Business of Medicine

Christmas, like New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving, birthdays, and anniversaries, is one of those times that we use to mark where we were and how far we’ve come.

I’m in a mixed marriage, so we celebrate both Hanukkah and Christmas. Twenty-five years ago I was a newly minted attending neurologist, not even 6 months out of fellowship.

My wife was pregnant with our first child and had invited my Jewish family over for Christmas dinner. This was our first December in our first house and she wanted to do something special for them.

Being the low person on the totem pole, it was my first Christmas on call, covering for myself and two other neurologists.

So I was driving. A lot. My wife was on her own to get things ready, and I was hoping to be home for dinner.

It was, as always seems to be the case with holidays, quite busy. I was up long before dawn to start, driving a circular route to cover four hospitals scattered around Phoenix. At least the roads were empty.

At some point the planned pattern breaks down as new consults and urgent patient status changes happen. You try to start by going from A to B to C to D for rounds, but within a few hours I was going from A to B to C, then back to A, then D, then B, then A again, and so on. All the while I was returning patient calls. Wash, rinse, repeat.

At some point I dialed my wife to see how she was doing and she gave me a list of last-minute things she needed picked up (which included some dairy products and more Christmas lights for her tree). I found a small store that was still open. For the rest of my day on call a grocery bag full of dairy products was carried from hospital to hospital with me, being put in the doctor’s lounge refrigerator with my name on it (this is Phoenix, even in winter you can’t leave it in the car). This added another trip from C back to A when I realized I’d left the groceries there.

I got home a few minutes before my family came over, after 14-15 hours of driving between hospitals. I was putting up the new lights when they came in. Fortunately I wasn’t called back in that night, and turned things over to my call partners in the morning.

Now? Since early 2020 my hospital days are behind me. My kids have their own lives, jobs, and school, but still all came over to see us.

I didn’t have to leave the house. I spent most of the day in a robe and pajamas, working at my desk on this and that, sometimes wandering to another table to futz with my current jigsaw puzzle or chat with my kids or go soak in my hot tub.

In 1998 I weighed 50 pounds less (still working on losing it), had no kids, or dogs. Now I’m in another house, have three grown kids, and in the interim have enjoyed seven awesome dogs (currently only one). My wife still invited my family over for Christmas dinner, but now it’s my mom and uncle. My dad and aunt are gone.

The changes are mostly good, though, as with all passages of time there is sadness and loss. When all is said and done I wouldn’t have done much differently even if I could.

I’m lucky, and I know it. Regardless of what you celebrate, it’s a good time to take stock of your blessings. To quote Sheryl Crow, “It’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.”

Happy New Year to all.
 

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

Christmas, like New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving, birthdays, and anniversaries, is one of those times that we use to mark where we were and how far we’ve come.

I’m in a mixed marriage, so we celebrate both Hanukkah and Christmas. Twenty-five years ago I was a newly minted attending neurologist, not even 6 months out of fellowship.

My wife was pregnant with our first child and had invited my Jewish family over for Christmas dinner. This was our first December in our first house and she wanted to do something special for them.

Being the low person on the totem pole, it was my first Christmas on call, covering for myself and two other neurologists.

So I was driving. A lot. My wife was on her own to get things ready, and I was hoping to be home for dinner.

It was, as always seems to be the case with holidays, quite busy. I was up long before dawn to start, driving a circular route to cover four hospitals scattered around Phoenix. At least the roads were empty.

At some point the planned pattern breaks down as new consults and urgent patient status changes happen. You try to start by going from A to B to C to D for rounds, but within a few hours I was going from A to B to C, then back to A, then D, then B, then A again, and so on. All the while I was returning patient calls. Wash, rinse, repeat.

At some point I dialed my wife to see how she was doing and she gave me a list of last-minute things she needed picked up (which included some dairy products and more Christmas lights for her tree). I found a small store that was still open. For the rest of my day on call a grocery bag full of dairy products was carried from hospital to hospital with me, being put in the doctor’s lounge refrigerator with my name on it (this is Phoenix, even in winter you can’t leave it in the car). This added another trip from C back to A when I realized I’d left the groceries there.

I got home a few minutes before my family came over, after 14-15 hours of driving between hospitals. I was putting up the new lights when they came in. Fortunately I wasn’t called back in that night, and turned things over to my call partners in the morning.

Now? Since early 2020 my hospital days are behind me. My kids have their own lives, jobs, and school, but still all came over to see us.

I didn’t have to leave the house. I spent most of the day in a robe and pajamas, working at my desk on this and that, sometimes wandering to another table to futz with my current jigsaw puzzle or chat with my kids or go soak in my hot tub.

In 1998 I weighed 50 pounds less (still working on losing it), had no kids, or dogs. Now I’m in another house, have three grown kids, and in the interim have enjoyed seven awesome dogs (currently only one). My wife still invited my family over for Christmas dinner, but now it’s my mom and uncle. My dad and aunt are gone.

The changes are mostly good, though, as with all passages of time there is sadness and loss. When all is said and done I wouldn’t have done much differently even if I could.

I’m lucky, and I know it. Regardless of what you celebrate, it’s a good time to take stock of your blessings. To quote Sheryl Crow, “It’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.”

Happy New Year to all.
 

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

Christmas, like New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving, birthdays, and anniversaries, is one of those times that we use to mark where we were and how far we’ve come.

I’m in a mixed marriage, so we celebrate both Hanukkah and Christmas. Twenty-five years ago I was a newly minted attending neurologist, not even 6 months out of fellowship.

My wife was pregnant with our first child and had invited my Jewish family over for Christmas dinner. This was our first December in our first house and she wanted to do something special for them.

Being the low person on the totem pole, it was my first Christmas on call, covering for myself and two other neurologists.

So I was driving. A lot. My wife was on her own to get things ready, and I was hoping to be home for dinner.

It was, as always seems to be the case with holidays, quite busy. I was up long before dawn to start, driving a circular route to cover four hospitals scattered around Phoenix. At least the roads were empty.

At some point the planned pattern breaks down as new consults and urgent patient status changes happen. You try to start by going from A to B to C to D for rounds, but within a few hours I was going from A to B to C, then back to A, then D, then B, then A again, and so on. All the while I was returning patient calls. Wash, rinse, repeat.

At some point I dialed my wife to see how she was doing and she gave me a list of last-minute things she needed picked up (which included some dairy products and more Christmas lights for her tree). I found a small store that was still open. For the rest of my day on call a grocery bag full of dairy products was carried from hospital to hospital with me, being put in the doctor’s lounge refrigerator with my name on it (this is Phoenix, even in winter you can’t leave it in the car). This added another trip from C back to A when I realized I’d left the groceries there.

I got home a few minutes before my family came over, after 14-15 hours of driving between hospitals. I was putting up the new lights when they came in. Fortunately I wasn’t called back in that night, and turned things over to my call partners in the morning.

Now? Since early 2020 my hospital days are behind me. My kids have their own lives, jobs, and school, but still all came over to see us.

I didn’t have to leave the house. I spent most of the day in a robe and pajamas, working at my desk on this and that, sometimes wandering to another table to futz with my current jigsaw puzzle or chat with my kids or go soak in my hot tub.

In 1998 I weighed 50 pounds less (still working on losing it), had no kids, or dogs. Now I’m in another house, have three grown kids, and in the interim have enjoyed seven awesome dogs (currently only one). My wife still invited my family over for Christmas dinner, but now it’s my mom and uncle. My dad and aunt are gone.

The changes are mostly good, though, as with all passages of time there is sadness and loss. When all is said and done I wouldn’t have done much differently even if I could.

I’m lucky, and I know it. Regardless of what you celebrate, it’s a good time to take stock of your blessings. To quote Sheryl Crow, “It’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.”

Happy New Year to all.
 

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

People are surprised when they learn I was an art history major in college. Most folks assume I had majored in biology or chemistry. Their assumption was based on strong odds. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that nearly half of all physicians practicing in this country were biology majors.

I headed off to college clueless about my future. I was hoping to succeed as a walk-on to the football team and beyond that I figured someone or something would guide me toward a career. Had you asked me, “physician” it would have been a definite “Never.”

I flirted with a psychology major, but after a semester I realized that the department was more interested in the behavior of rats rather than humans. I got an “easy A” in the intro to art history and that was the open door I was looking for.

By my senior year I was applying for fellowships to study in faraway places. However, the world situation in 1965 was unsettling for a young man in this country. I had had a strong high school science education and had continued to take a some science courses. Fortunately, I had banked just enough credits so that I could apply to medical school, again without really planning to become a physician.

Even during the sharpest turns in my circuitous path to becoming a small town pediatrician, including a year doing research in exercise physiology in Denmark, I never once regretted my years spent studying art history. I credit them with making me a more sensitive observer.

You can probably understand why I was intrigued by an article I recently read that described a program in which the radiology residents that the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston take a year-long course in art history using the Art Museum at Harvard University as a resource. Titled “Seeing in Art and Medical Imaging,” the program is now 6 years old. Hyewon Hyun, MD, a radiologist and one of its cofounders, observes that “art is the starting point for in-depth conversations about medicine, humanity, and different ways of seeing the world.”

Radiology and dermatology are obviously the two specialties in which the physician relies most heavily on his or her powers of observation. However, every doctor can benefit from learning to really “see” what they are looking at. Looking and seeing are two very different activities. There is obviously the forest-from the-trees phenomenon. Can the physician in a hurried clinical situation muster up the discipline to shift focus back and forth from the lesion or painful body part to the entire patient and beyond? How is the parent responding to the child’s discomfort? How are they dressed? Does this wider view suggest some additional questions to ask that may help you understand how this patient or family will be able to cope with diagnosis or follow up with your treatment plan?

The art historian sees every object in its historical context. What has come before? How have the societal conditions influenced the artist choice of subject and use of materials? How has his or her emotions at the time of creation influenced his or her style? The astute physician must likewise see the patients and their complaints in the broader context of their emotional health and socioeconomic situation. This requires sensitive listening and careful observation.

One doesn’t have to major in art history or spend years roaming through the sometimes dark and dusty halls of the world’s museums to progress from being one who simply looks to a person who really sees the environment and its inhabitants. It is really a state of mind and a commitment to improvement.

As physicians, we often complain or sometimes brag about how many patients we “see” in a day. I fear that too often we mean “looked at.” How frequently did we make the effort to really see the patient?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

People are surprised when they learn I was an art history major in college. Most folks assume I had majored in biology or chemistry. Their assumption was based on strong odds. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that nearly half of all physicians practicing in this country were biology majors.

I headed off to college clueless about my future. I was hoping to succeed as a walk-on to the football team and beyond that I figured someone or something would guide me toward a career. Had you asked me, “physician” it would have been a definite “Never.”

I flirted with a psychology major, but after a semester I realized that the department was more interested in the behavior of rats rather than humans. I got an “easy A” in the intro to art history and that was the open door I was looking for.

By my senior year I was applying for fellowships to study in faraway places. However, the world situation in 1965 was unsettling for a young man in this country. I had had a strong high school science education and had continued to take a some science courses. Fortunately, I had banked just enough credits so that I could apply to medical school, again without really planning to become a physician.

Even during the sharpest turns in my circuitous path to becoming a small town pediatrician, including a year doing research in exercise physiology in Denmark, I never once regretted my years spent studying art history. I credit them with making me a more sensitive observer.

You can probably understand why I was intrigued by an article I recently read that described a program in which the radiology residents that the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston take a year-long course in art history using the Art Museum at Harvard University as a resource. Titled “Seeing in Art and Medical Imaging,” the program is now 6 years old. Hyewon Hyun, MD, a radiologist and one of its cofounders, observes that “art is the starting point for in-depth conversations about medicine, humanity, and different ways of seeing the world.”

Radiology and dermatology are obviously the two specialties in which the physician relies most heavily on his or her powers of observation. However, every doctor can benefit from learning to really “see” what they are looking at. Looking and seeing are two very different activities. There is obviously the forest-from the-trees phenomenon. Can the physician in a hurried clinical situation muster up the discipline to shift focus back and forth from the lesion or painful body part to the entire patient and beyond? How is the parent responding to the child’s discomfort? How are they dressed? Does this wider view suggest some additional questions to ask that may help you understand how this patient or family will be able to cope with diagnosis or follow up with your treatment plan?

The art historian sees every object in its historical context. What has come before? How have the societal conditions influenced the artist choice of subject and use of materials? How has his or her emotions at the time of creation influenced his or her style? The astute physician must likewise see the patients and their complaints in the broader context of their emotional health and socioeconomic situation. This requires sensitive listening and careful observation.

One doesn’t have to major in art history or spend years roaming through the sometimes dark and dusty halls of the world’s museums to progress from being one who simply looks to a person who really sees the environment and its inhabitants. It is really a state of mind and a commitment to improvement.

As physicians, we often complain or sometimes brag about how many patients we “see” in a day. I fear that too often we mean “looked at.” How frequently did we make the effort to really see the patient?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

People are surprised when they learn I was an art history major in college. Most folks assume I had majored in biology or chemistry. Their assumption was based on strong odds. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that nearly half of all physicians practicing in this country were biology majors.

I headed off to college clueless about my future. I was hoping to succeed as a walk-on to the football team and beyond that I figured someone or something would guide me toward a career. Had you asked me, “physician” it would have been a definite “Never.”

I flirted with a psychology major, but after a semester I realized that the department was more interested in the behavior of rats rather than humans. I got an “easy A” in the intro to art history and that was the open door I was looking for.

By my senior year I was applying for fellowships to study in faraway places. However, the world situation in 1965 was unsettling for a young man in this country. I had had a strong high school science education and had continued to take a some science courses. Fortunately, I had banked just enough credits so that I could apply to medical school, again without really planning to become a physician.

Even during the sharpest turns in my circuitous path to becoming a small town pediatrician, including a year doing research in exercise physiology in Denmark, I never once regretted my years spent studying art history. I credit them with making me a more sensitive observer.

You can probably understand why I was intrigued by an article I recently read that described a program in which the radiology residents that the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston take a year-long course in art history using the Art Museum at Harvard University as a resource. Titled “Seeing in Art and Medical Imaging,” the program is now 6 years old. Hyewon Hyun, MD, a radiologist and one of its cofounders, observes that “art is the starting point for in-depth conversations about medicine, humanity, and different ways of seeing the world.”

Radiology and dermatology are obviously the two specialties in which the physician relies most heavily on his or her powers of observation. However, every doctor can benefit from learning to really “see” what they are looking at. Looking and seeing are two very different activities. There is obviously the forest-from the-trees phenomenon. Can the physician in a hurried clinical situation muster up the discipline to shift focus back and forth from the lesion or painful body part to the entire patient and beyond? How is the parent responding to the child’s discomfort? How are they dressed? Does this wider view suggest some additional questions to ask that may help you understand how this patient or family will be able to cope with diagnosis or follow up with your treatment plan?

The art historian sees every object in its historical context. What has come before? How have the societal conditions influenced the artist choice of subject and use of materials? How has his or her emotions at the time of creation influenced his or her style? The astute physician must likewise see the patients and their complaints in the broader context of their emotional health and socioeconomic situation. This requires sensitive listening and careful observation.

One doesn’t have to major in art history or spend years roaming through the sometimes dark and dusty halls of the world’s museums to progress from being one who simply looks to a person who really sees the environment and its inhabitants. It is really a state of mind and a commitment to improvement.

As physicians, we often complain or sometimes brag about how many patients we “see” in a day. I fear that too often we mean “looked at.” How frequently did we make the effort to really see the patient?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

Until relatively recently, becoming a physician was a process in which the student began as an apprentice to an already skilled clinician. Eventually, both university- and hospital-based schools became part of the process, but an apprenticeship component persisted. In 1910, with the release of the Flexner Report, medical education here in the United States was revolutionized with a shift toward a more academic and scientific model already in use in Europe. While the path to becoming a physician grew more rigorous and science based when the students moved from the classroom and laboratory to the clinic and bedside, the process necessarily returned to its old one-on-one mentor-learner roots.

The venerable maxim of “See one — Do one — Teach one” that dominated my residency may still occasionally be whispered in the quiet corners of teaching hospitals, but I suspect concerns about risk management have discouraged its frequent application in hands-on situations. The development of artificial intelligence–driven mannequins may have finally relegated this remnant of an old cowboy (and girl) procedure-acquisition strategy to the dusty closet of medical education history.

However, when it comes to non–procedure based learning in clinic and hospital settings, the process continues to be one in which the inexperienced are expected to learn by observing their more experienced (sometimes only slightly more experienced) mentors. There may be some mini “lectures” on the fly during rounds explaining the rationale behind what the learner is observing, but “teaching” is still dominated by “Watch this — Try it when it’s your turn — Then we’ll tell you how you did.”

A recent survey in the journal Hospital Pediatrics reviewed in AAP News suggests that there is a problem with feedback, the final step in this three-step process. The investigators surveyed 52 residents and 21 fellows using a scale developed for industrial applications and found that, with the exception of delivery, the fellows scored better than residents in the feedback process. In interviews with a small subgroup of eight residents, the researchers learned that the two consistent impediments to obtaining feedback were 1) that the hectic pace of patient care placed a limit on opportunities (not surprising) and 2) a culture emphasizing “a positive, nurturing environment may have led physicians to avoid giving constructive criticism because it might hurt resident’s feelings.”

I have a friend who has held human resource (HR) positions in two good-sized teaching hospital systems. He certainly agrees with the time limitations component. He has also been involved in several cases in which trainees have accused senior physicians of harassment and unprofessional behavior because learners took issue with the manner in which they had been given feedback on their performance. One wonders if the institution(s) surveyed in this recent study had already experienced similar cases of discontent and have reacted by being so polite that feedback now lacks a feel of authenticity. This was a very small study, and it is hard to know how applicable the findings would be in a national sample, but I suspect there are more than a few teaching institutions in which kid gloves have become fashionable attire.

As my friend pointed out to me, substantial “generational differences” exist in many work places. Different generations may hold competing value systems when it comes to how feedback should be, and should not be, delivered.

None of us were trained in how to deliver a performance evaluation and feedback regardless of whether it was with one or two rushed sentences on a sprint from room to room on morning rounds or a more relaxed sit-down at the end of a rotation. We tend to lean on our own experiences of receiving feedback from our parents, from coaches, and most often from the models we observed as we came up through the hierarchy of medical training.

Feedback is a tightrope we must all walk along, and we must be acutely aware of the background and expectations of the recipients of well-meaning constructive criticism. I found it refreshing to learn that at least one small population of the trainees may be willing, and even eager, to receive honest feedback even though it sometimes may come with a hard edge.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Until relatively recently, becoming a physician was a process in which the student began as an apprentice to an already skilled clinician. Eventually, both university- and hospital-based schools became part of the process, but an apprenticeship component persisted. In 1910, with the release of the Flexner Report, medical education here in the United States was revolutionized with a shift toward a more academic and scientific model already in use in Europe. While the path to becoming a physician grew more rigorous and science based when the students moved from the classroom and laboratory to the clinic and bedside, the process necessarily returned to its old one-on-one mentor-learner roots.

The venerable maxim of “See one — Do one — Teach one” that dominated my residency may still occasionally be whispered in the quiet corners of teaching hospitals, but I suspect concerns about risk management have discouraged its frequent application in hands-on situations. The development of artificial intelligence–driven mannequins may have finally relegated this remnant of an old cowboy (and girl) procedure-acquisition strategy to the dusty closet of medical education history.

However, when it comes to non–procedure based learning in clinic and hospital settings, the process continues to be one in which the inexperienced are expected to learn by observing their more experienced (sometimes only slightly more experienced) mentors. There may be some mini “lectures” on the fly during rounds explaining the rationale behind what the learner is observing, but “teaching” is still dominated by “Watch this — Try it when it’s your turn — Then we’ll tell you how you did.”

A recent survey in the journal Hospital Pediatrics reviewed in AAP News suggests that there is a problem with feedback, the final step in this three-step process. The investigators surveyed 52 residents and 21 fellows using a scale developed for industrial applications and found that, with the exception of delivery, the fellows scored better than residents in the feedback process. In interviews with a small subgroup of eight residents, the researchers learned that the two consistent impediments to obtaining feedback were 1) that the hectic pace of patient care placed a limit on opportunities (not surprising) and 2) a culture emphasizing “a positive, nurturing environment may have led physicians to avoid giving constructive criticism because it might hurt resident’s feelings.”

I have a friend who has held human resource (HR) positions in two good-sized teaching hospital systems. He certainly agrees with the time limitations component. He has also been involved in several cases in which trainees have accused senior physicians of harassment and unprofessional behavior because learners took issue with the manner in which they had been given feedback on their performance. One wonders if the institution(s) surveyed in this recent study had already experienced similar cases of discontent and have reacted by being so polite that feedback now lacks a feel of authenticity. This was a very small study, and it is hard to know how applicable the findings would be in a national sample, but I suspect there are more than a few teaching institutions in which kid gloves have become fashionable attire.

As my friend pointed out to me, substantial “generational differences” exist in many work places. Different generations may hold competing value systems when it comes to how feedback should be, and should not be, delivered.

None of us were trained in how to deliver a performance evaluation and feedback regardless of whether it was with one or two rushed sentences on a sprint from room to room on morning rounds or a more relaxed sit-down at the end of a rotation. We tend to lean on our own experiences of receiving feedback from our parents, from coaches, and most often from the models we observed as we came up through the hierarchy of medical training.

Feedback is a tightrope we must all walk along, and we must be acutely aware of the background and expectations of the recipients of well-meaning constructive criticism. I found it refreshing to learn that at least one small population of the trainees may be willing, and even eager, to receive honest feedback even though it sometimes may come with a hard edge.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Until relatively recently, becoming a physician was a process in which the student began as an apprentice to an already skilled clinician. Eventually, both university- and hospital-based schools became part of the process, but an apprenticeship component persisted. In 1910, with the release of the Flexner Report, medical education here in the United States was revolutionized with a shift toward a more academic and scientific model already in use in Europe. While the path to becoming a physician grew more rigorous and science based when the students moved from the classroom and laboratory to the clinic and bedside, the process necessarily returned to its old one-on-one mentor-learner roots.

The venerable maxim of “See one — Do one — Teach one” that dominated my residency may still occasionally be whispered in the quiet corners of teaching hospitals, but I suspect concerns about risk management have discouraged its frequent application in hands-on situations. The development of artificial intelligence–driven mannequins may have finally relegated this remnant of an old cowboy (and girl) procedure-acquisition strategy to the dusty closet of medical education history.

However, when it comes to non–procedure based learning in clinic and hospital settings, the process continues to be one in which the inexperienced are expected to learn by observing their more experienced (sometimes only slightly more experienced) mentors. There may be some mini “lectures” on the fly during rounds explaining the rationale behind what the learner is observing, but “teaching” is still dominated by “Watch this — Try it when it’s your turn — Then we’ll tell you how you did.”

A recent survey in the journal Hospital Pediatrics reviewed in AAP News suggests that there is a problem with feedback, the final step in this three-step process. The investigators surveyed 52 residents and 21 fellows using a scale developed for industrial applications and found that, with the exception of delivery, the fellows scored better than residents in the feedback process. In interviews with a small subgroup of eight residents, the researchers learned that the two consistent impediments to obtaining feedback were 1) that the hectic pace of patient care placed a limit on opportunities (not surprising) and 2) a culture emphasizing “a positive, nurturing environment may have led physicians to avoid giving constructive criticism because it might hurt resident’s feelings.”

I have a friend who has held human resource (HR) positions in two good-sized teaching hospital systems. He certainly agrees with the time limitations component. He has also been involved in several cases in which trainees have accused senior physicians of harassment and unprofessional behavior because learners took issue with the manner in which they had been given feedback on their performance. One wonders if the institution(s) surveyed in this recent study had already experienced similar cases of discontent and have reacted by being so polite that feedback now lacks a feel of authenticity. This was a very small study, and it is hard to know how applicable the findings would be in a national sample, but I suspect there are more than a few teaching institutions in which kid gloves have become fashionable attire.

As my friend pointed out to me, substantial “generational differences” exist in many work places. Different generations may hold competing value systems when it comes to how feedback should be, and should not be, delivered.

None of us were trained in how to deliver a performance evaluation and feedback regardless of whether it was with one or two rushed sentences on a sprint from room to room on morning rounds or a more relaxed sit-down at the end of a rotation. We tend to lean on our own experiences of receiving feedback from our parents, from coaches, and most often from the models we observed as we came up through the hierarchy of medical training.

Feedback is a tightrope we must all walk along, and we must be acutely aware of the background and expectations of the recipients of well-meaning constructive criticism. I found it refreshing to learn that at least one small population of the trainees may be willing, and even eager, to receive honest feedback even though it sometimes may come with a hard edge.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent Reuters article reported that the manufacturer of the leading antiobesity medication semaglutide (Wegovy) “showers money on U.S. obesity doctors.”

Hello. I’d like to be showered.

According to the article, Novo Nordisk, Wegovy/Ozempic manufacturer, paid medical professionals $25.8 million in “fees and expenses” over a decade.

I think all doctors — who spend a decade of their life in training only to emerge with thousands of dollars in debt — would like to be similarly compensated for their expertise.

Yet, many of us forgo lucrative private practices or industry jobs to work at academic medical centers because we wish to pursue our original mission: To provide the best patient care possible.

Fulfilling this mission in today’s “sickcare” system means being more than a clinician. We become researchers, educators, advocates, mentors, consultants, and advisors. We do so because the system compels us to find other ways to provide quality health care, outside of clinic walls. These ways often include:

• Educating the public through media, social media, or community events.
• Training students, residents, and fellows on the latest medical knowledge.
• Advising industry innovators and entrepreneurs who seek our expertise.

Personally, I engaged in these activities because working 8-5 seeing 20 patients a day wasn’t enough. I wanted to help more people, more quickly. When I was faced with these opportunities, I was excited to say “yes” and never thought to ask for compensation because I didn’t want to seem ungrateful.

Eventually, I learned to ask for compensation.

And then I learned to decide my value.

The Reuters article reports that obesity medicine experts Drs. Lee Kaplan, Donna Ryan, Ania Jastreboff, and Jamy Ard were paid thousands of dollars in consulting fees over a decade. This industry-to-physician relationship should be celebrated because:

• Industries should consult experts in the field.
• These leaders have dedicated decades of their lives to understanding and solving the obesity epidemic.
• This collaboration has resulted in a therapeutic option that is changing lives. 

If there is anything to criticize, it should be:

• The expectation that medical expertise should be free.Wegovy’s manufacturer is worth $403 billion, and the experts are valued at less than 0.1% of that figure.
• The lack of context.
• Some celebrity doctors can earn $300,000 in just one consult. Other medical or surgical specialties are valued at 100 times more than obesity specialists. 
• The false dichotomy.
• Just because money is involved, it doesn’t mean the product is invalid.

Industry and physician relationships have long been examined. Such financial relationships are always disclosed (eg, at conferences, in publications). The Sunshine Act of 2010 and Open Payments provide the necessary transparency for people to decide for themselves whether there were financial incentives or potential conflicts of interest.

We should also take it a step further and ask ourselves: Do conflicts of interest require us to dismiss the end result? In other words, just because the pharmaceutical industry pays these doctors for their time and expertise, does that mean their life’s work is wrong, or that the drug isn’t effective?

In the case of obesity, Wegovy speaks for itself. Remember that the manufacturer stopped advertising. When a disease finally has a treatment, it does not need promoters or salespersons. Just speak to any person with obesity.

Ultimately, I see three main takeaways from Reuters’ reporting:

• The weight loss industry needs more obesity medicine experts. 
• We should value ourselves more.
• When people with resources work with people who have the commitment, knowledge, and experience, we can find a solution that saves lives. 

Dr. Tchang received $5525 in 2022 in consulting fees from Novo Nordisk. She plans to ask for more. She also disclosed ties with Gelesis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent Reuters article reported that the manufacturer of the leading antiobesity medication semaglutide (Wegovy) “showers money on U.S. obesity doctors.”

Hello. I’d like to be showered.

According to the article, Novo Nordisk, Wegovy/Ozempic manufacturer, paid medical professionals $25.8 million in “fees and expenses” over a decade.

I think all doctors — who spend a decade of their life in training only to emerge with thousands of dollars in debt — would like to be similarly compensated for their expertise.

Yet, many of us forgo lucrative private practices or industry jobs to work at academic medical centers because we wish to pursue our original mission: To provide the best patient care possible.

Fulfilling this mission in today’s “sickcare” system means being more than a clinician. We become researchers, educators, advocates, mentors, consultants, and advisors. We do so because the system compels us to find other ways to provide quality health care, outside of clinic walls. These ways often include:

• Educating the public through media, social media, or community events.
• Training students, residents, and fellows on the latest medical knowledge.
• Advising industry innovators and entrepreneurs who seek our expertise.

Personally, I engaged in these activities because working 8-5 seeing 20 patients a day wasn’t enough. I wanted to help more people, more quickly. When I was faced with these opportunities, I was excited to say “yes” and never thought to ask for compensation because I didn’t want to seem ungrateful.

Eventually, I learned to ask for compensation.

And then I learned to decide my value.

The Reuters article reports that obesity medicine experts Drs. Lee Kaplan, Donna Ryan, Ania Jastreboff, and Jamy Ard were paid thousands of dollars in consulting fees over a decade. This industry-to-physician relationship should be celebrated because:

• Industries should consult experts in the field.
• These leaders have dedicated decades of their lives to understanding and solving the obesity epidemic.
• This collaboration has resulted in a therapeutic option that is changing lives. 

If there is anything to criticize, it should be:

• The expectation that medical expertise should be free.Wegovy’s manufacturer is worth $403 billion, and the experts are valued at less than 0.1% of that figure.
• The lack of context.
• Some celebrity doctors can earn $300,000 in just one consult. Other medical or surgical specialties are valued at 100 times more than obesity specialists. 
• The false dichotomy.
• Just because money is involved, it doesn’t mean the product is invalid.

Industry and physician relationships have long been examined. Such financial relationships are always disclosed (eg, at conferences, in publications). The Sunshine Act of 2010 and Open Payments provide the necessary transparency for people to decide for themselves whether there were financial incentives or potential conflicts of interest.

We should also take it a step further and ask ourselves: Do conflicts of interest require us to dismiss the end result? In other words, just because the pharmaceutical industry pays these doctors for their time and expertise, does that mean their life’s work is wrong, or that the drug isn’t effective?

In the case of obesity, Wegovy speaks for itself. Remember that the manufacturer stopped advertising. When a disease finally has a treatment, it does not need promoters or salespersons. Just speak to any person with obesity.

Ultimately, I see three main takeaways from Reuters’ reporting:

• The weight loss industry needs more obesity medicine experts. 
• We should value ourselves more.
• When people with resources work with people who have the commitment, knowledge, and experience, we can find a solution that saves lives. 

Dr. Tchang received $5525 in 2022 in consulting fees from Novo Nordisk. She plans to ask for more. She also disclosed ties with Gelesis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent Reuters article reported that the manufacturer of the leading antiobesity medication semaglutide (Wegovy) “showers money on U.S. obesity doctors.”

Hello. I’d like to be showered.

According to the article, Novo Nordisk, Wegovy/Ozempic manufacturer, paid medical professionals $25.8 million in “fees and expenses” over a decade.

I think all doctors — who spend a decade of their life in training only to emerge with thousands of dollars in debt — would like to be similarly compensated for their expertise.

Yet, many of us forgo lucrative private practices or industry jobs to work at academic medical centers because we wish to pursue our original mission: To provide the best patient care possible.

Fulfilling this mission in today’s “sickcare” system means being more than a clinician. We become researchers, educators, advocates, mentors, consultants, and advisors. We do so because the system compels us to find other ways to provide quality health care, outside of clinic walls. These ways often include:

• Educating the public through media, social media, or community events.
• Training students, residents, and fellows on the latest medical knowledge.
• Advising industry innovators and entrepreneurs who seek our expertise.

Personally, I engaged in these activities because working 8-5 seeing 20 patients a day wasn’t enough. I wanted to help more people, more quickly. When I was faced with these opportunities, I was excited to say “yes” and never thought to ask for compensation because I didn’t want to seem ungrateful.

Eventually, I learned to ask for compensation.

And then I learned to decide my value.

The Reuters article reports that obesity medicine experts Drs. Lee Kaplan, Donna Ryan, Ania Jastreboff, and Jamy Ard were paid thousands of dollars in consulting fees over a decade. This industry-to-physician relationship should be celebrated because:

• Industries should consult experts in the field.
• These leaders have dedicated decades of their lives to understanding and solving the obesity epidemic.
• This collaboration has resulted in a therapeutic option that is changing lives. 

If there is anything to criticize, it should be:

• The expectation that medical expertise should be free.Wegovy’s manufacturer is worth $403 billion, and the experts are valued at less than 0.1% of that figure.
• The lack of context.
• Some celebrity doctors can earn $300,000 in just one consult. Other medical or surgical specialties are valued at 100 times more than obesity specialists. 
• The false dichotomy.
• Just because money is involved, it doesn’t mean the product is invalid.

Industry and physician relationships have long been examined. Such financial relationships are always disclosed (eg, at conferences, in publications). The Sunshine Act of 2010 and Open Payments provide the necessary transparency for people to decide for themselves whether there were financial incentives or potential conflicts of interest.

We should also take it a step further and ask ourselves: Do conflicts of interest require us to dismiss the end result? In other words, just because the pharmaceutical industry pays these doctors for their time and expertise, does that mean their life’s work is wrong, or that the drug isn’t effective?

In the case of obesity, Wegovy speaks for itself. Remember that the manufacturer stopped advertising. When a disease finally has a treatment, it does not need promoters or salespersons. Just speak to any person with obesity.

Ultimately, I see three main takeaways from Reuters’ reporting:

• The weight loss industry needs more obesity medicine experts. 
• We should value ourselves more.
• When people with resources work with people who have the commitment, knowledge, and experience, we can find a solution that saves lives. 

Dr. Tchang received $5525 in 2022 in consulting fees from Novo Nordisk. She plans to ask for more. She also disclosed ties with Gelesis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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