Business of Medicine

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

In the last 3 months I’ve had an odd uptick in calls for foot-drop. Some of them said they’d seen other neurologists and were hoping I could help them, others that they wanted to see a specialist in foot-drop. Most called in, a few even showed up at the office wanting to be seen that day.

Now, I have nothing against seeing patients with foot-drop. It’s a relatively common issue in my field. But I’ve never claimed to be a “specialist” in foot-drop. I don’t even do my own EMG/NCVs anymore, except for the occasional carpal tunnel syndrome case.

So where were all these people coming from?

All of them had previously seen good neurologists, had the correct work-up, diagnoses, and treatment, but just hadn’t had the outcome they wanted. Now they were showing up at my little office, telling my staff that I was their last hope.

All of them had the common thread that they weren’t sent by my regular referral base. Instead, they found me on “the Internet.” Of course, none remembered where. This isn’t easy, as there are hundreds of physician listing and review sites out there. But, because of the number of calls, and the abuse that my staff and I were getting when people found out I wasn’t some magical foot-drop guru, I decided to try to find out.

After a few days of searching in my spare time, I finally had it. A site called MediFind lists me as being “advanced” in treating foot-drop, to the extent that it’s at the top of my “Areas of Expertise.” The site also says I handle “Autosomal Dominant Partial Epilepsy with Auditory Features” (no, I don’t. Try the epilepsy centers in town), “Familial Neurocardiogenic Syncope” (no), and narcolepsy (definitely not, try a sleep specialist).

I have no affiliation with MediFind. In fact, I’d never heard of them until I began tracking down this issue. How they came to have such incorrect information about me I don’t know, perhaps pulled from insurance billing data, or patient reviews, or a Magic 8 Ball.

But the foot-drop issue had, oddly, become a problem. My staff was having to tell people who called in with it that I wanted to see their previous neurology records so I didn’t waste their time. People being told I wasn’t some Ivory Tower foot-dropologist often became abusive and nasty, something I won’t tolerate (5 years ago this was rarely a problem, now it’s frighteningly common). People who made it as far as seeing me (a few when this began) were livid when I looked through their records and said I had nothing to offer that their previous neurologist(s) hadn’t done. I was accused of false advertising, misrepresenting myself, etc, even though I had nothing to do with why MediFind put that up.

So I wrote to MediFind, using the email info on their page. I told them I didn’t specialize in foot-drop, and didn’t even handle several of the other conditions on their page. I asked them to take those things out, or (preferably) simply delete my listing from their site.

I got an automated reply thanking me for writing to them and saying their team would look into it. That was almost a month ago. I haven’t heard back, and the listing is, as of this writing, still up.

Like the “once in, never out” issue with a wrong diagnosis in the EMR, erroneous professional information on the Internet probably isn’t going to go away. The computer algorithms that create such listings have no interest in correcting their errors, and so the frustration for these patients, my staff, and myself, is going to continue for a while. It’s a waste of time for them and us.

And, as this point, I doubt there’s much I can do about it.
 

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

In the last 3 months I’ve had an odd uptick in calls for foot-drop. Some of them said they’d seen other neurologists and were hoping I could help them, others that they wanted to see a specialist in foot-drop. Most called in, a few even showed up at the office wanting to be seen that day.

Now, I have nothing against seeing patients with foot-drop. It’s a relatively common issue in my field. But I’ve never claimed to be a “specialist” in foot-drop. I don’t even do my own EMG/NCVs anymore, except for the occasional carpal tunnel syndrome case.

So where were all these people coming from?

All of them had previously seen good neurologists, had the correct work-up, diagnoses, and treatment, but just hadn’t had the outcome they wanted. Now they were showing up at my little office, telling my staff that I was their last hope.

All of them had the common thread that they weren’t sent by my regular referral base. Instead, they found me on “the Internet.” Of course, none remembered where. This isn’t easy, as there are hundreds of physician listing and review sites out there. But, because of the number of calls, and the abuse that my staff and I were getting when people found out I wasn’t some magical foot-drop guru, I decided to try to find out.

After a few days of searching in my spare time, I finally had it. A site called MediFind lists me as being “advanced” in treating foot-drop, to the extent that it’s at the top of my “Areas of Expertise.” The site also says I handle “Autosomal Dominant Partial Epilepsy with Auditory Features” (no, I don’t. Try the epilepsy centers in town), “Familial Neurocardiogenic Syncope” (no), and narcolepsy (definitely not, try a sleep specialist).

I have no affiliation with MediFind. In fact, I’d never heard of them until I began tracking down this issue. How they came to have such incorrect information about me I don’t know, perhaps pulled from insurance billing data, or patient reviews, or a Magic 8 Ball.

But the foot-drop issue had, oddly, become a problem. My staff was having to tell people who called in with it that I wanted to see their previous neurology records so I didn’t waste their time. People being told I wasn’t some Ivory Tower foot-dropologist often became abusive and nasty, something I won’t tolerate (5 years ago this was rarely a problem, now it’s frighteningly common). People who made it as far as seeing me (a few when this began) were livid when I looked through their records and said I had nothing to offer that their previous neurologist(s) hadn’t done. I was accused of false advertising, misrepresenting myself, etc, even though I had nothing to do with why MediFind put that up.

So I wrote to MediFind, using the email info on their page. I told them I didn’t specialize in foot-drop, and didn’t even handle several of the other conditions on their page. I asked them to take those things out, or (preferably) simply delete my listing from their site.

I got an automated reply thanking me for writing to them and saying their team would look into it. That was almost a month ago. I haven’t heard back, and the listing is, as of this writing, still up.

Like the “once in, never out” issue with a wrong diagnosis in the EMR, erroneous professional information on the Internet probably isn’t going to go away. The computer algorithms that create such listings have no interest in correcting their errors, and so the frustration for these patients, my staff, and myself, is going to continue for a while. It’s a waste of time for them and us.

And, as this point, I doubt there’s much I can do about it.
 

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

In the last 3 months I’ve had an odd uptick in calls for foot-drop. Some of them said they’d seen other neurologists and were hoping I could help them, others that they wanted to see a specialist in foot-drop. Most called in, a few even showed up at the office wanting to be seen that day.

Now, I have nothing against seeing patients with foot-drop. It’s a relatively common issue in my field. But I’ve never claimed to be a “specialist” in foot-drop. I don’t even do my own EMG/NCVs anymore, except for the occasional carpal tunnel syndrome case.

So where were all these people coming from?

All of them had previously seen good neurologists, had the correct work-up, diagnoses, and treatment, but just hadn’t had the outcome they wanted. Now they were showing up at my little office, telling my staff that I was their last hope.

All of them had the common thread that they weren’t sent by my regular referral base. Instead, they found me on “the Internet.” Of course, none remembered where. This isn’t easy, as there are hundreds of physician listing and review sites out there. But, because of the number of calls, and the abuse that my staff and I were getting when people found out I wasn’t some magical foot-drop guru, I decided to try to find out.

After a few days of searching in my spare time, I finally had it. A site called MediFind lists me as being “advanced” in treating foot-drop, to the extent that it’s at the top of my “Areas of Expertise.” The site also says I handle “Autosomal Dominant Partial Epilepsy with Auditory Features” (no, I don’t. Try the epilepsy centers in town), “Familial Neurocardiogenic Syncope” (no), and narcolepsy (definitely not, try a sleep specialist).

I have no affiliation with MediFind. In fact, I’d never heard of them until I began tracking down this issue. How they came to have such incorrect information about me I don’t know, perhaps pulled from insurance billing data, or patient reviews, or a Magic 8 Ball.

But the foot-drop issue had, oddly, become a problem. My staff was having to tell people who called in with it that I wanted to see their previous neurology records so I didn’t waste their time. People being told I wasn’t some Ivory Tower foot-dropologist often became abusive and nasty, something I won’t tolerate (5 years ago this was rarely a problem, now it’s frighteningly common). People who made it as far as seeing me (a few when this began) were livid when I looked through their records and said I had nothing to offer that their previous neurologist(s) hadn’t done. I was accused of false advertising, misrepresenting myself, etc, even though I had nothing to do with why MediFind put that up.

So I wrote to MediFind, using the email info on their page. I told them I didn’t specialize in foot-drop, and didn’t even handle several of the other conditions on their page. I asked them to take those things out, or (preferably) simply delete my listing from their site.

I got an automated reply thanking me for writing to them and saying their team would look into it. That was almost a month ago. I haven’t heard back, and the listing is, as of this writing, still up.

Like the “once in, never out” issue with a wrong diagnosis in the EMR, erroneous professional information on the Internet probably isn’t going to go away. The computer algorithms that create such listings have no interest in correcting their errors, and so the frustration for these patients, my staff, and myself, is going to continue for a while. It’s a waste of time for them and us.

And, as this point, I doubt there’s much I can do about it.
 

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

Pediatric rheumatologists are calling a “Code (p)RED” — a pediatric rheumatology educational deficit.

There are too few pediatric rheumatologists to meet patient demand in the United States, and projections suggest that gap will continue to widen. Disappointing match trends also reflect issues with recruitment: Since 2019, only 50%-75% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions have been filled each year. For 2024, the subspecialty filled 32 of 52 positions.

University of Minnesota

Lack of exposure during medical school and residency, financial concerns, and a lengthy, research-focused fellowship are seen as major contributors to the workforce shortage, and novel solutions are needed to close the gap, experts argued in a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“It’s so important now to get ahead of this because what I’m afraid of is in 10-20 years, we’re not going to have a field,” Colleen Correll, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization.
 

Growing Demand, Falling Supply

Because the subspecialty was officially recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics in 1991, “it’s always been a small group of providers,” Dr. Correll said. “It’s honestly always been a recognized issue in our field.”

But a 2022 report by the ACR on the pediatric workforce has brought more attention to the issue. Dr. Correll led the study and is the chair of ACR›s Pediatric Rheumatology Committee. According to the report, an estimated 287 pediatric rheumatologists were working as full-time clinicians in 2015, while the estimated demand was 382 providers. By 2030, this projected supply of pediatric rheumatologists fell to 261, while demand rose to 461 full-time providers.

The distribution of pediatric rheumatologists is also an issue. It’s generally thought that there should be at least one pediatric rheumatologist per 100,000 children, Dr. Correll explained. According to ACR estimates, the northeast region had approximately 0.83 pediatric rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, while the south central and southwest regions had 0.17 and 0.20 providers per 100,000 children, respectively. Projected estimates for 2030 dipped to 0.04 or lower for the south central, southwest, and southeast regions.

A separate study from the American Board of Pediatrics, also led by Dr. Correll, that is still under review offered more optimistic projections, suggesting that there would be a 75% increase in pediatric rheumatologists from 0.27 per 100,000 children in 2020 to 0.47 per 100,000 children in 2040.

“This does look better than the ACR study, though 0.47 is still a really small number and an inadequate number to treat our children in need,” she said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Lack of Exposure During Medical Education

Few medical schools have pediatric rheumatology built into their curriculum, whether that is a whole course or a single lecture, said Jay Mehta, MD, who directs the pediatric rheumatology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mehta, for example, did not know that pediatric rheumatology was a field before entering residency, he said. But residencies can also lack exposure: An estimated one third of residencies do not have a single pediatric rheumatologist on staff, he said.

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

“Those are places where people aren’t necessarily getting exposure to pediatric rheumatology,” he told this news organization, “and we know that if you’re not exposed to a field, it’s very, very unlikely that you will go into that field.”

The ACR’s Pediatric Rheumatology Residency Program is one way that the organization is working to address this issue. The program sends pediatric residents with an interest in rheumatology to the ACR annual meeting. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also runs a visiting professorship program, where a pediatric rheumatologist conducts a rheumatology education forum at an institution with no pediatric rheumatology program.

“I’ve done it a couple of times,” Dr. Mehta said during his presentation at the annual meeting. “It’s one of the most rewarding things I’ve done.”
 

Financial Concerns

Additionally, although pediatric rheumatology requires more training, these subspecialists will likely make less than their general pediatric colleagues over their career. According to one study in Pediatrics, a pediatric resident pursuing rheumatology is projected to make $1.2 million dollars less over the course of their career compared with someone who started their career in general pediatrics immediately after residency. (Negative financial returns were also found for all pediatric subspecialities except for cardiology, critical care, and neonatology.)

This lower earning potential is likely a deterrent, especially for those with educational debt. In one analysis published in October, medical students with at least $200,000 in education debt were 43% more likely to go into higher-paying pediatric subspecialities than those with no debt. Nearly three out of four medical graduates have education debt, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, with a median debt of $200,000.

While the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program was specifically designed to aid pediatric subspecialists with their educational debt, qualifying for the program is difficult for pediatric rheumatologists, explained Kristen N. Hayward, MD, of Seattle Children’s in Washington. The program provides up to $100,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 3 years of practicing in an underserved area; however, the program stipulates that providers must provide full-time (40 hours per week) clinical care. At academic institutions, where most pediatric rheumatologists practice, there is usually a research component to their position, and even if a provider works the equivalent of 40 hours per week in a clinic in addition to their research, they don’t qualify for the program, Dr. Hayward said.

“It’s very difficult to find someone who’s actually only doing clinical work,” she said.

The ACR has worked to combat some of these economic constraints by demonstrating the direct and downstream value of rheumatologic care, Dr. Hayward said. In a recent white paper, it was estimated that including office visits, consultations, lab testing, and radiology services, one full-time equivalent rheumatologist generates $3.5 million in revenue every year and saves health systems more than $2700 per patient per year.

In addition to placing greater value on rheumatologic care, the healthcare system also needs to recognize the current nonbillable hours that pediatric rheumatologists spend taking care of patients, Dr. Hayward noted.

Especially with electronic medical records (EMRs) and online communication with patients, “there is increasingly a lot of patient care that happens outside of clinic and that takes a lot of time,” Dr. Hayward said. For example, she spends between 1 and 2 hours every day in the EMR refilling medications and responding to patient concerns, and “that all is done in my spare time,” she said. “That’s not billed to the patient in anyway.”
 

Length of Fellowship

The pediatric rheumatology fellowship is a 3-year program — like other pediatric subspecialities — with a research requirement. By comparison, adult rheumatology fellowships are 2 years, and fellows can pursue additional research training if they have a strong interest.

“It sounds like just 1 more year, but I think it’s coming at a really pivotal point in people’s lives, and that 1 year can make a huge difference,” Dr. Hayward explained.

The 2 years of research might also be a deterrent for individuals who know they are only interested in clinical work, she added. About half of pediatric subspecialists only pursue clinical work after graduation, according to a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) focused on the future pediatric physician workforce.

Additionally, only 17% of pediatric rheumatologists spend more than half of their time in research, said Fred Rivara, MD, MPH, chair of the NASEM report, in a statement included in Dr. Hayward’s ACR presentation. The report, which recommended strategies to bolster the pediatric workforce, argued that the American Board of Pediatrics should develop alternative training pathways, including 2-year, clinically heavy fellowships.

The ACR workforce team is also exploring alternative training models like competency-based education, Dr. Hayward said. The Education in Pediatrics Across the Continuum project is already using this approach from medical school to pediatric residency. While this type of outcome-based program has not been tried at the fellowship level, «this has been done, it could be done, and I think we could learn from our colleagues about how they have done this successfully,» she noted.

Ultimately, Dr. Hayward emphasized that there needs to be a “sea change” to close the workforce gap — with multiple interventions addressing these individual challenges.

“Unless we all pitch in and find one way that we can all move this issue forward, we are going to be drowning in a sea of Epic inbox messages,” she said, “and never get to see the patients we want to see.”

Dr. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Correll and Dr. Mehta had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric rheumatologists are calling a “Code (p)RED” — a pediatric rheumatology educational deficit.

There are too few pediatric rheumatologists to meet patient demand in the United States, and projections suggest that gap will continue to widen. Disappointing match trends also reflect issues with recruitment: Since 2019, only 50%-75% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions have been filled each year. For 2024, the subspecialty filled 32 of 52 positions.

University of Minnesota

Lack of exposure during medical school and residency, financial concerns, and a lengthy, research-focused fellowship are seen as major contributors to the workforce shortage, and novel solutions are needed to close the gap, experts argued in a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“It’s so important now to get ahead of this because what I’m afraid of is in 10-20 years, we’re not going to have a field,” Colleen Correll, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization.
 

Growing Demand, Falling Supply

Because the subspecialty was officially recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics in 1991, “it’s always been a small group of providers,” Dr. Correll said. “It’s honestly always been a recognized issue in our field.”

But a 2022 report by the ACR on the pediatric workforce has brought more attention to the issue. Dr. Correll led the study and is the chair of ACR›s Pediatric Rheumatology Committee. According to the report, an estimated 287 pediatric rheumatologists were working as full-time clinicians in 2015, while the estimated demand was 382 providers. By 2030, this projected supply of pediatric rheumatologists fell to 261, while demand rose to 461 full-time providers.

The distribution of pediatric rheumatologists is also an issue. It’s generally thought that there should be at least one pediatric rheumatologist per 100,000 children, Dr. Correll explained. According to ACR estimates, the northeast region had approximately 0.83 pediatric rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, while the south central and southwest regions had 0.17 and 0.20 providers per 100,000 children, respectively. Projected estimates for 2030 dipped to 0.04 or lower for the south central, southwest, and southeast regions.

A separate study from the American Board of Pediatrics, also led by Dr. Correll, that is still under review offered more optimistic projections, suggesting that there would be a 75% increase in pediatric rheumatologists from 0.27 per 100,000 children in 2020 to 0.47 per 100,000 children in 2040.

“This does look better than the ACR study, though 0.47 is still a really small number and an inadequate number to treat our children in need,” she said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Lack of Exposure During Medical Education

Few medical schools have pediatric rheumatology built into their curriculum, whether that is a whole course or a single lecture, said Jay Mehta, MD, who directs the pediatric rheumatology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mehta, for example, did not know that pediatric rheumatology was a field before entering residency, he said. But residencies can also lack exposure: An estimated one third of residencies do not have a single pediatric rheumatologist on staff, he said.

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

“Those are places where people aren’t necessarily getting exposure to pediatric rheumatology,” he told this news organization, “and we know that if you’re not exposed to a field, it’s very, very unlikely that you will go into that field.”

The ACR’s Pediatric Rheumatology Residency Program is one way that the organization is working to address this issue. The program sends pediatric residents with an interest in rheumatology to the ACR annual meeting. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also runs a visiting professorship program, where a pediatric rheumatologist conducts a rheumatology education forum at an institution with no pediatric rheumatology program.

“I’ve done it a couple of times,” Dr. Mehta said during his presentation at the annual meeting. “It’s one of the most rewarding things I’ve done.”
 

Financial Concerns

Additionally, although pediatric rheumatology requires more training, these subspecialists will likely make less than their general pediatric colleagues over their career. According to one study in Pediatrics, a pediatric resident pursuing rheumatology is projected to make $1.2 million dollars less over the course of their career compared with someone who started their career in general pediatrics immediately after residency. (Negative financial returns were also found for all pediatric subspecialities except for cardiology, critical care, and neonatology.)

This lower earning potential is likely a deterrent, especially for those with educational debt. In one analysis published in October, medical students with at least $200,000 in education debt were 43% more likely to go into higher-paying pediatric subspecialities than those with no debt. Nearly three out of four medical graduates have education debt, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, with a median debt of $200,000.

While the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program was specifically designed to aid pediatric subspecialists with their educational debt, qualifying for the program is difficult for pediatric rheumatologists, explained Kristen N. Hayward, MD, of Seattle Children’s in Washington. The program provides up to $100,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 3 years of practicing in an underserved area; however, the program stipulates that providers must provide full-time (40 hours per week) clinical care. At academic institutions, where most pediatric rheumatologists practice, there is usually a research component to their position, and even if a provider works the equivalent of 40 hours per week in a clinic in addition to their research, they don’t qualify for the program, Dr. Hayward said.

“It’s very difficult to find someone who’s actually only doing clinical work,” she said.

The ACR has worked to combat some of these economic constraints by demonstrating the direct and downstream value of rheumatologic care, Dr. Hayward said. In a recent white paper, it was estimated that including office visits, consultations, lab testing, and radiology services, one full-time equivalent rheumatologist generates $3.5 million in revenue every year and saves health systems more than $2700 per patient per year.

In addition to placing greater value on rheumatologic care, the healthcare system also needs to recognize the current nonbillable hours that pediatric rheumatologists spend taking care of patients, Dr. Hayward noted.

Especially with electronic medical records (EMRs) and online communication with patients, “there is increasingly a lot of patient care that happens outside of clinic and that takes a lot of time,” Dr. Hayward said. For example, she spends between 1 and 2 hours every day in the EMR refilling medications and responding to patient concerns, and “that all is done in my spare time,” she said. “That’s not billed to the patient in anyway.”
 

Length of Fellowship

The pediatric rheumatology fellowship is a 3-year program — like other pediatric subspecialities — with a research requirement. By comparison, adult rheumatology fellowships are 2 years, and fellows can pursue additional research training if they have a strong interest.

“It sounds like just 1 more year, but I think it’s coming at a really pivotal point in people’s lives, and that 1 year can make a huge difference,” Dr. Hayward explained.

The 2 years of research might also be a deterrent for individuals who know they are only interested in clinical work, she added. About half of pediatric subspecialists only pursue clinical work after graduation, according to a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) focused on the future pediatric physician workforce.

Additionally, only 17% of pediatric rheumatologists spend more than half of their time in research, said Fred Rivara, MD, MPH, chair of the NASEM report, in a statement included in Dr. Hayward’s ACR presentation. The report, which recommended strategies to bolster the pediatric workforce, argued that the American Board of Pediatrics should develop alternative training pathways, including 2-year, clinically heavy fellowships.

The ACR workforce team is also exploring alternative training models like competency-based education, Dr. Hayward said. The Education in Pediatrics Across the Continuum project is already using this approach from medical school to pediatric residency. While this type of outcome-based program has not been tried at the fellowship level, «this has been done, it could be done, and I think we could learn from our colleagues about how they have done this successfully,» she noted.

Ultimately, Dr. Hayward emphasized that there needs to be a “sea change” to close the workforce gap — with multiple interventions addressing these individual challenges.

“Unless we all pitch in and find one way that we can all move this issue forward, we are going to be drowning in a sea of Epic inbox messages,” she said, “and never get to see the patients we want to see.”

Dr. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Correll and Dr. Mehta had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric rheumatologists are calling a “Code (p)RED” — a pediatric rheumatology educational deficit.

There are too few pediatric rheumatologists to meet patient demand in the United States, and projections suggest that gap will continue to widen. Disappointing match trends also reflect issues with recruitment: Since 2019, only 50%-75% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions have been filled each year. For 2024, the subspecialty filled 32 of 52 positions.

University of Minnesota

Lack of exposure during medical school and residency, financial concerns, and a lengthy, research-focused fellowship are seen as major contributors to the workforce shortage, and novel solutions are needed to close the gap, experts argued in a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“It’s so important now to get ahead of this because what I’m afraid of is in 10-20 years, we’re not going to have a field,” Colleen Correll, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization.
 

Growing Demand, Falling Supply

Because the subspecialty was officially recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics in 1991, “it’s always been a small group of providers,” Dr. Correll said. “It’s honestly always been a recognized issue in our field.”

But a 2022 report by the ACR on the pediatric workforce has brought more attention to the issue. Dr. Correll led the study and is the chair of ACR›s Pediatric Rheumatology Committee. According to the report, an estimated 287 pediatric rheumatologists were working as full-time clinicians in 2015, while the estimated demand was 382 providers. By 2030, this projected supply of pediatric rheumatologists fell to 261, while demand rose to 461 full-time providers.

The distribution of pediatric rheumatologists is also an issue. It’s generally thought that there should be at least one pediatric rheumatologist per 100,000 children, Dr. Correll explained. According to ACR estimates, the northeast region had approximately 0.83 pediatric rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, while the south central and southwest regions had 0.17 and 0.20 providers per 100,000 children, respectively. Projected estimates for 2030 dipped to 0.04 or lower for the south central, southwest, and southeast regions.

A separate study from the American Board of Pediatrics, also led by Dr. Correll, that is still under review offered more optimistic projections, suggesting that there would be a 75% increase in pediatric rheumatologists from 0.27 per 100,000 children in 2020 to 0.47 per 100,000 children in 2040.

“This does look better than the ACR study, though 0.47 is still a really small number and an inadequate number to treat our children in need,” she said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Lack of Exposure During Medical Education

Few medical schools have pediatric rheumatology built into their curriculum, whether that is a whole course or a single lecture, said Jay Mehta, MD, who directs the pediatric rheumatology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mehta, for example, did not know that pediatric rheumatology was a field before entering residency, he said. But residencies can also lack exposure: An estimated one third of residencies do not have a single pediatric rheumatologist on staff, he said.

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

“Those are places where people aren’t necessarily getting exposure to pediatric rheumatology,” he told this news organization, “and we know that if you’re not exposed to a field, it’s very, very unlikely that you will go into that field.”

The ACR’s Pediatric Rheumatology Residency Program is one way that the organization is working to address this issue. The program sends pediatric residents with an interest in rheumatology to the ACR annual meeting. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also runs a visiting professorship program, where a pediatric rheumatologist conducts a rheumatology education forum at an institution with no pediatric rheumatology program.

“I’ve done it a couple of times,” Dr. Mehta said during his presentation at the annual meeting. “It’s one of the most rewarding things I’ve done.”
 

Financial Concerns

Additionally, although pediatric rheumatology requires more training, these subspecialists will likely make less than their general pediatric colleagues over their career. According to one study in Pediatrics, a pediatric resident pursuing rheumatology is projected to make $1.2 million dollars less over the course of their career compared with someone who started their career in general pediatrics immediately after residency. (Negative financial returns were also found for all pediatric subspecialities except for cardiology, critical care, and neonatology.)

This lower earning potential is likely a deterrent, especially for those with educational debt. In one analysis published in October, medical students with at least $200,000 in education debt were 43% more likely to go into higher-paying pediatric subspecialities than those with no debt. Nearly three out of four medical graduates have education debt, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, with a median debt of $200,000.

While the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program was specifically designed to aid pediatric subspecialists with their educational debt, qualifying for the program is difficult for pediatric rheumatologists, explained Kristen N. Hayward, MD, of Seattle Children’s in Washington. The program provides up to $100,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 3 years of practicing in an underserved area; however, the program stipulates that providers must provide full-time (40 hours per week) clinical care. At academic institutions, where most pediatric rheumatologists practice, there is usually a research component to their position, and even if a provider works the equivalent of 40 hours per week in a clinic in addition to their research, they don’t qualify for the program, Dr. Hayward said.

“It’s very difficult to find someone who’s actually only doing clinical work,” she said.

The ACR has worked to combat some of these economic constraints by demonstrating the direct and downstream value of rheumatologic care, Dr. Hayward said. In a recent white paper, it was estimated that including office visits, consultations, lab testing, and radiology services, one full-time equivalent rheumatologist generates $3.5 million in revenue every year and saves health systems more than $2700 per patient per year.

In addition to placing greater value on rheumatologic care, the healthcare system also needs to recognize the current nonbillable hours that pediatric rheumatologists spend taking care of patients, Dr. Hayward noted.

Especially with electronic medical records (EMRs) and online communication with patients, “there is increasingly a lot of patient care that happens outside of clinic and that takes a lot of time,” Dr. Hayward said. For example, she spends between 1 and 2 hours every day in the EMR refilling medications and responding to patient concerns, and “that all is done in my spare time,” she said. “That’s not billed to the patient in anyway.”
 

Length of Fellowship

The pediatric rheumatology fellowship is a 3-year program — like other pediatric subspecialities — with a research requirement. By comparison, adult rheumatology fellowships are 2 years, and fellows can pursue additional research training if they have a strong interest.

“It sounds like just 1 more year, but I think it’s coming at a really pivotal point in people’s lives, and that 1 year can make a huge difference,” Dr. Hayward explained.

The 2 years of research might also be a deterrent for individuals who know they are only interested in clinical work, she added. About half of pediatric subspecialists only pursue clinical work after graduation, according to a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) focused on the future pediatric physician workforce.

Additionally, only 17% of pediatric rheumatologists spend more than half of their time in research, said Fred Rivara, MD, MPH, chair of the NASEM report, in a statement included in Dr. Hayward’s ACR presentation. The report, which recommended strategies to bolster the pediatric workforce, argued that the American Board of Pediatrics should develop alternative training pathways, including 2-year, clinically heavy fellowships.

The ACR workforce team is also exploring alternative training models like competency-based education, Dr. Hayward said. The Education in Pediatrics Across the Continuum project is already using this approach from medical school to pediatric residency. While this type of outcome-based program has not been tried at the fellowship level, «this has been done, it could be done, and I think we could learn from our colleagues about how they have done this successfully,» she noted.

Ultimately, Dr. Hayward emphasized that there needs to be a “sea change” to close the workforce gap — with multiple interventions addressing these individual challenges.

“Unless we all pitch in and find one way that we can all move this issue forward, we are going to be drowning in a sea of Epic inbox messages,” she said, “and never get to see the patients we want to see.”

Dr. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Correll and Dr. Mehta had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Work Group has updated its guideline concerning the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Of note, KDIGO now supports transplant of HCV-positive kidneys to HCV-negative recipients.

The guidance document, authored by Ahmed Arslan Yousuf Awan, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was written in light of new evidence that has emerged since the 2018 guideline was published.

“The focused update was triggered by new data on antiviral treatment in patients with advanced stages of CKD (G4, G5, or G5D), transplant of HCV-infected kidneys into uninfected recipients, and evolution of the viewpoint on the role of kidney biopsy in managing kidney disease caused by HCV,” the guideline panelists wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “This update is intended to assist clinicians in the care of patients with HCV infection and CKD, including patients receiving dialysis (CKD G5D) and patients with a kidney transplant (CKD G1T-G5T).”

Anjay Rastogi, MD, PhD, professor and clinical chief of nephrology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, said the update is both “timely and relevant,” and “will really have an impact on the organ shortage that we have for kidney transplant”

The updates are outlined below.
 

Expanded Access to HCV-Positive Kidneys

While the 2018 guideline recommended that HCV-positive kidneys be directed to HCV-positive recipients, the new guideline suggests that these kidneys are appropriate for all patients regardless of HCV status.

In support, the panelists cited a follow-up of THINKER-1 trial, which showed that eGFR and quality of life were not negatively affected when HCV-negative patients received an HCV-positive kidney, compared with an HCV-negative kidney. Data from 525 unmatched recipients in 16 other studies support this conclusion, the panelists noted.

Jose Debes, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that this is the most important update to the KDIGO guidelines.

“That [change] would be the main impact of these recommendations,” Dr. Debes said in an interview. “Several centers were already doing this, since some data [were] out there, but I think the fact that they’re making this into a guideline is quite important.”

Dr. Rastogi agreed that this recommendation is the most impactful update.

“That’s a big move,” Dr. Rastogi said in an interview. He predicted that the change will “definitely increase the donor pool, which is very, very important.”

For this new recommendation to have the greatest positive effect, however, Dr. Rastogi suggested that health care providers and treatment centers need to prepare an effective implementation strategy. He emphasized the importance of early communication with patients concerning the safety of HCV-positive kidneys, which depends on early initiation of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy.

In the guideline, Dr. Awan and colleagues reported three documented cases of fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis occurred in patients who did not begin DAA therapy until 30 days after transplant.

“[Patients] should start [DAA treatment] right away,” Dr. Rastogi said, “and sometimes even before the transplant.”

This will require institutional support, he noted, as centers need to ensure that patients are covered for DAA therapy and medication is readily available.
 

Sofosbuvir Given the Green Light

Compared with the 2018 guideline, which recommended against sofosbuvir in patients with CKD G4 and G5, including those on dialysis, because of concerns about metabolization via the kidneys, the new guideline suggests that sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens are appropriate in patients with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², including those receiving dialysis.

This recommendation was based on a systematic review of 106 studies including both sofosbuvir-based and non-sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens that showed high safety and efficacy for all DAA regimen types across a broad variety of patient types.

“DAAs are highly effective and well tolerated treatments for hepatitis C in patients across all stages of CKD, including those undergoing dialysis and kidney transplant recipients, with no need for dose adjustment,” Dr. Awan and colleagues wrote.
 

Loosened Biopsy Requirements

Unlike the 2018 guideline, which advised kidney biopsy in HCV-positive patients with clinical evidence of glomerular disease prior to initiating DAA treatment, the new guideline suggests that HCV-infected patients with a typical presentation of immune-complex proliferative glomerulonephritis do not require confirmatory kidney biopsy.

“Because almost all patients with chronic hepatitis C (with or without glomerulonephritis) should be treated with DAAs, a kidney biopsy is unlikely to change management in most patients with hepatitis C and clinical glomerulonephritis,” the panelists wrote.

If kidney disease does not stabilize or improve with achievement of sustained virologic response, or if there is evidence of rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis, then a kidney biopsy should be considered before beginning immunosuppressive therapy, according to the guideline, which includes a flow chart to guide clinicians through this decision-making process.
 

Individualizing Immunosuppressive Therapy

Consistent with the old guideline, the new guideline recommends DAA treatment with concurrent immunosuppressive therapy for patients with cryoglobulinemic flare or rapidly progressive kidney failure. But in contrast, the new guideline calls for an individualized approach to immunosuppression in patients with nephrotic syndrome.

Dr. Awan and colleagues suggested that “nephrotic-range proteinuria (greater than 3.5 g/d) alone does not warrant use of immunosuppressive treatment because such patients can achieve remission of proteinuria after treatment with DAAs.” Still, if other associated complications — such as anasarca, thromboembolic disease, or severe hypoalbuminemia — are present, then immunosuppressive therapy may be warranted, with rituximab remaining the preferred first-line agent.
 

More Work Is Needed

Dr. Awan and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting areas of unmet need, and how filling these knowledge gaps could lead to additional guideline updates.

“Future studies of kidney donations from HCV-positive donors to HCV-negative recipients are needed to refine and clarify the timing of initiation and duration of DAA therapy and to assess long-term outcomes associated with this practice,” they wrote. “Also, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine which patients with HCV-associated kidney disease can be treated with DAA therapy alone versus in combination with immunosuppression and plasma exchange. KDIGO will assess the currency of its recommendations and the need to update them in the next 3 years.”

The guideline was funded by KDIGO. The investigators disclosed relationships with GSK, Gilead, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr. Rastogi and Dr. Debes had no conflicts of interest.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Work Group has updated its guideline concerning the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Of note, KDIGO now supports transplant of HCV-positive kidneys to HCV-negative recipients.

The guidance document, authored by Ahmed Arslan Yousuf Awan, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was written in light of new evidence that has emerged since the 2018 guideline was published.

“The focused update was triggered by new data on antiviral treatment in patients with advanced stages of CKD (G4, G5, or G5D), transplant of HCV-infected kidneys into uninfected recipients, and evolution of the viewpoint on the role of kidney biopsy in managing kidney disease caused by HCV,” the guideline panelists wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “This update is intended to assist clinicians in the care of patients with HCV infection and CKD, including patients receiving dialysis (CKD G5D) and patients with a kidney transplant (CKD G1T-G5T).”

Anjay Rastogi, MD, PhD, professor and clinical chief of nephrology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, said the update is both “timely and relevant,” and “will really have an impact on the organ shortage that we have for kidney transplant”

The updates are outlined below.
 

Expanded Access to HCV-Positive Kidneys

While the 2018 guideline recommended that HCV-positive kidneys be directed to HCV-positive recipients, the new guideline suggests that these kidneys are appropriate for all patients regardless of HCV status.

In support, the panelists cited a follow-up of THINKER-1 trial, which showed that eGFR and quality of life were not negatively affected when HCV-negative patients received an HCV-positive kidney, compared with an HCV-negative kidney. Data from 525 unmatched recipients in 16 other studies support this conclusion, the panelists noted.

Jose Debes, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that this is the most important update to the KDIGO guidelines.

“That [change] would be the main impact of these recommendations,” Dr. Debes said in an interview. “Several centers were already doing this, since some data [were] out there, but I think the fact that they’re making this into a guideline is quite important.”

Dr. Rastogi agreed that this recommendation is the most impactful update.

“That’s a big move,” Dr. Rastogi said in an interview. He predicted that the change will “definitely increase the donor pool, which is very, very important.”

For this new recommendation to have the greatest positive effect, however, Dr. Rastogi suggested that health care providers and treatment centers need to prepare an effective implementation strategy. He emphasized the importance of early communication with patients concerning the safety of HCV-positive kidneys, which depends on early initiation of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy.

In the guideline, Dr. Awan and colleagues reported three documented cases of fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis occurred in patients who did not begin DAA therapy until 30 days after transplant.

“[Patients] should start [DAA treatment] right away,” Dr. Rastogi said, “and sometimes even before the transplant.”

This will require institutional support, he noted, as centers need to ensure that patients are covered for DAA therapy and medication is readily available.
 

Sofosbuvir Given the Green Light

Compared with the 2018 guideline, which recommended against sofosbuvir in patients with CKD G4 and G5, including those on dialysis, because of concerns about metabolization via the kidneys, the new guideline suggests that sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens are appropriate in patients with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², including those receiving dialysis.

This recommendation was based on a systematic review of 106 studies including both sofosbuvir-based and non-sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens that showed high safety and efficacy for all DAA regimen types across a broad variety of patient types.

“DAAs are highly effective and well tolerated treatments for hepatitis C in patients across all stages of CKD, including those undergoing dialysis and kidney transplant recipients, with no need for dose adjustment,” Dr. Awan and colleagues wrote.
 

Loosened Biopsy Requirements

Unlike the 2018 guideline, which advised kidney biopsy in HCV-positive patients with clinical evidence of glomerular disease prior to initiating DAA treatment, the new guideline suggests that HCV-infected patients with a typical presentation of immune-complex proliferative glomerulonephritis do not require confirmatory kidney biopsy.

“Because almost all patients with chronic hepatitis C (with or without glomerulonephritis) should be treated with DAAs, a kidney biopsy is unlikely to change management in most patients with hepatitis C and clinical glomerulonephritis,” the panelists wrote.

If kidney disease does not stabilize or improve with achievement of sustained virologic response, or if there is evidence of rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis, then a kidney biopsy should be considered before beginning immunosuppressive therapy, according to the guideline, which includes a flow chart to guide clinicians through this decision-making process.
 

Individualizing Immunosuppressive Therapy

Consistent with the old guideline, the new guideline recommends DAA treatment with concurrent immunosuppressive therapy for patients with cryoglobulinemic flare or rapidly progressive kidney failure. But in contrast, the new guideline calls for an individualized approach to immunosuppression in patients with nephrotic syndrome.

Dr. Awan and colleagues suggested that “nephrotic-range proteinuria (greater than 3.5 g/d) alone does not warrant use of immunosuppressive treatment because such patients can achieve remission of proteinuria after treatment with DAAs.” Still, if other associated complications — such as anasarca, thromboembolic disease, or severe hypoalbuminemia — are present, then immunosuppressive therapy may be warranted, with rituximab remaining the preferred first-line agent.
 

More Work Is Needed

Dr. Awan and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting areas of unmet need, and how filling these knowledge gaps could lead to additional guideline updates.

“Future studies of kidney donations from HCV-positive donors to HCV-negative recipients are needed to refine and clarify the timing of initiation and duration of DAA therapy and to assess long-term outcomes associated with this practice,” they wrote. “Also, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine which patients with HCV-associated kidney disease can be treated with DAA therapy alone versus in combination with immunosuppression and plasma exchange. KDIGO will assess the currency of its recommendations and the need to update them in the next 3 years.”

The guideline was funded by KDIGO. The investigators disclosed relationships with GSK, Gilead, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr. Rastogi and Dr. Debes had no conflicts of interest.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Work Group has updated its guideline concerning the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Of note, KDIGO now supports transplant of HCV-positive kidneys to HCV-negative recipients.

The guidance document, authored by Ahmed Arslan Yousuf Awan, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was written in light of new evidence that has emerged since the 2018 guideline was published.

“The focused update was triggered by new data on antiviral treatment in patients with advanced stages of CKD (G4, G5, or G5D), transplant of HCV-infected kidneys into uninfected recipients, and evolution of the viewpoint on the role of kidney biopsy in managing kidney disease caused by HCV,” the guideline panelists wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “This update is intended to assist clinicians in the care of patients with HCV infection and CKD, including patients receiving dialysis (CKD G5D) and patients with a kidney transplant (CKD G1T-G5T).”

Anjay Rastogi, MD, PhD, professor and clinical chief of nephrology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, said the update is both “timely and relevant,” and “will really have an impact on the organ shortage that we have for kidney transplant”

The updates are outlined below.
 

Expanded Access to HCV-Positive Kidneys

While the 2018 guideline recommended that HCV-positive kidneys be directed to HCV-positive recipients, the new guideline suggests that these kidneys are appropriate for all patients regardless of HCV status.

In support, the panelists cited a follow-up of THINKER-1 trial, which showed that eGFR and quality of life were not negatively affected when HCV-negative patients received an HCV-positive kidney, compared with an HCV-negative kidney. Data from 525 unmatched recipients in 16 other studies support this conclusion, the panelists noted.

Jose Debes, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that this is the most important update to the KDIGO guidelines.

“That [change] would be the main impact of these recommendations,” Dr. Debes said in an interview. “Several centers were already doing this, since some data [were] out there, but I think the fact that they’re making this into a guideline is quite important.”

Dr. Rastogi agreed that this recommendation is the most impactful update.

“That’s a big move,” Dr. Rastogi said in an interview. He predicted that the change will “definitely increase the donor pool, which is very, very important.”

For this new recommendation to have the greatest positive effect, however, Dr. Rastogi suggested that health care providers and treatment centers need to prepare an effective implementation strategy. He emphasized the importance of early communication with patients concerning the safety of HCV-positive kidneys, which depends on early initiation of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy.

In the guideline, Dr. Awan and colleagues reported three documented cases of fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis occurred in patients who did not begin DAA therapy until 30 days after transplant.

“[Patients] should start [DAA treatment] right away,” Dr. Rastogi said, “and sometimes even before the transplant.”

This will require institutional support, he noted, as centers need to ensure that patients are covered for DAA therapy and medication is readily available.
 

Sofosbuvir Given the Green Light

Compared with the 2018 guideline, which recommended against sofosbuvir in patients with CKD G4 and G5, including those on dialysis, because of concerns about metabolization via the kidneys, the new guideline suggests that sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens are appropriate in patients with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², including those receiving dialysis.

This recommendation was based on a systematic review of 106 studies including both sofosbuvir-based and non-sofosbuvir-based DAA regimens that showed high safety and efficacy for all DAA regimen types across a broad variety of patient types.

“DAAs are highly effective and well tolerated treatments for hepatitis C in patients across all stages of CKD, including those undergoing dialysis and kidney transplant recipients, with no need for dose adjustment,” Dr. Awan and colleagues wrote.
 

Loosened Biopsy Requirements

Unlike the 2018 guideline, which advised kidney biopsy in HCV-positive patients with clinical evidence of glomerular disease prior to initiating DAA treatment, the new guideline suggests that HCV-infected patients with a typical presentation of immune-complex proliferative glomerulonephritis do not require confirmatory kidney biopsy.

“Because almost all patients with chronic hepatitis C (with or without glomerulonephritis) should be treated with DAAs, a kidney biopsy is unlikely to change management in most patients with hepatitis C and clinical glomerulonephritis,” the panelists wrote.

If kidney disease does not stabilize or improve with achievement of sustained virologic response, or if there is evidence of rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis, then a kidney biopsy should be considered before beginning immunosuppressive therapy, according to the guideline, which includes a flow chart to guide clinicians through this decision-making process.
 

Individualizing Immunosuppressive Therapy

Consistent with the old guideline, the new guideline recommends DAA treatment with concurrent immunosuppressive therapy for patients with cryoglobulinemic flare or rapidly progressive kidney failure. But in contrast, the new guideline calls for an individualized approach to immunosuppression in patients with nephrotic syndrome.

Dr. Awan and colleagues suggested that “nephrotic-range proteinuria (greater than 3.5 g/d) alone does not warrant use of immunosuppressive treatment because such patients can achieve remission of proteinuria after treatment with DAAs.” Still, if other associated complications — such as anasarca, thromboembolic disease, or severe hypoalbuminemia — are present, then immunosuppressive therapy may be warranted, with rituximab remaining the preferred first-line agent.
 

More Work Is Needed

Dr. Awan and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting areas of unmet need, and how filling these knowledge gaps could lead to additional guideline updates.

“Future studies of kidney donations from HCV-positive donors to HCV-negative recipients are needed to refine and clarify the timing of initiation and duration of DAA therapy and to assess long-term outcomes associated with this practice,” they wrote. “Also, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine which patients with HCV-associated kidney disease can be treated with DAA therapy alone versus in combination with immunosuppression and plasma exchange. KDIGO will assess the currency of its recommendations and the need to update them in the next 3 years.”

The guideline was funded by KDIGO. The investigators disclosed relationships with GSK, Gilead, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr. Rastogi and Dr. Debes had no conflicts of interest.

We have all been using technology in our primary care practices for a long time but newer formats have been emerging so fast that our minds, much less our staff’s minds, may be spinning.

Our old friend the telephone, a time-soaking nemesis for scheduling, checking coverage, questions calls, prescribing, quick consults, and follow-up is being replaced by EHR portals and SMS for messaging (e.g. DoctorConnect, SimplePractice), drop-in televisits and patient education links on our websites (e.g. Schmitt Pediatric Care, Remedy Connect), and chatbots for scheduling (e.g. CHEC-UP). While time is saved, what is lost may be hearing the subtext of anxiety or misperceptions in parents’ voices that would change our advice and the empathetic human connection in conversations with our patients. A hybrid approach may be better.

The paper appointment book has been replaced by scheduling systems sometimes lacking in flexibility for double booking, sibling visits, and variable length or extremely valuable multi-professional visits. Allowing patients to book their own visits may place complex problems in inappropriate slots, so only allowing online requests for visits is safer. On the other hand, many of us can now squeeze in “same day” televisits (e.g. Blueberry Pediatrics), sometimes from outside our practice (e.g., zocdoc), to increase payments and even entice new patients to enroll.

Amazing advances in technology are being made in specialty care such as genetic modifications (CRISPR), immunotherapies (mRNA vaccines and AI drug design), robot-assisted surgery, and 3-D printing of body parts and prosthetics. Technology as treatment such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and vagal stimulation are finding value in psychiatry.

But beside being aware of and able to order such specialty technologies, innovations are now extending our senses in primary care such as amplified or visual stethoscopes, bedside ultrasound (e.g. Butterfly), remote visualization (oto-, endo-)scopes, photographic vision screens (e.g. iScreen) for skin lesion (VisualDx) and genetic syndrome facial recognition. We need to be sure that technologies are tested and calibrated for children and different racial groups and genders to provide safe and equitable care. Early adoption may not always be the best approach. Costs of technology, as usual, may limit access to these advanced care aids especially, as usual, in practices serving low income and rural communities.

Patients, especially younger parents and youth, now expect to participate and can directly benefit from technology as part of their health care. Validated parent or self-report screens (e.g. EHRs, Phreesia) can detect important issues early for more effective intervention. Such questionnaires typically provide a pass/fail result or score, but other delivery systems (e.g. CHADIS) include interpretation, assist patients/parents in setting visit priorities and health goals, and even chain results of one questionnaire to secondary screens to hone in on problems, sometimes obviating a time-consuming second visit. Patient-completed comprehensive questionnaires (e.g. Well Visit Planner, CHADIS) allow us time to use our skills to focus on concerns, education, and management rather than asking myriad routine questions. Some (e.g. CHADIS) even create visit documentation reducing our “pajama time” write ups (and burnout); automate repeated online measures to track progress; and use questionnaire results to trigger related patient-specific education and resources rather than the often-ignored generic EHR handouts.

Digital therapeutics such as apps for anxiety (e.g. Calm), depression (e.g. SparkRx, Cass), weight control (e.g. Noom, Lose it), fitness, or sleep tracking (e.g. Whoop) help educate and, in some cases, provide real-time feedback to personalize discovery of contributing factors in order to maintain motivation for positive health behavior change. Some video games improve ADHD symptoms (e.g. EndeavorRX). Virtual reality scenarios have been shown to desensitize those with PTSD and social anxiety or teach social skills to children with autism.

Systems that trigger resource listings (including apps) from screen results can help, but now with over 10,000 apps for mental health, knowing what to recommend for what conditions is a challenge for which ratings (e.g. MINDapps.org) can help. With few product reps visiting to tell us what’s new, we need to read critically about innovations, search the web, subscribe to the AAP SOAPM LISTSERV, visit exhibitors at professional meetings, and talk with peers.

All the digital data collected from health care technology, if assembled with privacy constraints and analyzed with advanced statistical methods, have the possibility, with or without inclusion of genomic data, to allow for more accurate diagnostic and treatment decision support. While AI can search widely for patterns, it needs to be “trained” on appropriate data to make correct conclusions. We are all aware that the history determines 85% of both diagnosis and treatment decisions, particularly in primary care where x-rays or lab tests are not often needed.

But history in EHR notes is often idiosyncratic, entered hours after the visit by the clinician, and does not include the information needed to define diagnostic or guideline criteria, even if the clinician knows and considered those criteria. EHR templates are presented blank and are onerous and time consuming for clinicians. In addition, individual patient barriers to care, preferences, and environmental or subjective concerns are infrequently documented even though they may make the biggest difference to adherence and/or outcomes.

Notes made from voice to text digital AI translation of the encounter (e.g. Nuance DAX) are even less likely to include diagnostic criteria as it would be inappropriate to speak these. To use EHR history data to train AI and to test efficacy of care using variations of guidelines, guideline-related data is needed from online patient entries in questionnaires that are transformed to fill in templates along with some structured choices for clinician entries forming visit notes (e.g. CHADIS). New apps to facilitate clinician documentation of guidelines (e.g. AvoMD) could streamline visits as well as help document guideline criteria. The resulting combination of guideline-relevant patient histories and objective data to test and iteratively refine guidelines will allow a process known as a “Learning Health System.”

Technology to collect this kind of data can allow for the aspirational American Academy of Pediatrics CHILD Registry to approach this goal. Population-level data can provide surveillance for illness, toxins, effects of climate change, social drivers of health, and even effects of technologies themselves such as social media and remote learning so that we can attempt to make the best choices for the future.

Clinicians, staff, and patients will need to develop trust in technology as it infiltrates all aspects of health care. Professionals need both evidence and experience to trust a technology, which takes time and effort. Disinformation in the media may reduce trust or evoke unwarranted trust, as we have all seen regarding vaccines. Clear and coherent public health messaging can help but is no longer a panacea for developing trust in health care. Our nonjudgmental listening and informed opinions are needed more than ever.

The biggest issues for new technology are likely to be the need for workflow adjustments, changing our habit patterns, training, and cost/benefit analyses. With today’s high staff churn, confusion and even chaos can ensue when adopting new technology.

Staff need to be part of the selection process, if at all possible, and discuss how roles and flow will need to change. Having one staff member be a champion and expert for new tech can move adoption to a shared process rather than imposing “one more thing.” It is crucial to discuss the benefits for patients and staff even if the change is required. Sometimes cost savings can include a bonus for staff or free group lunches. Providing a certificate of achievement or title promotion for mastering new tech may be appropriate. Giving some time off from other tasks to learn new workflows can reduce resistance rather than just adding it on to a regular workload. Office “huddles” going forward can include examples of benefits staff have observed or heard about from the adoption. There are quality improvement processes that engage the team — some that earn MOC-4 or CEU credits — that apply to making workflow changes and measuring them iteratively.

If technology takes over important aspects of the work of medical professionals, even if it is faster and/or more accurate, it may degrade clinical observational, interactional, and decision-making skills through lack of use. It may also remove the sense of self-efficacy that motivates professionals to endure onerous training and desire to enter the field. Using technology may reduce empathetic interactions that are basic to humanistic motivation, work satisfaction, and even community respect. Moral injury is already rampant in medicine from restrictions on freedom to do what we see as important for our patients. Technology has great potential and already is enhancing our ability to provide the best care for patients but the risks need to be watched for and ameliorated.

When technology automates comprehensive visit documentation that highlights priority and risk areas from patient input and individualizes decision support, it can facilitate the personalized care that we and our patients want to experience. We must not be so awed, intrigued, or wary of new technology to miss its benefits nor give up our good clinical judgment about the technology or about our patients.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

We have all been using technology in our primary care practices for a long time but newer formats have been emerging so fast that our minds, much less our staff’s minds, may be spinning.

Our old friend the telephone, a time-soaking nemesis for scheduling, checking coverage, questions calls, prescribing, quick consults, and follow-up is being replaced by EHR portals and SMS for messaging (e.g. DoctorConnect, SimplePractice), drop-in televisits and patient education links on our websites (e.g. Schmitt Pediatric Care, Remedy Connect), and chatbots for scheduling (e.g. CHEC-UP). While time is saved, what is lost may be hearing the subtext of anxiety or misperceptions in parents’ voices that would change our advice and the empathetic human connection in conversations with our patients. A hybrid approach may be better.

The paper appointment book has been replaced by scheduling systems sometimes lacking in flexibility for double booking, sibling visits, and variable length or extremely valuable multi-professional visits. Allowing patients to book their own visits may place complex problems in inappropriate slots, so only allowing online requests for visits is safer. On the other hand, many of us can now squeeze in “same day” televisits (e.g. Blueberry Pediatrics), sometimes from outside our practice (e.g., zocdoc), to increase payments and even entice new patients to enroll.

Amazing advances in technology are being made in specialty care such as genetic modifications (CRISPR), immunotherapies (mRNA vaccines and AI drug design), robot-assisted surgery, and 3-D printing of body parts and prosthetics. Technology as treatment such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and vagal stimulation are finding value in psychiatry.

But beside being aware of and able to order such specialty technologies, innovations are now extending our senses in primary care such as amplified or visual stethoscopes, bedside ultrasound (e.g. Butterfly), remote visualization (oto-, endo-)scopes, photographic vision screens (e.g. iScreen) for skin lesion (VisualDx) and genetic syndrome facial recognition. We need to be sure that technologies are tested and calibrated for children and different racial groups and genders to provide safe and equitable care. Early adoption may not always be the best approach. Costs of technology, as usual, may limit access to these advanced care aids especially, as usual, in practices serving low income and rural communities.

Patients, especially younger parents and youth, now expect to participate and can directly benefit from technology as part of their health care. Validated parent or self-report screens (e.g. EHRs, Phreesia) can detect important issues early for more effective intervention. Such questionnaires typically provide a pass/fail result or score, but other delivery systems (e.g. CHADIS) include interpretation, assist patients/parents in setting visit priorities and health goals, and even chain results of one questionnaire to secondary screens to hone in on problems, sometimes obviating a time-consuming second visit. Patient-completed comprehensive questionnaires (e.g. Well Visit Planner, CHADIS) allow us time to use our skills to focus on concerns, education, and management rather than asking myriad routine questions. Some (e.g. CHADIS) even create visit documentation reducing our “pajama time” write ups (and burnout); automate repeated online measures to track progress; and use questionnaire results to trigger related patient-specific education and resources rather than the often-ignored generic EHR handouts.

Digital therapeutics such as apps for anxiety (e.g. Calm), depression (e.g. SparkRx, Cass), weight control (e.g. Noom, Lose it), fitness, or sleep tracking (e.g. Whoop) help educate and, in some cases, provide real-time feedback to personalize discovery of contributing factors in order to maintain motivation for positive health behavior change. Some video games improve ADHD symptoms (e.g. EndeavorRX). Virtual reality scenarios have been shown to desensitize those with PTSD and social anxiety or teach social skills to children with autism.

Systems that trigger resource listings (including apps) from screen results can help, but now with over 10,000 apps for mental health, knowing what to recommend for what conditions is a challenge for which ratings (e.g. MINDapps.org) can help. With few product reps visiting to tell us what’s new, we need to read critically about innovations, search the web, subscribe to the AAP SOAPM LISTSERV, visit exhibitors at professional meetings, and talk with peers.

All the digital data collected from health care technology, if assembled with privacy constraints and analyzed with advanced statistical methods, have the possibility, with or without inclusion of genomic data, to allow for more accurate diagnostic and treatment decision support. While AI can search widely for patterns, it needs to be “trained” on appropriate data to make correct conclusions. We are all aware that the history determines 85% of both diagnosis and treatment decisions, particularly in primary care where x-rays or lab tests are not often needed.

But history in EHR notes is often idiosyncratic, entered hours after the visit by the clinician, and does not include the information needed to define diagnostic or guideline criteria, even if the clinician knows and considered those criteria. EHR templates are presented blank and are onerous and time consuming for clinicians. In addition, individual patient barriers to care, preferences, and environmental or subjective concerns are infrequently documented even though they may make the biggest difference to adherence and/or outcomes.

Notes made from voice to text digital AI translation of the encounter (e.g. Nuance DAX) are even less likely to include diagnostic criteria as it would be inappropriate to speak these. To use EHR history data to train AI and to test efficacy of care using variations of guidelines, guideline-related data is needed from online patient entries in questionnaires that are transformed to fill in templates along with some structured choices for clinician entries forming visit notes (e.g. CHADIS). New apps to facilitate clinician documentation of guidelines (e.g. AvoMD) could streamline visits as well as help document guideline criteria. The resulting combination of guideline-relevant patient histories and objective data to test and iteratively refine guidelines will allow a process known as a “Learning Health System.”

Technology to collect this kind of data can allow for the aspirational American Academy of Pediatrics CHILD Registry to approach this goal. Population-level data can provide surveillance for illness, toxins, effects of climate change, social drivers of health, and even effects of technologies themselves such as social media and remote learning so that we can attempt to make the best choices for the future.

Clinicians, staff, and patients will need to develop trust in technology as it infiltrates all aspects of health care. Professionals need both evidence and experience to trust a technology, which takes time and effort. Disinformation in the media may reduce trust or evoke unwarranted trust, as we have all seen regarding vaccines. Clear and coherent public health messaging can help but is no longer a panacea for developing trust in health care. Our nonjudgmental listening and informed opinions are needed more than ever.

The biggest issues for new technology are likely to be the need for workflow adjustments, changing our habit patterns, training, and cost/benefit analyses. With today’s high staff churn, confusion and even chaos can ensue when adopting new technology.

Staff need to be part of the selection process, if at all possible, and discuss how roles and flow will need to change. Having one staff member be a champion and expert for new tech can move adoption to a shared process rather than imposing “one more thing.” It is crucial to discuss the benefits for patients and staff even if the change is required. Sometimes cost savings can include a bonus for staff or free group lunches. Providing a certificate of achievement or title promotion for mastering new tech may be appropriate. Giving some time off from other tasks to learn new workflows can reduce resistance rather than just adding it on to a regular workload. Office “huddles” going forward can include examples of benefits staff have observed or heard about from the adoption. There are quality improvement processes that engage the team — some that earn MOC-4 or CEU credits — that apply to making workflow changes and measuring them iteratively.

If technology takes over important aspects of the work of medical professionals, even if it is faster and/or more accurate, it may degrade clinical observational, interactional, and decision-making skills through lack of use. It may also remove the sense of self-efficacy that motivates professionals to endure onerous training and desire to enter the field. Using technology may reduce empathetic interactions that are basic to humanistic motivation, work satisfaction, and even community respect. Moral injury is already rampant in medicine from restrictions on freedom to do what we see as important for our patients. Technology has great potential and already is enhancing our ability to provide the best care for patients but the risks need to be watched for and ameliorated.

When technology automates comprehensive visit documentation that highlights priority and risk areas from patient input and individualizes decision support, it can facilitate the personalized care that we and our patients want to experience. We must not be so awed, intrigued, or wary of new technology to miss its benefits nor give up our good clinical judgment about the technology or about our patients.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

We have all been using technology in our primary care practices for a long time but newer formats have been emerging so fast that our minds, much less our staff’s minds, may be spinning.

Our old friend the telephone, a time-soaking nemesis for scheduling, checking coverage, questions calls, prescribing, quick consults, and follow-up is being replaced by EHR portals and SMS for messaging (e.g. DoctorConnect, SimplePractice), drop-in televisits and patient education links on our websites (e.g. Schmitt Pediatric Care, Remedy Connect), and chatbots for scheduling (e.g. CHEC-UP). While time is saved, what is lost may be hearing the subtext of anxiety or misperceptions in parents’ voices that would change our advice and the empathetic human connection in conversations with our patients. A hybrid approach may be better.

The paper appointment book has been replaced by scheduling systems sometimes lacking in flexibility for double booking, sibling visits, and variable length or extremely valuable multi-professional visits. Allowing patients to book their own visits may place complex problems in inappropriate slots, so only allowing online requests for visits is safer. On the other hand, many of us can now squeeze in “same day” televisits (e.g. Blueberry Pediatrics), sometimes from outside our practice (e.g., zocdoc), to increase payments and even entice new patients to enroll.

Amazing advances in technology are being made in specialty care such as genetic modifications (CRISPR), immunotherapies (mRNA vaccines and AI drug design), robot-assisted surgery, and 3-D printing of body parts and prosthetics. Technology as treatment such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and vagal stimulation are finding value in psychiatry.

But beside being aware of and able to order such specialty technologies, innovations are now extending our senses in primary care such as amplified or visual stethoscopes, bedside ultrasound (e.g. Butterfly), remote visualization (oto-, endo-)scopes, photographic vision screens (e.g. iScreen) for skin lesion (VisualDx) and genetic syndrome facial recognition. We need to be sure that technologies are tested and calibrated for children and different racial groups and genders to provide safe and equitable care. Early adoption may not always be the best approach. Costs of technology, as usual, may limit access to these advanced care aids especially, as usual, in practices serving low income and rural communities.

Patients, especially younger parents and youth, now expect to participate and can directly benefit from technology as part of their health care. Validated parent or self-report screens (e.g. EHRs, Phreesia) can detect important issues early for more effective intervention. Such questionnaires typically provide a pass/fail result or score, but other delivery systems (e.g. CHADIS) include interpretation, assist patients/parents in setting visit priorities and health goals, and even chain results of one questionnaire to secondary screens to hone in on problems, sometimes obviating a time-consuming second visit. Patient-completed comprehensive questionnaires (e.g. Well Visit Planner, CHADIS) allow us time to use our skills to focus on concerns, education, and management rather than asking myriad routine questions. Some (e.g. CHADIS) even create visit documentation reducing our “pajama time” write ups (and burnout); automate repeated online measures to track progress; and use questionnaire results to trigger related patient-specific education and resources rather than the often-ignored generic EHR handouts.

Digital therapeutics such as apps for anxiety (e.g. Calm), depression (e.g. SparkRx, Cass), weight control (e.g. Noom, Lose it), fitness, or sleep tracking (e.g. Whoop) help educate and, in some cases, provide real-time feedback to personalize discovery of contributing factors in order to maintain motivation for positive health behavior change. Some video games improve ADHD symptoms (e.g. EndeavorRX). Virtual reality scenarios have been shown to desensitize those with PTSD and social anxiety or teach social skills to children with autism.

Systems that trigger resource listings (including apps) from screen results can help, but now with over 10,000 apps for mental health, knowing what to recommend for what conditions is a challenge for which ratings (e.g. MINDapps.org) can help. With few product reps visiting to tell us what’s new, we need to read critically about innovations, search the web, subscribe to the AAP SOAPM LISTSERV, visit exhibitors at professional meetings, and talk with peers.

All the digital data collected from health care technology, if assembled with privacy constraints and analyzed with advanced statistical methods, have the possibility, with or without inclusion of genomic data, to allow for more accurate diagnostic and treatment decision support. While AI can search widely for patterns, it needs to be “trained” on appropriate data to make correct conclusions. We are all aware that the history determines 85% of both diagnosis and treatment decisions, particularly in primary care where x-rays or lab tests are not often needed.

But history in EHR notes is often idiosyncratic, entered hours after the visit by the clinician, and does not include the information needed to define diagnostic or guideline criteria, even if the clinician knows and considered those criteria. EHR templates are presented blank and are onerous and time consuming for clinicians. In addition, individual patient barriers to care, preferences, and environmental or subjective concerns are infrequently documented even though they may make the biggest difference to adherence and/or outcomes.

Notes made from voice to text digital AI translation of the encounter (e.g. Nuance DAX) are even less likely to include diagnostic criteria as it would be inappropriate to speak these. To use EHR history data to train AI and to test efficacy of care using variations of guidelines, guideline-related data is needed from online patient entries in questionnaires that are transformed to fill in templates along with some structured choices for clinician entries forming visit notes (e.g. CHADIS). New apps to facilitate clinician documentation of guidelines (e.g. AvoMD) could streamline visits as well as help document guideline criteria. The resulting combination of guideline-relevant patient histories and objective data to test and iteratively refine guidelines will allow a process known as a “Learning Health System.”

Technology to collect this kind of data can allow for the aspirational American Academy of Pediatrics CHILD Registry to approach this goal. Population-level data can provide surveillance for illness, toxins, effects of climate change, social drivers of health, and even effects of technologies themselves such as social media and remote learning so that we can attempt to make the best choices for the future.

Clinicians, staff, and patients will need to develop trust in technology as it infiltrates all aspects of health care. Professionals need both evidence and experience to trust a technology, which takes time and effort. Disinformation in the media may reduce trust or evoke unwarranted trust, as we have all seen regarding vaccines. Clear and coherent public health messaging can help but is no longer a panacea for developing trust in health care. Our nonjudgmental listening and informed opinions are needed more than ever.

The biggest issues for new technology are likely to be the need for workflow adjustments, changing our habit patterns, training, and cost/benefit analyses. With today’s high staff churn, confusion and even chaos can ensue when adopting new technology.

Staff need to be part of the selection process, if at all possible, and discuss how roles and flow will need to change. Having one staff member be a champion and expert for new tech can move adoption to a shared process rather than imposing “one more thing.” It is crucial to discuss the benefits for patients and staff even if the change is required. Sometimes cost savings can include a bonus for staff or free group lunches. Providing a certificate of achievement or title promotion for mastering new tech may be appropriate. Giving some time off from other tasks to learn new workflows can reduce resistance rather than just adding it on to a regular workload. Office “huddles” going forward can include examples of benefits staff have observed or heard about from the adoption. There are quality improvement processes that engage the team — some that earn MOC-4 or CEU credits — that apply to making workflow changes and measuring them iteratively.

If technology takes over important aspects of the work of medical professionals, even if it is faster and/or more accurate, it may degrade clinical observational, interactional, and decision-making skills through lack of use. It may also remove the sense of self-efficacy that motivates professionals to endure onerous training and desire to enter the field. Using technology may reduce empathetic interactions that are basic to humanistic motivation, work satisfaction, and even community respect. Moral injury is already rampant in medicine from restrictions on freedom to do what we see as important for our patients. Technology has great potential and already is enhancing our ability to provide the best care for patients but the risks need to be watched for and ameliorated.

When technology automates comprehensive visit documentation that highlights priority and risk areas from patient input and individualizes decision support, it can facilitate the personalized care that we and our patients want to experience. We must not be so awed, intrigued, or wary of new technology to miss its benefits nor give up our good clinical judgment about the technology or about our patients.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already impacting the mental health care space, with several new tools available to both clinicians and patients. While this technology could be a game-changer amid a mental health crisis and clinician shortage, there are important ethical and efficacy concerns clinicians should be aware of.

Lifestance Health

Current use cases illustrate both the potential and risks of AI. On one hand, AI has the potential to improve patient care with tools that can support diagnoses and inform treatment decisions at scale. The UK’s National Health Service is using an AI-powered diagnostic tool to help clinicians diagnose mental health disorders and determine the severity of a patient’s needs. Other tools leverage AI to analyze a patient’s voice for signs of depression or anxiety.

On the other hand, there are serious potential risks involving privacy, bias, and misinformation. One chatbot tool designed to counsel patients through disordered eating was shut down after giving problematic weight-loss advice.

The number of AI tools in the healthcare space is expected to increase fivefold by 2035. Keeping up with these advances is just as important for clinicians as keeping up with the latest medication and treatment options. That means being aware of both the limitations and the potential of AI. Here are three questions clinicians can ask as they explore ways to integrate these tools into their practice while navigating the risks.
 

• How can AI augment, not replace, the work of my staff?

AI’s biggest potential lies in its ability to augment the work of clinicians, rather than replacing it. Mental health clinicians should evaluate emerging AI tools through this lens.

For example, documentation and the use of electronic health records have consistently been linked to clinician burnout. Using AI to cut down on documentation would leave clinicians with more time and energy to focus on patient care.

One study from the National Library of Medicine found that physicians who did not have enough time to complete documentation were nearly three times more likely to report burnout. In some cases, clinic schedules were deliberately shortened to allow time for documentation.

New tools are emerging that use audio recording, transcription services, and large language models to generate clinical summaries and other documentation support. Amazon and 3M have partnered to solve documentation challenges using AI. This is an area I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on as it develops.
 

• Do I have patient consent to use this tool?

Since most AI tools remain relatively new, there is a gap in the legal and regulatory framework needed to ensure patient privacy and data protection. Clinicians should draw on existing guardrails and best practices to protect patient privacy and prioritize informed consent. The bottom line: Patients need to know how their data will be used and agree to it.

In the example above regarding documentation, a clinician should obtain patient consent before using technology that records or transcribes sessions. This extends to disclosing the use of AI chat tools and other touch points that occur between sessions. One mental health nonprofit has come under fire for using ChatGPT to provide mental health counseling to thousands of patients who weren’t aware the responses were generated by AI.

Beyond disclosing the use of these tools, clinicians should sufficiently explain how they work to ensure patients understand what they’re consenting to. Some technology companies offer guidance on how informed consent applies to their products and even offer template consent forms to support clinicians. Ultimately, accountability for maintaining patient privacy rests with the clinician, not the company behind the AI tool.
 

• Where is there a risk of bias?

There has been much discussion around the issue of bias within large language models in particular, since these programs will inherit any bias from the data points or text used to train them. However, there is often little to no visibility into how these models are trained, the algorithms they rely on, and how efficacy is measured.

This is especially concerning within the mental health care space, where bias can contribute to lower-quality care based on a patient’s race, gender or other characteristics. One systemic review published in JAMA Network Open found that most of the AI models used for psychiatric diagnoses that have been studied had a high overall risk of bias — which can lead to outputs that are misleading or incorrect, which can be dangerous in the healthcare field.

It’s important to keep the risk of bias top-of-mind when exploring AI tools and consider whether a tool would pose any direct harm to patients. Clinicians should have active oversight with any use of AI and, ultimately, consider an AI tool’s outputs alongside their own insights, expertise, and instincts.
 

Clinicians have the power to shape AI’s impact

While there is plenty to be excited about as these new tools develop, clinicians should explore AI with an eye toward the risks as well as the rewards. Practitioners have a significant opportunity to help shape how this technology develops by making informed decisions about which products to invest in and holding tech companies accountable. By educating patients, prioritizing informed consent, and seeking ways to augment their work that ultimately improve quality and scale of care, clinicians can help ensure positive outcomes while minimizing unintended consequences.

Dr. Patel-Dunn is a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at Lifestance Health, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already impacting the mental health care space, with several new tools available to both clinicians and patients. While this technology could be a game-changer amid a mental health crisis and clinician shortage, there are important ethical and efficacy concerns clinicians should be aware of.

Lifestance Health

Current use cases illustrate both the potential and risks of AI. On one hand, AI has the potential to improve patient care with tools that can support diagnoses and inform treatment decisions at scale. The UK’s National Health Service is using an AI-powered diagnostic tool to help clinicians diagnose mental health disorders and determine the severity of a patient’s needs. Other tools leverage AI to analyze a patient’s voice for signs of depression or anxiety.

On the other hand, there are serious potential risks involving privacy, bias, and misinformation. One chatbot tool designed to counsel patients through disordered eating was shut down after giving problematic weight-loss advice.

The number of AI tools in the healthcare space is expected to increase fivefold by 2035. Keeping up with these advances is just as important for clinicians as keeping up with the latest medication and treatment options. That means being aware of both the limitations and the potential of AI. Here are three questions clinicians can ask as they explore ways to integrate these tools into their practice while navigating the risks.
 

• How can AI augment, not replace, the work of my staff?

AI’s biggest potential lies in its ability to augment the work of clinicians, rather than replacing it. Mental health clinicians should evaluate emerging AI tools through this lens.

For example, documentation and the use of electronic health records have consistently been linked to clinician burnout. Using AI to cut down on documentation would leave clinicians with more time and energy to focus on patient care.

One study from the National Library of Medicine found that physicians who did not have enough time to complete documentation were nearly three times more likely to report burnout. In some cases, clinic schedules were deliberately shortened to allow time for documentation.

New tools are emerging that use audio recording, transcription services, and large language models to generate clinical summaries and other documentation support. Amazon and 3M have partnered to solve documentation challenges using AI. This is an area I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on as it develops.
 

• Do I have patient consent to use this tool?

Since most AI tools remain relatively new, there is a gap in the legal and regulatory framework needed to ensure patient privacy and data protection. Clinicians should draw on existing guardrails and best practices to protect patient privacy and prioritize informed consent. The bottom line: Patients need to know how their data will be used and agree to it.

In the example above regarding documentation, a clinician should obtain patient consent before using technology that records or transcribes sessions. This extends to disclosing the use of AI chat tools and other touch points that occur between sessions. One mental health nonprofit has come under fire for using ChatGPT to provide mental health counseling to thousands of patients who weren’t aware the responses were generated by AI.

Beyond disclosing the use of these tools, clinicians should sufficiently explain how they work to ensure patients understand what they’re consenting to. Some technology companies offer guidance on how informed consent applies to their products and even offer template consent forms to support clinicians. Ultimately, accountability for maintaining patient privacy rests with the clinician, not the company behind the AI tool.
 

• Where is there a risk of bias?

There has been much discussion around the issue of bias within large language models in particular, since these programs will inherit any bias from the data points or text used to train them. However, there is often little to no visibility into how these models are trained, the algorithms they rely on, and how efficacy is measured.

This is especially concerning within the mental health care space, where bias can contribute to lower-quality care based on a patient’s race, gender or other characteristics. One systemic review published in JAMA Network Open found that most of the AI models used for psychiatric diagnoses that have been studied had a high overall risk of bias — which can lead to outputs that are misleading or incorrect, which can be dangerous in the healthcare field.

It’s important to keep the risk of bias top-of-mind when exploring AI tools and consider whether a tool would pose any direct harm to patients. Clinicians should have active oversight with any use of AI and, ultimately, consider an AI tool’s outputs alongside their own insights, expertise, and instincts.
 

Clinicians have the power to shape AI’s impact

While there is plenty to be excited about as these new tools develop, clinicians should explore AI with an eye toward the risks as well as the rewards. Practitioners have a significant opportunity to help shape how this technology develops by making informed decisions about which products to invest in and holding tech companies accountable. By educating patients, prioritizing informed consent, and seeking ways to augment their work that ultimately improve quality and scale of care, clinicians can help ensure positive outcomes while minimizing unintended consequences.

Dr. Patel-Dunn is a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at Lifestance Health, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already impacting the mental health care space, with several new tools available to both clinicians and patients. While this technology could be a game-changer amid a mental health crisis and clinician shortage, there are important ethical and efficacy concerns clinicians should be aware of.

Lifestance Health

Current use cases illustrate both the potential and risks of AI. On one hand, AI has the potential to improve patient care with tools that can support diagnoses and inform treatment decisions at scale. The UK’s National Health Service is using an AI-powered diagnostic tool to help clinicians diagnose mental health disorders and determine the severity of a patient’s needs. Other tools leverage AI to analyze a patient’s voice for signs of depression or anxiety.

On the other hand, there are serious potential risks involving privacy, bias, and misinformation. One chatbot tool designed to counsel patients through disordered eating was shut down after giving problematic weight-loss advice.

The number of AI tools in the healthcare space is expected to increase fivefold by 2035. Keeping up with these advances is just as important for clinicians as keeping up with the latest medication and treatment options. That means being aware of both the limitations and the potential of AI. Here are three questions clinicians can ask as they explore ways to integrate these tools into their practice while navigating the risks.
 

• How can AI augment, not replace, the work of my staff?

AI’s biggest potential lies in its ability to augment the work of clinicians, rather than replacing it. Mental health clinicians should evaluate emerging AI tools through this lens.

For example, documentation and the use of electronic health records have consistently been linked to clinician burnout. Using AI to cut down on documentation would leave clinicians with more time and energy to focus on patient care.

One study from the National Library of Medicine found that physicians who did not have enough time to complete documentation were nearly three times more likely to report burnout. In some cases, clinic schedules were deliberately shortened to allow time for documentation.

New tools are emerging that use audio recording, transcription services, and large language models to generate clinical summaries and other documentation support. Amazon and 3M have partnered to solve documentation challenges using AI. This is an area I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on as it develops.
 

• Do I have patient consent to use this tool?

Since most AI tools remain relatively new, there is a gap in the legal and regulatory framework needed to ensure patient privacy and data protection. Clinicians should draw on existing guardrails and best practices to protect patient privacy and prioritize informed consent. The bottom line: Patients need to know how their data will be used and agree to it.

In the example above regarding documentation, a clinician should obtain patient consent before using technology that records or transcribes sessions. This extends to disclosing the use of AI chat tools and other touch points that occur between sessions. One mental health nonprofit has come under fire for using ChatGPT to provide mental health counseling to thousands of patients who weren’t aware the responses were generated by AI.

Beyond disclosing the use of these tools, clinicians should sufficiently explain how they work to ensure patients understand what they’re consenting to. Some technology companies offer guidance on how informed consent applies to their products and even offer template consent forms to support clinicians. Ultimately, accountability for maintaining patient privacy rests with the clinician, not the company behind the AI tool.
 

• Where is there a risk of bias?

There has been much discussion around the issue of bias within large language models in particular, since these programs will inherit any bias from the data points or text used to train them. However, there is often little to no visibility into how these models are trained, the algorithms they rely on, and how efficacy is measured.

This is especially concerning within the mental health care space, where bias can contribute to lower-quality care based on a patient’s race, gender or other characteristics. One systemic review published in JAMA Network Open found that most of the AI models used for psychiatric diagnoses that have been studied had a high overall risk of bias — which can lead to outputs that are misleading or incorrect, which can be dangerous in the healthcare field.

It’s important to keep the risk of bias top-of-mind when exploring AI tools and consider whether a tool would pose any direct harm to patients. Clinicians should have active oversight with any use of AI and, ultimately, consider an AI tool’s outputs alongside their own insights, expertise, and instincts.
 

Clinicians have the power to shape AI’s impact

While there is plenty to be excited about as these new tools develop, clinicians should explore AI with an eye toward the risks as well as the rewards. Practitioners have a significant opportunity to help shape how this technology develops by making informed decisions about which products to invest in and holding tech companies accountable. By educating patients, prioritizing informed consent, and seeking ways to augment their work that ultimately improve quality and scale of care, clinicians can help ensure positive outcomes while minimizing unintended consequences.

Dr. Patel-Dunn is a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at Lifestance Health, Scottsdale, Ariz.