Business of Medicine

Even in large urban areas there aren’t enough rheumatologists to go around, and as a 2015 American College of Rheumatology workforce study projected, the number of rheumatology providers is expected to drop by 25% by the year 2030, while the demand for patient care in rheumatology is expected to increase by more than 100%.

The shortage of rheumatology care is even more acute in rural areas, but as a pilot project supported by the Arthritis Foundation shows, linking rheumatologists to health centers in remote and underserved locations via telehealth can help community providers improve care for patients with rheumatic diseases.

The novel collaborative model was described by Alfredo Rivadeneira, MD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

UNC School of Medicine

“We found that this pilot, a unique partnership in North Carolina, improves access to rheumatology care to a rural population with high satisfaction scores. It underlines the importance of seeking collaboration with community providers when implementing these programs. It also allows timely specialty care and alleviates the barriers relating to transportation, insurance coverage, and telecommunication challenges,” he said at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. 
 

Too Many Patients, Too Few Rheumatologists

Access to health is challenging for people from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially in states such as North Carolina, where 40% of the population lives in rural counties, which have higher age-adjusted mortality than more densely populated areas of the state, Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

In addition, 42% of the North Carolina residents seen at the state’s 42 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) don’t have health insurance, which is higher than the average of 23% uninsured seen at FQHCs in other states.

There are currently approximately 250 rheumatology providers in North Carolina, the majority of whom work in the states’ three academic medical centers. Currently, North Carolina has an estimated population of 10 million people, which is projected to increase to 11.7 million by 2030. And by 2030, 20% of North Carolinians will be aged ≥ 65 years, Dr. Rivadeneira said, highlighting the need for expanded rheumatology care. 

Although telehealth services could be an option for expanding services to underserved communities, only 14 of the 42 FQHCs in the state use telehealth and only on a limited basis because it is not sufficiently reimbursed. 

Rivadeneira pointed to a 2022 study that showed how patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients in North Carolina were less likely to use online patient portals if they lived in rural areas; came from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds; were older, men, had lower economic status (Medicaid enrollment or uninsured); or spoke a language other than English as their primary tongue. 
 

Pilot Project

To help smooth out some of the above-mentioned disparities, Dr. Rivadeneira and colleagues, in collaboration with the Arthritis Foundation, started a pilot project in 2022 designed to enhance access to rheumatology specialty care for rural residents through a shared telehealth model between the UNC rheumatology clinic and two separate Piedmont Health Services clinics in rural areas.

The project includes tailored educational sessions designed to empower Piedmont Health Services providers for evaluating and managing patients with rheumatic diseases.

Patients with prior diagnoses of rheumatologic diseases who were lost to rheumatology specialty care follow-up and those with new rheumatic symptoms who had transportation and/or financial barriers to receiving specialty care are triaged to the shared telemedicine visits.

Providers conduct monthly clinic sessions via shared visits between the on-site Piedmont Health Services provider and patients, with off-site UNC rheumatology fellows and attending physicians connected virtually. 

The educational component of the project includes monthly didactic sessions offered to all Piedmont Health Services providers across 12 locations. 

The topics that were chosen cover the most common rheumatologic conditions seen by community providers, including evaluating pain from a rheumatology perspective; using antinuclear antibodies and other serologies; evaluating and managing rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, gout, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and osteoarthritis; and methotrexate management and complications. 

“One of the aspects of this pilot that I want to emphasize is the importance of having the generalists with the patient, relaying the objective data, especially the physical exam, and that’s one of the great features of this model. It also provides a stable platform for telehealth to the individual patients, as many of these patients don’t have access to health technology,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 
 

Thumbs Up

Both patients and general practitioners in the Piedmont Health system expressed high degrees of satisfaction with the shared telehealth program. Patients especially liked the time they saved not having to travel to see a specialist, and a large majority agreed that the visits were “as good as” in-person visits, felt that their concerns were addressed appropriately during the virtual visit, expressed overall satisfaction, and said they would like to continue virtual visits.

Physicians expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the rheumatology didactic sessions and said that the sessions enhanced their knowledge of evaluating and managing or co-managing rheumatologic diseases, as well as helping them to feel comfortable about applying this knowledge to patient care.

Dr. Rivadeneira noted that the pilot study was limited by low levels of Piedmont Health Services physician participation (two out of 45 total participated in shared visits), and only three or four providers typically took part in each didactic session. 
 

How to Improve?

In a follow-up study, the investigators asked Piedmont Health Services providers about barriers to rheumatology care, the most common and challenging diseases they encountered, how to improve the didactic components, and their perspectives on the pilot and how it may have affected referral patterns to rheumatology care.

The providers identified the cost of diagnostic evaluations and medications, transportation, long wait times, and language as the main barriers to patient access of rheumatology care.

“Additionally, over a third of them encountered patients on a weekly basis that were overdue for a visit with a rheumatologist,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

“Direct participation in the physical exam by the primary care provider enhances greatly, in my opinion, these telehealth visits. Focused didactic sessions, electronic handouts and/or quick access guides could empower more rural community providers to manage rheumatic diseases,” he concluded.

In the Q&A following the presentation, Laura Cappelli, MD, MHS, MS, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, asked Dr. Rivadeneira how rheumatologists involved felt about the program and whether his team did any surveying or qualitative work with them.

“Just so you know, the rheumatologist was me,” he replied.

“I’m very picky about telemedicine,” he continued. “I don’t like it, I prefer, as most of us do, to have the patient there. But having the provider there, doing the exam, and you guiding them — I can ask, ‘Did you check their joints? Did you check their strength?’ — makes a huge difference and makes me feel comfortable with the sessions.”

Dr. Rivadeneira added that if a particular case was too complex or too vague to adequately assess via telehealth, he would arrange to see the patient in person.

The project was supported by the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Rivadeneira and Dr. Cappelli reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even in large urban areas there aren’t enough rheumatologists to go around, and as a 2015 American College of Rheumatology workforce study projected, the number of rheumatology providers is expected to drop by 25% by the year 2030, while the demand for patient care in rheumatology is expected to increase by more than 100%.

The shortage of rheumatology care is even more acute in rural areas, but as a pilot project supported by the Arthritis Foundation shows, linking rheumatologists to health centers in remote and underserved locations via telehealth can help community providers improve care for patients with rheumatic diseases.

The novel collaborative model was described by Alfredo Rivadeneira, MD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

UNC School of Medicine

“We found that this pilot, a unique partnership in North Carolina, improves access to rheumatology care to a rural population with high satisfaction scores. It underlines the importance of seeking collaboration with community providers when implementing these programs. It also allows timely specialty care and alleviates the barriers relating to transportation, insurance coverage, and telecommunication challenges,” he said at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. 
 

Too Many Patients, Too Few Rheumatologists

Access to health is challenging for people from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially in states such as North Carolina, where 40% of the population lives in rural counties, which have higher age-adjusted mortality than more densely populated areas of the state, Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

In addition, 42% of the North Carolina residents seen at the state’s 42 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) don’t have health insurance, which is higher than the average of 23% uninsured seen at FQHCs in other states.

There are currently approximately 250 rheumatology providers in North Carolina, the majority of whom work in the states’ three academic medical centers. Currently, North Carolina has an estimated population of 10 million people, which is projected to increase to 11.7 million by 2030. And by 2030, 20% of North Carolinians will be aged ≥ 65 years, Dr. Rivadeneira said, highlighting the need for expanded rheumatology care. 

Although telehealth services could be an option for expanding services to underserved communities, only 14 of the 42 FQHCs in the state use telehealth and only on a limited basis because it is not sufficiently reimbursed. 

Rivadeneira pointed to a 2022 study that showed how patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients in North Carolina were less likely to use online patient portals if they lived in rural areas; came from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds; were older, men, had lower economic status (Medicaid enrollment or uninsured); or spoke a language other than English as their primary tongue. 
 

Pilot Project

To help smooth out some of the above-mentioned disparities, Dr. Rivadeneira and colleagues, in collaboration with the Arthritis Foundation, started a pilot project in 2022 designed to enhance access to rheumatology specialty care for rural residents through a shared telehealth model between the UNC rheumatology clinic and two separate Piedmont Health Services clinics in rural areas.

The project includes tailored educational sessions designed to empower Piedmont Health Services providers for evaluating and managing patients with rheumatic diseases.

Patients with prior diagnoses of rheumatologic diseases who were lost to rheumatology specialty care follow-up and those with new rheumatic symptoms who had transportation and/or financial barriers to receiving specialty care are triaged to the shared telemedicine visits.

Providers conduct monthly clinic sessions via shared visits between the on-site Piedmont Health Services provider and patients, with off-site UNC rheumatology fellows and attending physicians connected virtually. 

The educational component of the project includes monthly didactic sessions offered to all Piedmont Health Services providers across 12 locations. 

The topics that were chosen cover the most common rheumatologic conditions seen by community providers, including evaluating pain from a rheumatology perspective; using antinuclear antibodies and other serologies; evaluating and managing rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, gout, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and osteoarthritis; and methotrexate management and complications. 

“One of the aspects of this pilot that I want to emphasize is the importance of having the generalists with the patient, relaying the objective data, especially the physical exam, and that’s one of the great features of this model. It also provides a stable platform for telehealth to the individual patients, as many of these patients don’t have access to health technology,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 
 

Thumbs Up

Both patients and general practitioners in the Piedmont Health system expressed high degrees of satisfaction with the shared telehealth program. Patients especially liked the time they saved not having to travel to see a specialist, and a large majority agreed that the visits were “as good as” in-person visits, felt that their concerns were addressed appropriately during the virtual visit, expressed overall satisfaction, and said they would like to continue virtual visits.

Physicians expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the rheumatology didactic sessions and said that the sessions enhanced their knowledge of evaluating and managing or co-managing rheumatologic diseases, as well as helping them to feel comfortable about applying this knowledge to patient care.

Dr. Rivadeneira noted that the pilot study was limited by low levels of Piedmont Health Services physician participation (two out of 45 total participated in shared visits), and only three or four providers typically took part in each didactic session. 
 

How to Improve?

In a follow-up study, the investigators asked Piedmont Health Services providers about barriers to rheumatology care, the most common and challenging diseases they encountered, how to improve the didactic components, and their perspectives on the pilot and how it may have affected referral patterns to rheumatology care.

The providers identified the cost of diagnostic evaluations and medications, transportation, long wait times, and language as the main barriers to patient access of rheumatology care.

“Additionally, over a third of them encountered patients on a weekly basis that were overdue for a visit with a rheumatologist,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

“Direct participation in the physical exam by the primary care provider enhances greatly, in my opinion, these telehealth visits. Focused didactic sessions, electronic handouts and/or quick access guides could empower more rural community providers to manage rheumatic diseases,” he concluded.

In the Q&A following the presentation, Laura Cappelli, MD, MHS, MS, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, asked Dr. Rivadeneira how rheumatologists involved felt about the program and whether his team did any surveying or qualitative work with them.

“Just so you know, the rheumatologist was me,” he replied.

“I’m very picky about telemedicine,” he continued. “I don’t like it, I prefer, as most of us do, to have the patient there. But having the provider there, doing the exam, and you guiding them — I can ask, ‘Did you check their joints? Did you check their strength?’ — makes a huge difference and makes me feel comfortable with the sessions.”

Dr. Rivadeneira added that if a particular case was too complex or too vague to adequately assess via telehealth, he would arrange to see the patient in person.

The project was supported by the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Rivadeneira and Dr. Cappelli reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even in large urban areas there aren’t enough rheumatologists to go around, and as a 2015 American College of Rheumatology workforce study projected, the number of rheumatology providers is expected to drop by 25% by the year 2030, while the demand for patient care in rheumatology is expected to increase by more than 100%.

The shortage of rheumatology care is even more acute in rural areas, but as a pilot project supported by the Arthritis Foundation shows, linking rheumatologists to health centers in remote and underserved locations via telehealth can help community providers improve care for patients with rheumatic diseases.

The novel collaborative model was described by Alfredo Rivadeneira, MD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

UNC School of Medicine

“We found that this pilot, a unique partnership in North Carolina, improves access to rheumatology care to a rural population with high satisfaction scores. It underlines the importance of seeking collaboration with community providers when implementing these programs. It also allows timely specialty care and alleviates the barriers relating to transportation, insurance coverage, and telecommunication challenges,” he said at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. 
 

Too Many Patients, Too Few Rheumatologists

Access to health is challenging for people from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially in states such as North Carolina, where 40% of the population lives in rural counties, which have higher age-adjusted mortality than more densely populated areas of the state, Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

In addition, 42% of the North Carolina residents seen at the state’s 42 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) don’t have health insurance, which is higher than the average of 23% uninsured seen at FQHCs in other states.

There are currently approximately 250 rheumatology providers in North Carolina, the majority of whom work in the states’ three academic medical centers. Currently, North Carolina has an estimated population of 10 million people, which is projected to increase to 11.7 million by 2030. And by 2030, 20% of North Carolinians will be aged ≥ 65 years, Dr. Rivadeneira said, highlighting the need for expanded rheumatology care. 

Although telehealth services could be an option for expanding services to underserved communities, only 14 of the 42 FQHCs in the state use telehealth and only on a limited basis because it is not sufficiently reimbursed. 

Rivadeneira pointed to a 2022 study that showed how patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients in North Carolina were less likely to use online patient portals if they lived in rural areas; came from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds; were older, men, had lower economic status (Medicaid enrollment or uninsured); or spoke a language other than English as their primary tongue. 
 

Pilot Project

To help smooth out some of the above-mentioned disparities, Dr. Rivadeneira and colleagues, in collaboration with the Arthritis Foundation, started a pilot project in 2022 designed to enhance access to rheumatology specialty care for rural residents through a shared telehealth model between the UNC rheumatology clinic and two separate Piedmont Health Services clinics in rural areas.

The project includes tailored educational sessions designed to empower Piedmont Health Services providers for evaluating and managing patients with rheumatic diseases.

Patients with prior diagnoses of rheumatologic diseases who were lost to rheumatology specialty care follow-up and those with new rheumatic symptoms who had transportation and/or financial barriers to receiving specialty care are triaged to the shared telemedicine visits.

Providers conduct monthly clinic sessions via shared visits between the on-site Piedmont Health Services provider and patients, with off-site UNC rheumatology fellows and attending physicians connected virtually. 

The educational component of the project includes monthly didactic sessions offered to all Piedmont Health Services providers across 12 locations. 

The topics that were chosen cover the most common rheumatologic conditions seen by community providers, including evaluating pain from a rheumatology perspective; using antinuclear antibodies and other serologies; evaluating and managing rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, gout, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and osteoarthritis; and methotrexate management and complications. 

“One of the aspects of this pilot that I want to emphasize is the importance of having the generalists with the patient, relaying the objective data, especially the physical exam, and that’s one of the great features of this model. It also provides a stable platform for telehealth to the individual patients, as many of these patients don’t have access to health technology,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 
 

Thumbs Up

Both patients and general practitioners in the Piedmont Health system expressed high degrees of satisfaction with the shared telehealth program. Patients especially liked the time they saved not having to travel to see a specialist, and a large majority agreed that the visits were “as good as” in-person visits, felt that their concerns were addressed appropriately during the virtual visit, expressed overall satisfaction, and said they would like to continue virtual visits.

Physicians expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the rheumatology didactic sessions and said that the sessions enhanced their knowledge of evaluating and managing or co-managing rheumatologic diseases, as well as helping them to feel comfortable about applying this knowledge to patient care.

Dr. Rivadeneira noted that the pilot study was limited by low levels of Piedmont Health Services physician participation (two out of 45 total participated in shared visits), and only three or four providers typically took part in each didactic session. 
 

How to Improve?

In a follow-up study, the investigators asked Piedmont Health Services providers about barriers to rheumatology care, the most common and challenging diseases they encountered, how to improve the didactic components, and their perspectives on the pilot and how it may have affected referral patterns to rheumatology care.

The providers identified the cost of diagnostic evaluations and medications, transportation, long wait times, and language as the main barriers to patient access of rheumatology care.

“Additionally, over a third of them encountered patients on a weekly basis that were overdue for a visit with a rheumatologist,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

“Direct participation in the physical exam by the primary care provider enhances greatly, in my opinion, these telehealth visits. Focused didactic sessions, electronic handouts and/or quick access guides could empower more rural community providers to manage rheumatic diseases,” he concluded.

In the Q&A following the presentation, Laura Cappelli, MD, MHS, MS, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, asked Dr. Rivadeneira how rheumatologists involved felt about the program and whether his team did any surveying or qualitative work with them.

“Just so you know, the rheumatologist was me,” he replied.

“I’m very picky about telemedicine,” he continued. “I don’t like it, I prefer, as most of us do, to have the patient there. But having the provider there, doing the exam, and you guiding them — I can ask, ‘Did you check their joints? Did you check their strength?’ — makes a huge difference and makes me feel comfortable with the sessions.”

Dr. Rivadeneira added that if a particular case was too complex or too vague to adequately assess via telehealth, he would arrange to see the patient in person.

The project was supported by the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Rivadeneira and Dr. Cappelli reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.

However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.

Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.

In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.

American Cancer Society

“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.

The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.

While social determinants of health (SDH) seem to be drivers of higher breast cancer mortality in Black women, biological differences between Black and White women are also linked to poorer outcomes in Black women with breast cancer, new studies suggest. Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
 

SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race

A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.

Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.

Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.

Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.

University of Illinois Cancer Center

Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes

Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.

Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.

DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.

“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”

Sanford Burnham Prebys

University of Illinois Cancer Center

How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)

Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).

Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.

Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).

Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.

Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.

Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.

University of Mississippi Medical Center

Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates

Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.

Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.

There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.

“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.

The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.

Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”

More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.

However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.

Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.

In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.

American Cancer Society

“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.

The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.

While social determinants of health (SDH) seem to be drivers of higher breast cancer mortality in Black women, biological differences between Black and White women are also linked to poorer outcomes in Black women with breast cancer, new studies suggest. Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
 

SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race

A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.

Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.

Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.

Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.

University of Illinois Cancer Center

Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes

Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.

Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.

DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.

“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”

Sanford Burnham Prebys

University of Illinois Cancer Center

How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)

Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).

Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.

Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).

Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.

Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.

Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.

University of Mississippi Medical Center

Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates

Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.

Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.

There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.

“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.

The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.

Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”

More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.

However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.

Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.

In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.

American Cancer Society

“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.

The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.

While social determinants of health (SDH) seem to be drivers of higher breast cancer mortality in Black women, biological differences between Black and White women are also linked to poorer outcomes in Black women with breast cancer, new studies suggest. Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
 

SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race

A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.

Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.

Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.

Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.

University of Illinois Cancer Center

Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes

Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.

Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.

DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.

“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”

Sanford Burnham Prebys

University of Illinois Cancer Center

How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)

Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).

Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.

Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).

Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.

Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.

Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.

University of Mississippi Medical Center

Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates

Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.

Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.

There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.

“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.

The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.

Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On May 5, 2023, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Rochelle Walensky, in announcing her resignation after more than 2 years of dedicated service, wrote that she “took on this role … with the goal of leaving behind the dark days of the pandemic and moving the CDC — and public health — forward into a much better and more trusted place.”

Three times in the past 3 years I have written a Beyond the White Coat column emphasizing the importance of trust. Trust in the expertise of scientists. Trust in the integrity of medical research and public health institutions. Trust in the commitment of providers — doctors, nurses, therapists, and first responders — to shepherd us through the pandemic and other medical crises in our lives. This column is take four.

All human institutions have human imperfections. However, imperfect humans working together in community are more productive and more reliable than nihilism and political polarization. Underlying all of healthcare are compassion and honesty. Honesty means the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Honesty is such a simple concept in the moral formation of children, but the concept has evolved aberrantly in the world of woke adults. There appear to be irresistible temptations to shade that truth for political gain. The dominant current mutation is the half-truth. One tells the part of the truth that appears to advance one’s own political aspirations and at the same time one omits or censors other viewpoints.

On April 17, 2023, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote an open letter to Congressional leaders advocating for transgender female students’ participation in girl’s and women’s sports. The letter was written “On behalf of the more than 165,000” members of those organizations, though public opinion polls show a majority of those members likely oppose the opinion expressed. The letter goes on to extol the benefits that sports might bring to transgender students, but it contains not one word acknowledging the negative impact that participation has on others. That is a half-truth.

The same half-truth methodology distorts dialogue about various therapies for gender dysphoria in children and young adults.

In April 2022, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine in an NPR interview declared that, “There is no argument about the value and importance of gender-affirming care.” That might be a half-truth, since I could not locate U.S. specialists who dare to go on record questioning the party line of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. However, Dr. Levine’s dismissal of any dissent is bizarre since in the prior 2 years multiple countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom had all issued reports questioning and even rescinding the practices that evolved since the 2012 WPATH guidance. Their main concerns included 1) the marked increase in incidence of gender dysphoria first manifesting in tween and early teenage girls, 2) the inadequate access to mental health screening before considering transitioning, 3) the long-term risks of puberty blockers particularly to bone density, and 4) the low quality of evidence supporting a measurable reduction in suicide rates. There may be reasonable counterarguments to each of those concerns, but a high ranking U.S. government official labeling all those international reports as “no argument” does not produce high quality decision making and does not foster the public’s trust.

Indeed, the public in many cases has decided its elected legislators are more trustworthy on these topics than the medical organizations. As I wrote the first draft of this column, the Missouri state legislators had passed a bill banning gender-affirming health care for transgender minors. They also passed a bill preventing participation of transgender females in women’s sports. Per reckoning by CBS News in the summer of 2023, 16 states had recently enacted laws restricting gender-affirming care and 22 states had restricted transgender participation in sports.

In 2022, I wrote a column claiming that suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships. I believe the current legislative carnage is just such an explosion. It harms children.

The AAP has experts in advocacy. I am no expert in political advocacy. Perhaps politics has to be played by different rules where half-truths are normalized. Criminal law and advertising use those rules. But this explosion of vitriol and legislative intrusion into medicine should prompt everyone to reassess the use of one-sided advocacy in public and professional circles in healthcare. I want to be associated with a profession that uses evidence-based medicine that is not corrupted with political agendas. I want to be associated with a profession known for telling the whole truth.

In a society that is increasingly polarized, I want to embrace the advice of John Stuart Mill, a 19th century English philosopher best known for utilitarianism, which is often expressed as “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Mr. Mill also wrote on social theory, liberty, and even some early feminist theory. His 1859 work, On Liberty, chapter II, asserts: “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

Mr. Mill did not like half-truths.
 

It’s About Trust

My column is not the instrument to debate the use of hormones as puberty blockers or the fairness of transgender women participating in women’s sports. Those judgments will be rendered by others. I may report on those deliberations, but my column’s emphasis is on how professionals, and their organizations, go about making those determinations

For instance, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom spent 2 years reassessing transgender care for children and in October 2022 released a draft proposal to reduce and limit the aggressive therapies. On June 9, 2023, the NHS fully enacted those changes. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria would be used only in experimental trials. In April 2024 the NHS began implementing those changes, joining other European countries that have imposed similar restrictions.

Similarly, the debate about transgender participation in women’s sports has continued to rage for years. On April 8, 2024, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics passed a resolution that bans almost all transgender participation in NAIA-regulated intercollegiate women’s sports. Dance and cheerleading are exceptions. Participation is still permissible at the intramural level. The NCAA has different rules.

Go to those sources to learn more substance for those debates. This column is about trust.

A major problem currently facing medicine is the public’s trust in expertise. That trust had been seriously weakened before the pandemic and was repeatedly wounded during the pandemic with arguments over masks, vaccines, and shutdowns. It needs repair.

A parent bringing a baby to a pediatrician’s office needs to trust that physician for the relationship to work. This is especially true for pediatric hospitalists that do not have the opportunity that office-based pediatricians have to build rapport with a family over years. At a recent university conference on diversity, equity, and inclusivity, one female rabbi stated, “I cannot be rabbi to everybody.” I agreed, but as a medical professional, sometimes I must be.

Telling half-truths harms the public’s trust in their personal physicians and in the medical establishment. Once people suspect an organization is making decisions based on ideology rather than science, credibility is lost and difficult to recover.

Let us stop telling half-truths. Let us stop suppressing dialogue. Truth can never be completely captured by humans, but if one side of an issue is suppressed by cancel culture, censorship, accusations of homophobia, or threat of cultural war, the search for truth is severely impaired.

Let us, as medical professionals, adopt Stephen Covey’s habit number 5, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Empower voices. Listen to all stakeholders. And when we finally do speak, remember John Stuart Mill and tell the whole truth.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

On May 5, 2023, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Rochelle Walensky, in announcing her resignation after more than 2 years of dedicated service, wrote that she “took on this role … with the goal of leaving behind the dark days of the pandemic and moving the CDC — and public health — forward into a much better and more trusted place.”

Three times in the past 3 years I have written a Beyond the White Coat column emphasizing the importance of trust. Trust in the expertise of scientists. Trust in the integrity of medical research and public health institutions. Trust in the commitment of providers — doctors, nurses, therapists, and first responders — to shepherd us through the pandemic and other medical crises in our lives. This column is take four.

All human institutions have human imperfections. However, imperfect humans working together in community are more productive and more reliable than nihilism and political polarization. Underlying all of healthcare are compassion and honesty. Honesty means the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Honesty is such a simple concept in the moral formation of children, but the concept has evolved aberrantly in the world of woke adults. There appear to be irresistible temptations to shade that truth for political gain. The dominant current mutation is the half-truth. One tells the part of the truth that appears to advance one’s own political aspirations and at the same time one omits or censors other viewpoints.

On April 17, 2023, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote an open letter to Congressional leaders advocating for transgender female students’ participation in girl’s and women’s sports. The letter was written “On behalf of the more than 165,000” members of those organizations, though public opinion polls show a majority of those members likely oppose the opinion expressed. The letter goes on to extol the benefits that sports might bring to transgender students, but it contains not one word acknowledging the negative impact that participation has on others. That is a half-truth.

The same half-truth methodology distorts dialogue about various therapies for gender dysphoria in children and young adults.

In April 2022, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine in an NPR interview declared that, “There is no argument about the value and importance of gender-affirming care.” That might be a half-truth, since I could not locate U.S. specialists who dare to go on record questioning the party line of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. However, Dr. Levine’s dismissal of any dissent is bizarre since in the prior 2 years multiple countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom had all issued reports questioning and even rescinding the practices that evolved since the 2012 WPATH guidance. Their main concerns included 1) the marked increase in incidence of gender dysphoria first manifesting in tween and early teenage girls, 2) the inadequate access to mental health screening before considering transitioning, 3) the long-term risks of puberty blockers particularly to bone density, and 4) the low quality of evidence supporting a measurable reduction in suicide rates. There may be reasonable counterarguments to each of those concerns, but a high ranking U.S. government official labeling all those international reports as “no argument” does not produce high quality decision making and does not foster the public’s trust.

Indeed, the public in many cases has decided its elected legislators are more trustworthy on these topics than the medical organizations. As I wrote the first draft of this column, the Missouri state legislators had passed a bill banning gender-affirming health care for transgender minors. They also passed a bill preventing participation of transgender females in women’s sports. Per reckoning by CBS News in the summer of 2023, 16 states had recently enacted laws restricting gender-affirming care and 22 states had restricted transgender participation in sports.

In 2022, I wrote a column claiming that suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships. I believe the current legislative carnage is just such an explosion. It harms children.

The AAP has experts in advocacy. I am no expert in political advocacy. Perhaps politics has to be played by different rules where half-truths are normalized. Criminal law and advertising use those rules. But this explosion of vitriol and legislative intrusion into medicine should prompt everyone to reassess the use of one-sided advocacy in public and professional circles in healthcare. I want to be associated with a profession that uses evidence-based medicine that is not corrupted with political agendas. I want to be associated with a profession known for telling the whole truth.

In a society that is increasingly polarized, I want to embrace the advice of John Stuart Mill, a 19th century English philosopher best known for utilitarianism, which is often expressed as “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Mr. Mill also wrote on social theory, liberty, and even some early feminist theory. His 1859 work, On Liberty, chapter II, asserts: “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

Mr. Mill did not like half-truths.
 

It’s About Trust

My column is not the instrument to debate the use of hormones as puberty blockers or the fairness of transgender women participating in women’s sports. Those judgments will be rendered by others. I may report on those deliberations, but my column’s emphasis is on how professionals, and their organizations, go about making those determinations

For instance, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom spent 2 years reassessing transgender care for children and in October 2022 released a draft proposal to reduce and limit the aggressive therapies. On June 9, 2023, the NHS fully enacted those changes. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria would be used only in experimental trials. In April 2024 the NHS began implementing those changes, joining other European countries that have imposed similar restrictions.

Similarly, the debate about transgender participation in women’s sports has continued to rage for years. On April 8, 2024, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics passed a resolution that bans almost all transgender participation in NAIA-regulated intercollegiate women’s sports. Dance and cheerleading are exceptions. Participation is still permissible at the intramural level. The NCAA has different rules.

Go to those sources to learn more substance for those debates. This column is about trust.

A major problem currently facing medicine is the public’s trust in expertise. That trust had been seriously weakened before the pandemic and was repeatedly wounded during the pandemic with arguments over masks, vaccines, and shutdowns. It needs repair.

A parent bringing a baby to a pediatrician’s office needs to trust that physician for the relationship to work. This is especially true for pediatric hospitalists that do not have the opportunity that office-based pediatricians have to build rapport with a family over years. At a recent university conference on diversity, equity, and inclusivity, one female rabbi stated, “I cannot be rabbi to everybody.” I agreed, but as a medical professional, sometimes I must be.

Telling half-truths harms the public’s trust in their personal physicians and in the medical establishment. Once people suspect an organization is making decisions based on ideology rather than science, credibility is lost and difficult to recover.

Let us stop telling half-truths. Let us stop suppressing dialogue. Truth can never be completely captured by humans, but if one side of an issue is suppressed by cancel culture, censorship, accusations of homophobia, or threat of cultural war, the search for truth is severely impaired.

Let us, as medical professionals, adopt Stephen Covey’s habit number 5, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Empower voices. Listen to all stakeholders. And when we finally do speak, remember John Stuart Mill and tell the whole truth.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

On May 5, 2023, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Rochelle Walensky, in announcing her resignation after more than 2 years of dedicated service, wrote that she “took on this role … with the goal of leaving behind the dark days of the pandemic and moving the CDC — and public health — forward into a much better and more trusted place.”

Three times in the past 3 years I have written a Beyond the White Coat column emphasizing the importance of trust. Trust in the expertise of scientists. Trust in the integrity of medical research and public health institutions. Trust in the commitment of providers — doctors, nurses, therapists, and first responders — to shepherd us through the pandemic and other medical crises in our lives. This column is take four.

All human institutions have human imperfections. However, imperfect humans working together in community are more productive and more reliable than nihilism and political polarization. Underlying all of healthcare are compassion and honesty. Honesty means the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Honesty is such a simple concept in the moral formation of children, but the concept has evolved aberrantly in the world of woke adults. There appear to be irresistible temptations to shade that truth for political gain. The dominant current mutation is the half-truth. One tells the part of the truth that appears to advance one’s own political aspirations and at the same time one omits or censors other viewpoints.

On April 17, 2023, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote an open letter to Congressional leaders advocating for transgender female students’ participation in girl’s and women’s sports. The letter was written “On behalf of the more than 165,000” members of those organizations, though public opinion polls show a majority of those members likely oppose the opinion expressed. The letter goes on to extol the benefits that sports might bring to transgender students, but it contains not one word acknowledging the negative impact that participation has on others. That is a half-truth.

The same half-truth methodology distorts dialogue about various therapies for gender dysphoria in children and young adults.

In April 2022, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine in an NPR interview declared that, “There is no argument about the value and importance of gender-affirming care.” That might be a half-truth, since I could not locate U.S. specialists who dare to go on record questioning the party line of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. However, Dr. Levine’s dismissal of any dissent is bizarre since in the prior 2 years multiple countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom had all issued reports questioning and even rescinding the practices that evolved since the 2012 WPATH guidance. Their main concerns included 1) the marked increase in incidence of gender dysphoria first manifesting in tween and early teenage girls, 2) the inadequate access to mental health screening before considering transitioning, 3) the long-term risks of puberty blockers particularly to bone density, and 4) the low quality of evidence supporting a measurable reduction in suicide rates. There may be reasonable counterarguments to each of those concerns, but a high ranking U.S. government official labeling all those international reports as “no argument” does not produce high quality decision making and does not foster the public’s trust.

Indeed, the public in many cases has decided its elected legislators are more trustworthy on these topics than the medical organizations. As I wrote the first draft of this column, the Missouri state legislators had passed a bill banning gender-affirming health care for transgender minors. They also passed a bill preventing participation of transgender females in women’s sports. Per reckoning by CBS News in the summer of 2023, 16 states had recently enacted laws restricting gender-affirming care and 22 states had restricted transgender participation in sports.

In 2022, I wrote a column claiming that suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships. I believe the current legislative carnage is just such an explosion. It harms children.

The AAP has experts in advocacy. I am no expert in political advocacy. Perhaps politics has to be played by different rules where half-truths are normalized. Criminal law and advertising use those rules. But this explosion of vitriol and legislative intrusion into medicine should prompt everyone to reassess the use of one-sided advocacy in public and professional circles in healthcare. I want to be associated with a profession that uses evidence-based medicine that is not corrupted with political agendas. I want to be associated with a profession known for telling the whole truth.

In a society that is increasingly polarized, I want to embrace the advice of John Stuart Mill, a 19th century English philosopher best known for utilitarianism, which is often expressed as “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Mr. Mill also wrote on social theory, liberty, and even some early feminist theory. His 1859 work, On Liberty, chapter II, asserts: “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

Mr. Mill did not like half-truths.
 

It’s About Trust

My column is not the instrument to debate the use of hormones as puberty blockers or the fairness of transgender women participating in women’s sports. Those judgments will be rendered by others. I may report on those deliberations, but my column’s emphasis is on how professionals, and their organizations, go about making those determinations

For instance, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom spent 2 years reassessing transgender care for children and in October 2022 released a draft proposal to reduce and limit the aggressive therapies. On June 9, 2023, the NHS fully enacted those changes. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria would be used only in experimental trials. In April 2024 the NHS began implementing those changes, joining other European countries that have imposed similar restrictions.

Similarly, the debate about transgender participation in women’s sports has continued to rage for years. On April 8, 2024, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics passed a resolution that bans almost all transgender participation in NAIA-regulated intercollegiate women’s sports. Dance and cheerleading are exceptions. Participation is still permissible at the intramural level. The NCAA has different rules.

Go to those sources to learn more substance for those debates. This column is about trust.

A major problem currently facing medicine is the public’s trust in expertise. That trust had been seriously weakened before the pandemic and was repeatedly wounded during the pandemic with arguments over masks, vaccines, and shutdowns. It needs repair.

A parent bringing a baby to a pediatrician’s office needs to trust that physician for the relationship to work. This is especially true for pediatric hospitalists that do not have the opportunity that office-based pediatricians have to build rapport with a family over years. At a recent university conference on diversity, equity, and inclusivity, one female rabbi stated, “I cannot be rabbi to everybody.” I agreed, but as a medical professional, sometimes I must be.

Telling half-truths harms the public’s trust in their personal physicians and in the medical establishment. Once people suspect an organization is making decisions based on ideology rather than science, credibility is lost and difficult to recover.

Let us stop telling half-truths. Let us stop suppressing dialogue. Truth can never be completely captured by humans, but if one side of an issue is suppressed by cancel culture, censorship, accusations of homophobia, or threat of cultural war, the search for truth is severely impaired.

Let us, as medical professionals, adopt Stephen Covey’s habit number 5, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Empower voices. Listen to all stakeholders. And when we finally do speak, remember John Stuart Mill and tell the whole truth.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Dr. Sodha

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Reported burnout among internal medicine physicians decreased over the past year based on data from Medscape’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Approximately 80% of male internists and 85% of female internists said that their feelings of burnout and/or depression were driven by their jobs all or most of the time. The job-related stress and burnout come home with them — 76% of respondents overall said that burnout had negatively affected their personal relationships.

Too many bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were by far the top contributor to burnout, reported by 70% of respondents, with insufficient compensation and lack of respect from employers, colleagues, and staff as relatively distant second and third contributors (40% and 37%, respectively).

In addition, nearly half of the physicians said that their burnout was severe enough that they might leave medicine. 

To help manage burnout, more internists reported positive coping strategies such as exercise (51%), talking with friends and family (47%), spending time alone (41%), and sleeping (40%), compared to less healthy strategies such as eating junk food, drinking alcohol, and using nicotine or cannabis products.

When asked what workplace measures would help with burnout, no one strategy rose to the top, but the top three were increased compensation (49%), additional support staff (48%), and more flexible work schedules (45%).

Notably, 62% of internists reported depression they defined as colloquial (feeling down or sad) and 27% described their depression as clinical. However, only 9% said they had sought professional help for depression, and 15% said they had sought help for burnout.
 

Staying in Practice Despite Burnout

The percentage of physicians across specialties who report depression and burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in group practice in Antigo, Wisconsin, in an interview.

Since the pandemic, newer stressors have replaced the pandemic-related stressors, and increasing bureaucratic burdens and paperwork continue to cause more physicians to report burnout, he said.

“If not assessed and addressed, this will lead to attrition in the physician workforce leading to increased burden on other physicians and impact patient access to healthcare,” he added.

The survey findings reflect Dr. Deep’s observations. “When talking to physicians across specialties, I have heard universally from many physicians about their experiences and ongoing struggles with potential burnout and mood-related issues,” he said. “While many of them feel that they are getting to the point of burnout, most of them also stoically continue to provide care to patients because they feel an obligation to them,” he said.

This feeling of obligation to patients is why less than one third of the physicians who consider retiring or leaving medicine because of burnout actually do, he said.

As for measures to reduce burnout, “I personally feel that increasing the compensation will not lead to decreased burnout,” Dr. Deep said. Although more money may provide temporary satisfaction, it will not yield long-term improvement in burnout, he said. “Based on personal experiences and my interactions with physicians, providing them more autonomy and control over their practices ... would contribute to decreasing the burnout,” Dr. Deep emphasized.
 

What Is to Be Done?

“I would favor having physician leaders in healthcare organizations take the time to talk to physicians [and] provide mentoring programs when new physicians are recruited, with ongoing discussions at operations and governance meetings about physician health and wellness,” Dr. Deep said. Providing frequent updates to physicians about wellness resources and encouraging them to seek out help anonymously through Employee Assistance Programs and other counseling services would be beneficial, he added.

“I would also consider peer mentoring when possible. Employers, healthcare organizations, and other key stakeholders should continue to work toward decreasing the stigma of depression and burnout,” Dr. Deep said.

Employers can help physicians manage and reduce burnout and depression by engaging with them, listening to their concerns, and trying to address them, said Dr. Deep. These actions will increase physicians’ trust in their administrations and promote a positive and healthy work environment, he said. “This will lead to reduced attrition in the workforce, retention of experienced physicians and support staff, and lead to increased patient satisfaction as well.”

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose; he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Reported burnout among internal medicine physicians decreased over the past year based on data from Medscape’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Approximately 80% of male internists and 85% of female internists said that their feelings of burnout and/or depression were driven by their jobs all or most of the time. The job-related stress and burnout come home with them — 76% of respondents overall said that burnout had negatively affected their personal relationships.

Too many bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were by far the top contributor to burnout, reported by 70% of respondents, with insufficient compensation and lack of respect from employers, colleagues, and staff as relatively distant second and third contributors (40% and 37%, respectively).

In addition, nearly half of the physicians said that their burnout was severe enough that they might leave medicine. 

To help manage burnout, more internists reported positive coping strategies such as exercise (51%), talking with friends and family (47%), spending time alone (41%), and sleeping (40%), compared to less healthy strategies such as eating junk food, drinking alcohol, and using nicotine or cannabis products.

When asked what workplace measures would help with burnout, no one strategy rose to the top, but the top three were increased compensation (49%), additional support staff (48%), and more flexible work schedules (45%).

Notably, 62% of internists reported depression they defined as colloquial (feeling down or sad) and 27% described their depression as clinical. However, only 9% said they had sought professional help for depression, and 15% said they had sought help for burnout.
 

Staying in Practice Despite Burnout

The percentage of physicians across specialties who report depression and burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in group practice in Antigo, Wisconsin, in an interview.

Since the pandemic, newer stressors have replaced the pandemic-related stressors, and increasing bureaucratic burdens and paperwork continue to cause more physicians to report burnout, he said.

“If not assessed and addressed, this will lead to attrition in the physician workforce leading to increased burden on other physicians and impact patient access to healthcare,” he added.

The survey findings reflect Dr. Deep’s observations. “When talking to physicians across specialties, I have heard universally from many physicians about their experiences and ongoing struggles with potential burnout and mood-related issues,” he said. “While many of them feel that they are getting to the point of burnout, most of them also stoically continue to provide care to patients because they feel an obligation to them,” he said.

This feeling of obligation to patients is why less than one third of the physicians who consider retiring or leaving medicine because of burnout actually do, he said.

As for measures to reduce burnout, “I personally feel that increasing the compensation will not lead to decreased burnout,” Dr. Deep said. Although more money may provide temporary satisfaction, it will not yield long-term improvement in burnout, he said. “Based on personal experiences and my interactions with physicians, providing them more autonomy and control over their practices ... would contribute to decreasing the burnout,” Dr. Deep emphasized.
 

What Is to Be Done?

“I would favor having physician leaders in healthcare organizations take the time to talk to physicians [and] provide mentoring programs when new physicians are recruited, with ongoing discussions at operations and governance meetings about physician health and wellness,” Dr. Deep said. Providing frequent updates to physicians about wellness resources and encouraging them to seek out help anonymously through Employee Assistance Programs and other counseling services would be beneficial, he added.

“I would also consider peer mentoring when possible. Employers, healthcare organizations, and other key stakeholders should continue to work toward decreasing the stigma of depression and burnout,” Dr. Deep said.

Employers can help physicians manage and reduce burnout and depression by engaging with them, listening to their concerns, and trying to address them, said Dr. Deep. These actions will increase physicians’ trust in their administrations and promote a positive and healthy work environment, he said. “This will lead to reduced attrition in the workforce, retention of experienced physicians and support staff, and lead to increased patient satisfaction as well.”

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose; he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Reported burnout among internal medicine physicians decreased over the past year based on data from Medscape’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Approximately 80% of male internists and 85% of female internists said that their feelings of burnout and/or depression were driven by their jobs all or most of the time. The job-related stress and burnout come home with them — 76% of respondents overall said that burnout had negatively affected their personal relationships.

Too many bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were by far the top contributor to burnout, reported by 70% of respondents, with insufficient compensation and lack of respect from employers, colleagues, and staff as relatively distant second and third contributors (40% and 37%, respectively).

In addition, nearly half of the physicians said that their burnout was severe enough that they might leave medicine. 

To help manage burnout, more internists reported positive coping strategies such as exercise (51%), talking with friends and family (47%), spending time alone (41%), and sleeping (40%), compared to less healthy strategies such as eating junk food, drinking alcohol, and using nicotine or cannabis products.

When asked what workplace measures would help with burnout, no one strategy rose to the top, but the top three were increased compensation (49%), additional support staff (48%), and more flexible work schedules (45%).

Notably, 62% of internists reported depression they defined as colloquial (feeling down or sad) and 27% described their depression as clinical. However, only 9% said they had sought professional help for depression, and 15% said they had sought help for burnout.
 

Staying in Practice Despite Burnout

The percentage of physicians across specialties who report depression and burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in group practice in Antigo, Wisconsin, in an interview.

Since the pandemic, newer stressors have replaced the pandemic-related stressors, and increasing bureaucratic burdens and paperwork continue to cause more physicians to report burnout, he said.

“If not assessed and addressed, this will lead to attrition in the physician workforce leading to increased burden on other physicians and impact patient access to healthcare,” he added.

The survey findings reflect Dr. Deep’s observations. “When talking to physicians across specialties, I have heard universally from many physicians about their experiences and ongoing struggles with potential burnout and mood-related issues,” he said. “While many of them feel that they are getting to the point of burnout, most of them also stoically continue to provide care to patients because they feel an obligation to them,” he said.

This feeling of obligation to patients is why less than one third of the physicians who consider retiring or leaving medicine because of burnout actually do, he said.

As for measures to reduce burnout, “I personally feel that increasing the compensation will not lead to decreased burnout,” Dr. Deep said. Although more money may provide temporary satisfaction, it will not yield long-term improvement in burnout, he said. “Based on personal experiences and my interactions with physicians, providing them more autonomy and control over their practices ... would contribute to decreasing the burnout,” Dr. Deep emphasized.
 

What Is to Be Done?

“I would favor having physician leaders in healthcare organizations take the time to talk to physicians [and] provide mentoring programs when new physicians are recruited, with ongoing discussions at operations and governance meetings about physician health and wellness,” Dr. Deep said. Providing frequent updates to physicians about wellness resources and encouraging them to seek out help anonymously through Employee Assistance Programs and other counseling services would be beneficial, he added.

“I would also consider peer mentoring when possible. Employers, healthcare organizations, and other key stakeholders should continue to work toward decreasing the stigma of depression and burnout,” Dr. Deep said.

Employers can help physicians manage and reduce burnout and depression by engaging with them, listening to their concerns, and trying to address them, said Dr. Deep. These actions will increase physicians’ trust in their administrations and promote a positive and healthy work environment, he said. “This will lead to reduced attrition in the workforce, retention of experienced physicians and support staff, and lead to increased patient satisfaction as well.”

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose; he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Reported burnout among family physicians was down slightly in 2023 from the previous year, but burnout lasted longer, based on data from this news organization’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Overall, 70% of internists surveyed said they had felt burned out for at least 13 months, compared with 60% in the 2023 survey. Of these, 41% said they had experienced feelings of burnout out for more than 2 years.

Overall, 82% of both male and female family physicians who reported feeling burned out or depressed attributed their burnout or depression to job stress rather than stress in their personal lives.

Bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were cited by 73% of respondents as the greatest contributor to family physicians’ burnout, followed by too many hours at work (39%) and lack of respect from administrators, colleagues, or staff.

Notably, 45% responded with either a 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale that their burnout was severe enough that they might consider leaving practice, and 73% of respondents said that burnout was taking a negative toll on their personal relationships, up from 67% in last year’s survey.

Depression also remains a problem for family physicians, but fewer than 20% reported seeking help for either depression or burnout (15% and 16%, respectively)

Among the 27% of respondents who reported clinical depression, 69% cited job burnout as a significant contributor.

The top three strategies cited by respondents to reduce burnout were more support staff, more flexible work schedules, and lighter patient loads.
 

Take Needs for Support Seriously

The findings reflect the need not only of increased administrative support, but also personal and emotional support to reduce burnout among family physicians, Susan K. Fidler, MD, associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“Family physicians are a critically important societal resource to support the health of communities,” she said.

“It takes at least 7 years to train a family physician, and we need to create a culture in medicine to keep these highly-trained specialists engaged in their work to continue to provide continuity of care to their communities,” said Dr. Fidler. “Losing a family physician to burnout directly impacts the care that community receives and further worsens someone’s ability to access care,” she said.

Dr. Fidler was not surprised by the impact of administrative work on a physicians’ experience of burnout. “Physicians are energized by taking care of patients, and it is hard to feel like you are helping people by wading through the paperwork and administrative burden associated with our healthcare system,” she said.

However, she was surprised by the higher burnout rate in female physicians compared with males (55% vs. 45%, respectively). “As the proportion of the family physician workforce becomes increasing female, it becomes critical to understand this difference and provide support to address their specific needs,” she said.

Dr. Fidler said she agreed with the reported top three measures that might reduce burnout among family physicians. “In order to take care of the complex needs of our patients, more support staff and more time with patients can increase satisfaction with the practice of medicine,” she added.

Currently, physicians are often choosing between staying on time in short appointment slots and taking the necessary time to address patients’ needs, said Dr. Fidler.

“Longer appointments and more support staff allow family physicians to use their excellent training to provide whole-person care,” she said.

Previous research has shown that helping family physicians identify the most meaningful aspects of their work can reduce burnout, Dr. Fidler said. “It is up to healthcare administrators to allow physicians the flexibility to find their meaning in work and to support the systems that allow physicians to practice efficiently and effectively,” she said.

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Fidler had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Reported burnout among family physicians was down slightly in 2023 from the previous year, but burnout lasted longer, based on data from this news organization’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Overall, 70% of internists surveyed said they had felt burned out for at least 13 months, compared with 60% in the 2023 survey. Of these, 41% said they had experienced feelings of burnout out for more than 2 years.

Overall, 82% of both male and female family physicians who reported feeling burned out or depressed attributed their burnout or depression to job stress rather than stress in their personal lives.

Bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were cited by 73% of respondents as the greatest contributor to family physicians’ burnout, followed by too many hours at work (39%) and lack of respect from administrators, colleagues, or staff.

Notably, 45% responded with either a 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale that their burnout was severe enough that they might consider leaving practice, and 73% of respondents said that burnout was taking a negative toll on their personal relationships, up from 67% in last year’s survey.

Depression also remains a problem for family physicians, but fewer than 20% reported seeking help for either depression or burnout (15% and 16%, respectively)

Among the 27% of respondents who reported clinical depression, 69% cited job burnout as a significant contributor.

The top three strategies cited by respondents to reduce burnout were more support staff, more flexible work schedules, and lighter patient loads.
 

Take Needs for Support Seriously

The findings reflect the need not only of increased administrative support, but also personal and emotional support to reduce burnout among family physicians, Susan K. Fidler, MD, associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“Family physicians are a critically important societal resource to support the health of communities,” she said.

“It takes at least 7 years to train a family physician, and we need to create a culture in medicine to keep these highly-trained specialists engaged in their work to continue to provide continuity of care to their communities,” said Dr. Fidler. “Losing a family physician to burnout directly impacts the care that community receives and further worsens someone’s ability to access care,” she said.

Dr. Fidler was not surprised by the impact of administrative work on a physicians’ experience of burnout. “Physicians are energized by taking care of patients, and it is hard to feel like you are helping people by wading through the paperwork and administrative burden associated with our healthcare system,” she said.

However, she was surprised by the higher burnout rate in female physicians compared with males (55% vs. 45%, respectively). “As the proportion of the family physician workforce becomes increasing female, it becomes critical to understand this difference and provide support to address their specific needs,” she said.

Dr. Fidler said she agreed with the reported top three measures that might reduce burnout among family physicians. “In order to take care of the complex needs of our patients, more support staff and more time with patients can increase satisfaction with the practice of medicine,” she added.

Currently, physicians are often choosing between staying on time in short appointment slots and taking the necessary time to address patients’ needs, said Dr. Fidler.

“Longer appointments and more support staff allow family physicians to use their excellent training to provide whole-person care,” she said.

Previous research has shown that helping family physicians identify the most meaningful aspects of their work can reduce burnout, Dr. Fidler said. “It is up to healthcare administrators to allow physicians the flexibility to find their meaning in work and to support the systems that allow physicians to practice efficiently and effectively,” she said.

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Fidler had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Reported burnout among family physicians was down slightly in 2023 from the previous year, but burnout lasted longer, based on data from this news organization’s annual survey of burnout and depression among physicians in the United States.

Overall, 70% of internists surveyed said they had felt burned out for at least 13 months, compared with 60% in the 2023 survey. Of these, 41% said they had experienced feelings of burnout out for more than 2 years.

Overall, 82% of both male and female family physicians who reported feeling burned out or depressed attributed their burnout or depression to job stress rather than stress in their personal lives.

Bureaucratic tasks such as charting and paperwork were cited by 73% of respondents as the greatest contributor to family physicians’ burnout, followed by too many hours at work (39%) and lack of respect from administrators, colleagues, or staff.

Notably, 45% responded with either a 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale that their burnout was severe enough that they might consider leaving practice, and 73% of respondents said that burnout was taking a negative toll on their personal relationships, up from 67% in last year’s survey.

Depression also remains a problem for family physicians, but fewer than 20% reported seeking help for either depression or burnout (15% and 16%, respectively)

Among the 27% of respondents who reported clinical depression, 69% cited job burnout as a significant contributor.

The top three strategies cited by respondents to reduce burnout were more support staff, more flexible work schedules, and lighter patient loads.
 

Take Needs for Support Seriously

The findings reflect the need not only of increased administrative support, but also personal and emotional support to reduce burnout among family physicians, Susan K. Fidler, MD, associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“Family physicians are a critically important societal resource to support the health of communities,” she said.

“It takes at least 7 years to train a family physician, and we need to create a culture in medicine to keep these highly-trained specialists engaged in their work to continue to provide continuity of care to their communities,” said Dr. Fidler. “Losing a family physician to burnout directly impacts the care that community receives and further worsens someone’s ability to access care,” she said.

Dr. Fidler was not surprised by the impact of administrative work on a physicians’ experience of burnout. “Physicians are energized by taking care of patients, and it is hard to feel like you are helping people by wading through the paperwork and administrative burden associated with our healthcare system,” she said.

However, she was surprised by the higher burnout rate in female physicians compared with males (55% vs. 45%, respectively). “As the proportion of the family physician workforce becomes increasing female, it becomes critical to understand this difference and provide support to address their specific needs,” she said.

Dr. Fidler said she agreed with the reported top three measures that might reduce burnout among family physicians. “In order to take care of the complex needs of our patients, more support staff and more time with patients can increase satisfaction with the practice of medicine,” she added.

Currently, physicians are often choosing between staying on time in short appointment slots and taking the necessary time to address patients’ needs, said Dr. Fidler.

“Longer appointments and more support staff allow family physicians to use their excellent training to provide whole-person care,” she said.

Previous research has shown that helping family physicians identify the most meaningful aspects of their work can reduce burnout, Dr. Fidler said. “It is up to healthcare administrators to allow physicians the flexibility to find their meaning in work and to support the systems that allow physicians to practice efficiently and effectively,” she said.

The data come from Medscape’s annual report on Physician Burnout & Depression, which included 9226 practicing physicians in the United States across more than 29 specialties.

Dr. Fidler had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.