling grateful for the prompt attention we gave them. But too many primary care practices are shunting potential patients into fragmented care by appearing unwelcome to minor emergencies and by creating customer-unfriendly communication networks. Most people I know would be happy to go back to the old days of “take two aspirin and call me in the morning” primary care. At least you had talked to a doctor in real time, and you knew that he or she would see you the next day if you still had a problem.
You may think I’ve suddenly gone utopian. But there are ways to run a practice that welcomes patients with minor complaints on short notice. It requires some flexibility, some willingness to work longer on some days, and being more efficient.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
You probably still remember your pediatrician. Your relationship with her may have influenced your decision to become a physician. She was your parents’ go-to source for pretty much anything to do with your health. You had a primary care physician in large part because your parents felt that children were particularly vulnerable to disease and wanted to avoid any missteps on your road to maturity. On the other hand, while you were growing up your parents probably were much less concerned about their own health. Their peers and friends seemed healthy enough; why would they need annual checkups? Your folks made sure they had life insurance because accidental death and injury felt like more pressing concerns. If they had a primary physician, they may have visited him infrequently. They may have been more likely to visit their dentist, in part because the office put a strong emphasis on the value of preventive care.
A recent survey from Harvard Medical School, Boston, determined that, in 2015, 75% of adult Americans had an established source of primary care. (“Fewer Americans are getting primary care,” Jake Miller, the Harvard Gazette, Dec. 16, 2019). This number sounds pretty good and not unexpected until you learn that in 2002 that number was 77%. While 2% seems like a drop in the bucket, remember we live in a very populous bucket, and that 2% translates to millions fewer Americans who are not receiving primary care than did more than a decade ago.
While the researchers don’t have data to explain the decline in primary care, they suggest raising the pay of primary care physicians, incentivizing rural practice, and making health insurance more available and affordable as solutions. Of course these recommendations are not surprising. We’ve heard them before. More supply might translate into more usage. But could some of the decline in primary care be because it no longer feels relevant to a population that has become accustomed to instant gratification? One click and the thing you didn’t feel like waiting for in line today is on your doorstep tomorrow, or even sooner.
If we want to create meaningful change, we need to learn a thing or two about marketing from the competition and from the successful businesses who are shaping consumer behavior. It’s not surprising that, when people feel healthy (whether they are or not), they will devalue primary care. But if they sprain an ankle or have a cough that is keeping them up at night, they would like some medical attention ... now. And that will drive them away from primary care toward sources of fragmented care – the doc-in-the-box, the walk-in clinic, or even more unfortunately to the local emergency department.
If we want more people to establish relationships with primary care providers, we need to welcome them in the door ... when they feel a need. Once in the door we can establish rapport and show them there is a value to primary care while they are feeling grateful for the prompt attention we gave them. But too many primary care practices are shunting potential patients into fragmented care by appearing unwelcome to minor emergencies and by creating customer-unfriendly communication networks. Most people I know would be happy to go back to the old days of “take two aspirin and call me in the morning” primary care. At least you had talked to a doctor in real time, and you knew that he or she would see you the next day if you still had a problem.
You may think I’ve suddenly gone utopian. But there are ways to run a practice that welcomes patients with minor complaints on short notice. It requires some flexibility, some willingness to work longer on some days, and being more efficient.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Trump takes on multiple health topics in State of the Union
President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.
Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”
That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.
A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.
“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.
A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.
The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.
The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.
“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.
Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.
Preexisting conditions
The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.
“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.
In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.
During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.
“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.
Socialist takeover
Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.
“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.
He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”
Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”
Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.
Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion
In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.
He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.
Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.
The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.
“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.
Insulin costs?
In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.
At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.
But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.
Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”
That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.
A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.
“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.
A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.
The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.
The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.
“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.
Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.
Preexisting conditions
The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.
“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.
In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.
During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.
“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.
Socialist takeover
Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.
“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.
He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”
Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”
Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.
Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion
In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.
He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.
Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.
The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.
“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.
Insulin costs?
In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.
At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.
But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.
Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”
That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.
A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.
“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.
A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.
The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.
The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.
“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.
Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.
Preexisting conditions
The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.
“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.
In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.
During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.
“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.
Socialist takeover
Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.
“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.
He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”
Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”
Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.
Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion
In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.
He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.
Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.
The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.
“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.
Insulin costs?
In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.
At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.
But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.