Business of Medicine

You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.

Professional liability insurance

According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.

And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.

Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.

But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
 

Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance

All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:

• Reckless or intentional acts.
• Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
• Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
• Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Altering patient or hospital records.
• Sexual misconduct.
• Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.

It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.

Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
 

The case

Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.

The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.

However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.

The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.

The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.

A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.

After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
 

Court and jury decide

In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.

The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.

However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.

The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.

While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
 

Protecting yourself

The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.

Other ways to protect yourself:

• Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
• Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
• Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
• Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
• The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.

The future

In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.

The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.

In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”

Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
 

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

You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.

Professional liability insurance

According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.

And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.

Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.

But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
 

Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance

All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:

• Reckless or intentional acts.
• Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
• Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
• Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Altering patient or hospital records.
• Sexual misconduct.
• Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.

It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.

Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
 

The case

Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.

The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.

However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.

The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.

The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.

A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.

After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
 

Court and jury decide

In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.

The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.

However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.

The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.

While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
 

Protecting yourself

The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.

Other ways to protect yourself:

• Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
• Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
• Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
• Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
• The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.

The future

In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.

The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.

In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”

Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
 

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

You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.

Professional liability insurance

According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.

And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.

Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.

But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
 

Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance

All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:

• Reckless or intentional acts.
• Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
• Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
• Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Altering patient or hospital records.
• Sexual misconduct.
• Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.

It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.

Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
 

The case

Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.

The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.

However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.

The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.

The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.

A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.

After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
 

Court and jury decide

In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.

The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.

However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.

The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.

While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
 

Protecting yourself

The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.

Other ways to protect yourself:

• Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
• Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
• Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
• Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
• The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.

The future

In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.

The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.

In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”

Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
 

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

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.

“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”

Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.

“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”

Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.

Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”

Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.

Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
 

What should you expect after PE acquisition?

Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.

Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.

“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”

Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.

“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”

When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.

Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.

In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.

PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.

On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.

“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”

Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.

The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.

“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
 

How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships

If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.

“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.

When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.

“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”

Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.

“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”

“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”

For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.

Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.

Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.

In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.

She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.

“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
 

Why is PE so attracted to health care?

PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.

These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.

When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.

At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.

Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.

Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.

A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.

“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.

“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.

PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.

“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”

Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.

“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”

Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.

Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”

Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.

Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
 

What should you expect after PE acquisition?

Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.

Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.

“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”

Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.

“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”

When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.

Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.

In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.

PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.

On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.

“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”

Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.

The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.

“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
 

How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships

If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.

“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.

When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.

“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”

Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.

“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”

“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”

For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.

Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.

Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.

In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.

She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.

“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
 

Why is PE so attracted to health care?

PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.

These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.

When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.

At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.

Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.

Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.

A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.

“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.

“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.

PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.

“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”

Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.

“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”

Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.

Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”

Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.

Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
 

What should you expect after PE acquisition?

Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.

Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.

“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”

Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.

“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”

When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.

Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.

In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.

PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.

On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.

“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”

Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.

The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.

“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
 

How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships

If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.

“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.

When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.

“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”

Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.

“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”

“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”

For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.

Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.

Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.

In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.

She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.

“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
 

Why is PE so attracted to health care?

PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.

These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.

When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.

At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.

Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.

Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.

A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.

“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.

“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.

PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Beleaguered directors of obstetrics/gynecology residency programs may be relieved to know that a new application platform for all ob.gyn. residency applications is poised to come into effect for the 2024-25 cycle.

In a recent joint announcement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics said the new system, ResidencyCAS, offered by Liaison Centralized Application Service, will replace the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). ERAS was implemented some 25 years ago by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
 

Efficiencies and lower costs

Potential startup glitches aside, the transition will allegedly lower skyrocketing application fees and provide enhanced efficiencies and a better user experience than ERAS. So far, ob.gyn. is first and the only specialty to jump ship from the established platform. But if other specialties follow suit making the new software the norm, that will have a serious impact on ERAS’s revenues, said J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, a pediatric nephrologist at the Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters, Norfolk, Va., who closely monitors and writes about residency selection and discussed the coming transition in a recent blog posting.

courtesy Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters

“My feeling is that the average program director thinks that ERAS is functional but there are not many, if any, who are in love with ERAS,” Dr. Carmody said in an interview. “I think ERAS will benefit from having a competitor.”

A major drawback for applicants with the removal of ob.gyn. from ERAS, which handles almost all medical specialties, is that those seeking acceptance in more than one specialty will now need to apply twice and incur two sets of costs. “A substantial fraction of applicants do that and now they’ll have to navigate two different systems and collect and format all their documents for both, which will be burdensome,” he said.
 

Holistic review

According to the ACOG announcement, the new technology promises to manage the deluge of applications more efficiently and, most important, to allow program directors to evaluate candidates holistically in order to better meet the specific needs of different communities.

courtesy University of Michigan

“The platform makes it much easier to review applicants for important characteristics other than academic, and It will cost applicants about 20% less,” said Maya M. Hammoud, MD, MBA, professor and association chair for education, obstetrics, and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and past president of APGO.

So far the announced switch has been positively received. “People are very excited about the change, especially when they see the video,” Dr. Hammoud said.

For Adi Katz, MD, director of gynecology and director of the obstetrics and gynecology residency program at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, the change signals a step in the right direction, especially when it comes to application reviewing. “The number of applications has been increasing tremendously in the past few years. We have four residency spots and we get almost 900 applications for them, ” she said. “Under the present system it’s hard to give a fair review to all the applicants, and we hope that with change we’ll be able to give each one the attention they deserve.”

An important feature, added Dr. Katz, is that the new software will allow directors to do intuitive, “gut-level” screenings with the help of AI. In this approach, large numbers of candidates can be screened based on intuition in relation to their formal criteria.

Residency program administrators have long sought more holistic ways of screening applicants, and AI has the potential to provide insights into who’s a good fit by finding patterns in very complex data.

“Of course, we won’t know for sure if it’s the right move until we start using the platform,” Dr. Katz said.

courtesy ACOG

“There are many factors beyond academic standing that can help determine which individual applicants would be the best fit for each unique program,” AnnaMarie Connolly, MD, chief of education and academic affairs at ACOG, said in an interview. ”In particular, improved holistic review will allow programs and applicants to better ensure alignment that, for example, considers factors such as applicants’ clinical interests, academic interests, and past life experiences.”

Updated data science is expected better align ob.gyn. programs and applicants, and improve staff efficiency at no cost to programs, Dr. Connolly added. Good alignment of residents with programs is especially important in a patient-interactive specialty such as ob.gyn. Webinars will prepare users to apply the new system.

According to the promotional video, ResidencyCAS integrates all components of application from candidates’ letters and credentials to lists of program directors, applicant reviews, and specialty data analytics. Collecting recommendations and credentials is expected to be streamlined. The software is currently used by 31 U.S. health care professions and across 31,000 programs.

“It’s clear that ob.gyn. residency applicants and ob.gyn. programs have been frustrated by certain aspects of the former application system, one of which being high costs,” Dr. Connolly added. “The feedback we’ve received indicates that programs are excited about a more streamlined process.”
 

AAMC strikes back

Not all groups are so enthusiastic, however, including, understandably, the AAMC, which expressed “surprise and dismay” at the switch.

courtesy AAMC

“While it is too early to fully understand the consequences of this development – intended and unintended – the AAMC remains committed to creating a fair and equitable process for learners, medical schools, and programs,” wrote AAMC spokespersons David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC’s CEO, and Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer in a statement. “We are concerned that ob.gyn. program data will no longer be part of the numerous and longstanding AAMC data and research efforts.”

Those efforts include the Residency Readiness Survey, multidecade institution-level data and analytics, and future cross-specialty innovations. Lost with the changeover, the AAMC warned, may be the cross-specialty data it has collected, analyzed, and shared since ERAS’s inception, in particular its advocacy, research, and data support for the ob.gyn. community following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson.
 

Evolution of specialty application

In a blog posting, Dr. Carmody outlined the evolution of the specialty residency application process. Pre-ERAS application was slow, cumbersome, and done by mail. With the introduction of ERAS, applicants were able to put their information on floppy discs and submit them to the dean’s office, hopefully triggering interview offers via email. The new approach was originally piloted in partnership with ob.gyn. program directors and now ERAS finds itself in a first-in, first-out situation.

Over the years, program directors suffocating under the weight of applications have periodically asked the AAMC to share data or make changes to ERAS protocols or policies, including those on the sharing of collected information. “Its my perception that frustration about the AAMC’s data sharing was one of the things that led to the change,” Dr. Carmody said. While acknowledging that data sharing must be carefully done, he noted that, when program directors asked to see ERAS data to answer important questions, they were often refused.

While it appears that AAMC’s improvement efforts have not gone far or fast enough, the association pointed to significant efforts to streamline applications. It stressed its ongoing commitment to cooperation “with learners, medical schools, and the ERAS program community to further consider the implications of ACOG’s announcement.” It recently announced a collaboration with Thalamus-connecting the docs, a new interview-management software system the AAMC expects will accelerate innovation across the transition-to-residency process.

“We have many questions and few answers at this time,” Dr. Skorton and Dr. Whelan wrote, “and we will work diligently to fully understand the consequences and keep open communication with all of our constituents.”
 

Financial impact

Ob.gyn., an important but relatively small specialty, represented only 2.8% of the 2022 residency applications on ERAS and $3,362,760 of its $120 million in revenue that year, Dr. Carmody noted. That’s with 2,613 ob.gyn. applicants submitting an average of 63-83 applications depending on their background.

But if the defection of ob.gyn. starts a stampede among program directors in other branches of medicine to ResidencyCAS or some other new platform, that would cost ERAS substantially more.

“The next few years are going to be very telling,” said Dr. Carmody. Although competition may act as a catalyst for needed improvements to ERAS, if momentum grows, the comfortable inertia of staying with a known system may soon be overcome. “And the more specialties that switch, the more that will deprive the AAMC of the revenue it needs to improve the product.”

Dr. Carmody and Dr. Katz disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest with regard to their comments.

Beleaguered directors of obstetrics/gynecology residency programs may be relieved to know that a new application platform for all ob.gyn. residency applications is poised to come into effect for the 2024-25 cycle.

In a recent joint announcement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics said the new system, ResidencyCAS, offered by Liaison Centralized Application Service, will replace the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). ERAS was implemented some 25 years ago by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
 

Efficiencies and lower costs

Potential startup glitches aside, the transition will allegedly lower skyrocketing application fees and provide enhanced efficiencies and a better user experience than ERAS. So far, ob.gyn. is first and the only specialty to jump ship from the established platform. But if other specialties follow suit making the new software the norm, that will have a serious impact on ERAS’s revenues, said J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, a pediatric nephrologist at the Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters, Norfolk, Va., who closely monitors and writes about residency selection and discussed the coming transition in a recent blog posting.

courtesy Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters

“My feeling is that the average program director thinks that ERAS is functional but there are not many, if any, who are in love with ERAS,” Dr. Carmody said in an interview. “I think ERAS will benefit from having a competitor.”

A major drawback for applicants with the removal of ob.gyn. from ERAS, which handles almost all medical specialties, is that those seeking acceptance in more than one specialty will now need to apply twice and incur two sets of costs. “A substantial fraction of applicants do that and now they’ll have to navigate two different systems and collect and format all their documents for both, which will be burdensome,” he said.
 

Holistic review

According to the ACOG announcement, the new technology promises to manage the deluge of applications more efficiently and, most important, to allow program directors to evaluate candidates holistically in order to better meet the specific needs of different communities.

courtesy University of Michigan

“The platform makes it much easier to review applicants for important characteristics other than academic, and It will cost applicants about 20% less,” said Maya M. Hammoud, MD, MBA, professor and association chair for education, obstetrics, and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and past president of APGO.

So far the announced switch has been positively received. “People are very excited about the change, especially when they see the video,” Dr. Hammoud said.

For Adi Katz, MD, director of gynecology and director of the obstetrics and gynecology residency program at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, the change signals a step in the right direction, especially when it comes to application reviewing. “The number of applications has been increasing tremendously in the past few years. We have four residency spots and we get almost 900 applications for them, ” she said. “Under the present system it’s hard to give a fair review to all the applicants, and we hope that with change we’ll be able to give each one the attention they deserve.”

An important feature, added Dr. Katz, is that the new software will allow directors to do intuitive, “gut-level” screenings with the help of AI. In this approach, large numbers of candidates can be screened based on intuition in relation to their formal criteria.

Residency program administrators have long sought more holistic ways of screening applicants, and AI has the potential to provide insights into who’s a good fit by finding patterns in very complex data.

“Of course, we won’t know for sure if it’s the right move until we start using the platform,” Dr. Katz said.

courtesy ACOG

“There are many factors beyond academic standing that can help determine which individual applicants would be the best fit for each unique program,” AnnaMarie Connolly, MD, chief of education and academic affairs at ACOG, said in an interview. ”In particular, improved holistic review will allow programs and applicants to better ensure alignment that, for example, considers factors such as applicants’ clinical interests, academic interests, and past life experiences.”

Updated data science is expected better align ob.gyn. programs and applicants, and improve staff efficiency at no cost to programs, Dr. Connolly added. Good alignment of residents with programs is especially important in a patient-interactive specialty such as ob.gyn. Webinars will prepare users to apply the new system.

According to the promotional video, ResidencyCAS integrates all components of application from candidates’ letters and credentials to lists of program directors, applicant reviews, and specialty data analytics. Collecting recommendations and credentials is expected to be streamlined. The software is currently used by 31 U.S. health care professions and across 31,000 programs.

“It’s clear that ob.gyn. residency applicants and ob.gyn. programs have been frustrated by certain aspects of the former application system, one of which being high costs,” Dr. Connolly added. “The feedback we’ve received indicates that programs are excited about a more streamlined process.”
 

AAMC strikes back

Not all groups are so enthusiastic, however, including, understandably, the AAMC, which expressed “surprise and dismay” at the switch.

courtesy AAMC

“While it is too early to fully understand the consequences of this development – intended and unintended – the AAMC remains committed to creating a fair and equitable process for learners, medical schools, and programs,” wrote AAMC spokespersons David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC’s CEO, and Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer in a statement. “We are concerned that ob.gyn. program data will no longer be part of the numerous and longstanding AAMC data and research efforts.”

Those efforts include the Residency Readiness Survey, multidecade institution-level data and analytics, and future cross-specialty innovations. Lost with the changeover, the AAMC warned, may be the cross-specialty data it has collected, analyzed, and shared since ERAS’s inception, in particular its advocacy, research, and data support for the ob.gyn. community following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson.
 

Evolution of specialty application

In a blog posting, Dr. Carmody outlined the evolution of the specialty residency application process. Pre-ERAS application was slow, cumbersome, and done by mail. With the introduction of ERAS, applicants were able to put their information on floppy discs and submit them to the dean’s office, hopefully triggering interview offers via email. The new approach was originally piloted in partnership with ob.gyn. program directors and now ERAS finds itself in a first-in, first-out situation.

Over the years, program directors suffocating under the weight of applications have periodically asked the AAMC to share data or make changes to ERAS protocols or policies, including those on the sharing of collected information. “Its my perception that frustration about the AAMC’s data sharing was one of the things that led to the change,” Dr. Carmody said. While acknowledging that data sharing must be carefully done, he noted that, when program directors asked to see ERAS data to answer important questions, they were often refused.

While it appears that AAMC’s improvement efforts have not gone far or fast enough, the association pointed to significant efforts to streamline applications. It stressed its ongoing commitment to cooperation “with learners, medical schools, and the ERAS program community to further consider the implications of ACOG’s announcement.” It recently announced a collaboration with Thalamus-connecting the docs, a new interview-management software system the AAMC expects will accelerate innovation across the transition-to-residency process.

“We have many questions and few answers at this time,” Dr. Skorton and Dr. Whelan wrote, “and we will work diligently to fully understand the consequences and keep open communication with all of our constituents.”
 

Financial impact

Ob.gyn., an important but relatively small specialty, represented only 2.8% of the 2022 residency applications on ERAS and $3,362,760 of its $120 million in revenue that year, Dr. Carmody noted. That’s with 2,613 ob.gyn. applicants submitting an average of 63-83 applications depending on their background.

But if the defection of ob.gyn. starts a stampede among program directors in other branches of medicine to ResidencyCAS or some other new platform, that would cost ERAS substantially more.

“The next few years are going to be very telling,” said Dr. Carmody. Although competition may act as a catalyst for needed improvements to ERAS, if momentum grows, the comfortable inertia of staying with a known system may soon be overcome. “And the more specialties that switch, the more that will deprive the AAMC of the revenue it needs to improve the product.”

Dr. Carmody and Dr. Katz disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest with regard to their comments.

Beleaguered directors of obstetrics/gynecology residency programs may be relieved to know that a new application platform for all ob.gyn. residency applications is poised to come into effect for the 2024-25 cycle.

In a recent joint announcement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics said the new system, ResidencyCAS, offered by Liaison Centralized Application Service, will replace the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). ERAS was implemented some 25 years ago by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
 

Efficiencies and lower costs

Potential startup glitches aside, the transition will allegedly lower skyrocketing application fees and provide enhanced efficiencies and a better user experience than ERAS. So far, ob.gyn. is first and the only specialty to jump ship from the established platform. But if other specialties follow suit making the new software the norm, that will have a serious impact on ERAS’s revenues, said J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, a pediatric nephrologist at the Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters, Norfolk, Va., who closely monitors and writes about residency selection and discussed the coming transition in a recent blog posting.

courtesy Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters

“My feeling is that the average program director thinks that ERAS is functional but there are not many, if any, who are in love with ERAS,” Dr. Carmody said in an interview. “I think ERAS will benefit from having a competitor.”

A major drawback for applicants with the removal of ob.gyn. from ERAS, which handles almost all medical specialties, is that those seeking acceptance in more than one specialty will now need to apply twice and incur two sets of costs. “A substantial fraction of applicants do that and now they’ll have to navigate two different systems and collect and format all their documents for both, which will be burdensome,” he said.
 

Holistic review

According to the ACOG announcement, the new technology promises to manage the deluge of applications more efficiently and, most important, to allow program directors to evaluate candidates holistically in order to better meet the specific needs of different communities.

courtesy University of Michigan

“The platform makes it much easier to review applicants for important characteristics other than academic, and It will cost applicants about 20% less,” said Maya M. Hammoud, MD, MBA, professor and association chair for education, obstetrics, and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and past president of APGO.

So far the announced switch has been positively received. “People are very excited about the change, especially when they see the video,” Dr. Hammoud said.

For Adi Katz, MD, director of gynecology and director of the obstetrics and gynecology residency program at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, the change signals a step in the right direction, especially when it comes to application reviewing. “The number of applications has been increasing tremendously in the past few years. We have four residency spots and we get almost 900 applications for them, ” she said. “Under the present system it’s hard to give a fair review to all the applicants, and we hope that with change we’ll be able to give each one the attention they deserve.”

An important feature, added Dr. Katz, is that the new software will allow directors to do intuitive, “gut-level” screenings with the help of AI. In this approach, large numbers of candidates can be screened based on intuition in relation to their formal criteria.

Residency program administrators have long sought more holistic ways of screening applicants, and AI has the potential to provide insights into who’s a good fit by finding patterns in very complex data.

“Of course, we won’t know for sure if it’s the right move until we start using the platform,” Dr. Katz said.

courtesy ACOG

“There are many factors beyond academic standing that can help determine which individual applicants would be the best fit for each unique program,” AnnaMarie Connolly, MD, chief of education and academic affairs at ACOG, said in an interview. ”In particular, improved holistic review will allow programs and applicants to better ensure alignment that, for example, considers factors such as applicants’ clinical interests, academic interests, and past life experiences.”

Updated data science is expected better align ob.gyn. programs and applicants, and improve staff efficiency at no cost to programs, Dr. Connolly added. Good alignment of residents with programs is especially important in a patient-interactive specialty such as ob.gyn. Webinars will prepare users to apply the new system.

According to the promotional video, ResidencyCAS integrates all components of application from candidates’ letters and credentials to lists of program directors, applicant reviews, and specialty data analytics. Collecting recommendations and credentials is expected to be streamlined. The software is currently used by 31 U.S. health care professions and across 31,000 programs.

“It’s clear that ob.gyn. residency applicants and ob.gyn. programs have been frustrated by certain aspects of the former application system, one of which being high costs,” Dr. Connolly added. “The feedback we’ve received indicates that programs are excited about a more streamlined process.”
 

AAMC strikes back

Not all groups are so enthusiastic, however, including, understandably, the AAMC, which expressed “surprise and dismay” at the switch.

courtesy AAMC

“While it is too early to fully understand the consequences of this development – intended and unintended – the AAMC remains committed to creating a fair and equitable process for learners, medical schools, and programs,” wrote AAMC spokespersons David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC’s CEO, and Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer in a statement. “We are concerned that ob.gyn. program data will no longer be part of the numerous and longstanding AAMC data and research efforts.”

Those efforts include the Residency Readiness Survey, multidecade institution-level data and analytics, and future cross-specialty innovations. Lost with the changeover, the AAMC warned, may be the cross-specialty data it has collected, analyzed, and shared since ERAS’s inception, in particular its advocacy, research, and data support for the ob.gyn. community following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson.
 

Evolution of specialty application

In a blog posting, Dr. Carmody outlined the evolution of the specialty residency application process. Pre-ERAS application was slow, cumbersome, and done by mail. With the introduction of ERAS, applicants were able to put their information on floppy discs and submit them to the dean’s office, hopefully triggering interview offers via email. The new approach was originally piloted in partnership with ob.gyn. program directors and now ERAS finds itself in a first-in, first-out situation.

Over the years, program directors suffocating under the weight of applications have periodically asked the AAMC to share data or make changes to ERAS protocols or policies, including those on the sharing of collected information. “Its my perception that frustration about the AAMC’s data sharing was one of the things that led to the change,” Dr. Carmody said. While acknowledging that data sharing must be carefully done, he noted that, when program directors asked to see ERAS data to answer important questions, they were often refused.

While it appears that AAMC’s improvement efforts have not gone far or fast enough, the association pointed to significant efforts to streamline applications. It stressed its ongoing commitment to cooperation “with learners, medical schools, and the ERAS program community to further consider the implications of ACOG’s announcement.” It recently announced a collaboration with Thalamus-connecting the docs, a new interview-management software system the AAMC expects will accelerate innovation across the transition-to-residency process.

“We have many questions and few answers at this time,” Dr. Skorton and Dr. Whelan wrote, “and we will work diligently to fully understand the consequences and keep open communication with all of our constituents.”
 

Financial impact

Ob.gyn., an important but relatively small specialty, represented only 2.8% of the 2022 residency applications on ERAS and $3,362,760 of its $120 million in revenue that year, Dr. Carmody noted. That’s with 2,613 ob.gyn. applicants submitting an average of 63-83 applications depending on their background.

But if the defection of ob.gyn. starts a stampede among program directors in other branches of medicine to ResidencyCAS or some other new platform, that would cost ERAS substantially more.

“The next few years are going to be very telling,” said Dr. Carmody. Although competition may act as a catalyst for needed improvements to ERAS, if momentum grows, the comfortable inertia of staying with a known system may soon be overcome. “And the more specialties that switch, the more that will deprive the AAMC of the revenue it needs to improve the product.”

Dr. Carmody and Dr. Katz disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest with regard to their comments.

In data from the 2018-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, an annual, nationally representative cross-sectional study, fewer than half of children aged 3-5 with private insurance received vision testing, with rates even lower in those lacking private insurance. The findings point to unmet eye care needs, especially in young children for whom early testing to ward off vision loss is highly recommended.

The report was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology by Olivia J. Killeen MD, MS, an ophthalmologist during the study in the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

Grace Han

Future work should focus on improving primary care provider vision screening rates, especially for the 3- to 5-year age group, the authors wrote.

“Because children often are not aware they have an eye problem, routine vision testing in the primary care setting can help identify those with potential eye disease,” Dr. Killeen said. “We have an opportunity to improve the early detection and treatment of eye disease by improving primary care vision testing.”

Childhood vision testing, which falls into the vital signs section of the wellness check, is critical because undiagnosed problems can cause amblyopia or “lazy eye.” The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends vision testing at well-child visits starting at age 3. Regional studies,however, have suggested low rates of PCP vision testing.
 

Study findings

In a sample of 89,936 participants, with a mean age of 10 years (51.1% male), an estimated 30.7% overall received vision testing in primary care. Adjusted odds of vision testing in primary care decreased by 41% (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.72) for uninsured and by 24% (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82) for publicly insured participants vs. those with private insurance.

Adjusted estimated probability of vision testing was 22% (95% CI, 18.8%-25.2%) for uninsured participants, 26.6% (95% CI, 25.3%-27.9%) for those publicly insured, and 32.3% (95% CI, 31.4%-33.%) for those privately insured.

In children aged 3-5, estimated probability was 29.7% (95% CI, 25.6%-33.7%) for those uninsured, 35.2% (95% CI, 33.1%-37.3%) for those publicly insured, and 41.6% (95% CI, 39.8%-43.5%) for those privately insured – all well under 50%. The children least likely to be tested, regardless of insurance status, were adolescents aged 12-17.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Natalie J. Choi, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, noted that the authors did not address other screening venues such as schools. She also pointed out that it is challenging for primary care physicians to address all the recommended prevention measures in addition to acute issues during an office visit.

Northwestern University

In data from the 2018-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, an annual, nationally representative cross-sectional study, fewer than half of children aged 3-5 with private insurance received vision testing, with rates even lower in those lacking private insurance. The findings point to unmet eye care needs, especially in young children for whom early testing to ward off vision loss is highly recommended.

The report was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology by Olivia J. Killeen MD, MS, an ophthalmologist during the study in the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

Grace Han

Future work should focus on improving primary care provider vision screening rates, especially for the 3- to 5-year age group, the authors wrote.

“Because children often are not aware they have an eye problem, routine vision testing in the primary care setting can help identify those with potential eye disease,” Dr. Killeen said. “We have an opportunity to improve the early detection and treatment of eye disease by improving primary care vision testing.”

Childhood vision testing, which falls into the vital signs section of the wellness check, is critical because undiagnosed problems can cause amblyopia or “lazy eye.” The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends vision testing at well-child visits starting at age 3. Regional studies,however, have suggested low rates of PCP vision testing.
 

Study findings

In a sample of 89,936 participants, with a mean age of 10 years (51.1% male), an estimated 30.7% overall received vision testing in primary care. Adjusted odds of vision testing in primary care decreased by 41% (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.72) for uninsured and by 24% (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82) for publicly insured participants vs. those with private insurance.

Adjusted estimated probability of vision testing was 22% (95% CI, 18.8%-25.2%) for uninsured participants, 26.6% (95% CI, 25.3%-27.9%) for those publicly insured, and 32.3% (95% CI, 31.4%-33.%) for those privately insured.

In children aged 3-5, estimated probability was 29.7% (95% CI, 25.6%-33.7%) for those uninsured, 35.2% (95% CI, 33.1%-37.3%) for those publicly insured, and 41.6% (95% CI, 39.8%-43.5%) for those privately insured – all well under 50%. The children least likely to be tested, regardless of insurance status, were adolescents aged 12-17.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Natalie J. Choi, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, noted that the authors did not address other screening venues such as schools. She also pointed out that it is challenging for primary care physicians to address all the recommended prevention measures in addition to acute issues during an office visit.

Northwestern University

In data from the 2018-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, an annual, nationally representative cross-sectional study, fewer than half of children aged 3-5 with private insurance received vision testing, with rates even lower in those lacking private insurance. The findings point to unmet eye care needs, especially in young children for whom early testing to ward off vision loss is highly recommended.

The report was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology by Olivia J. Killeen MD, MS, an ophthalmologist during the study in the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

Grace Han

Future work should focus on improving primary care provider vision screening rates, especially for the 3- to 5-year age group, the authors wrote.

“Because children often are not aware they have an eye problem, routine vision testing in the primary care setting can help identify those with potential eye disease,” Dr. Killeen said. “We have an opportunity to improve the early detection and treatment of eye disease by improving primary care vision testing.”

Childhood vision testing, which falls into the vital signs section of the wellness check, is critical because undiagnosed problems can cause amblyopia or “lazy eye.” The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends vision testing at well-child visits starting at age 3. Regional studies,however, have suggested low rates of PCP vision testing.
 

Study findings

In a sample of 89,936 participants, with a mean age of 10 years (51.1% male), an estimated 30.7% overall received vision testing in primary care. Adjusted odds of vision testing in primary care decreased by 41% (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.72) for uninsured and by 24% (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82) for publicly insured participants vs. those with private insurance.

Adjusted estimated probability of vision testing was 22% (95% CI, 18.8%-25.2%) for uninsured participants, 26.6% (95% CI, 25.3%-27.9%) for those publicly insured, and 32.3% (95% CI, 31.4%-33.%) for those privately insured.

In children aged 3-5, estimated probability was 29.7% (95% CI, 25.6%-33.7%) for those uninsured, 35.2% (95% CI, 33.1%-37.3%) for those publicly insured, and 41.6% (95% CI, 39.8%-43.5%) for those privately insured – all well under 50%. The children least likely to be tested, regardless of insurance status, were adolescents aged 12-17.

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Natalie J. Choi, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, noted that the authors did not address other screening venues such as schools. She also pointed out that it is challenging for primary care physicians to address all the recommended prevention measures in addition to acute issues during an office visit.

Northwestern University

“We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.” – Ernst Toller

A nice feature of the Apple watch is the stopwatch. With it, I can discreetly click the timer and watch seconds tick away. Tap. There’s one lap. Tap. Two. Tap. That was a quick visit, 6 minutes and 42 seconds. Tap. Under 2 minutes to close the chart. Let’s see if I can beat it. Tap. Tap. What if I moved my Mayo stand over to this side of the room? How about a sign, “All patients must have clothes off if you want a skin exam.” You think ob.gyns. are quick from skin to baby in a stat C-section? You should see how fast I can go from alcohol wipe to Drysol on a biopsy. Seconds. Tick, tick, tap.

Every day I look for ways to go faster. This is not so I can be out the door by 3. Rather, it’s simply to make it through the day without having to log on after we put the kids to bed at night.

Speaking of bedtimes, another nice feature of the Apple watch is the timer. With it, I can set a timer and a lovely chimey alarm will go off. This comes in handy with 3-year-olds. “Sloan, in two minutes we are going to brush your teeth.” Ding. “Sloan, you have one minute to get your pajamas on.” Ding. “Sloanie, I’ll give you 3 more minutes to put the kitties away, then get into bed.” Ding, ding, ding ...

As you can see, using the stopwatch to time a bedtime routine would be demoralizing. If you’ve tried to put a toddler to bed in summer you know. They explore every option to avoid sleeping: one more book (that would make 3), “accidentally” putting their pajamas on backwards, offering to brush their teeth a second time. And once the light is off, “Papa, I have to potty.” No, bedtime routines cannot be standardized. They resist being made efficient.

In contrast, we think of seeing patients as a standardizable process; work to be optimized. This idea that work should be as efficient as possible came from the father of business management, Frederick Taylor. Taylor, a mechanical engineer, observed inefficiencies on the factory floor. His work was seminal in the development of the second industrial revolution. Before then no one had applied scientific rigor to productivity. His book, “The Principles of Scientific Management,” written in 1909, is considered the most influential management book of the 20th century. He was the first to use stopwatches to perform time studies, noting how long each task took with the belief that there was one best way. The worker was an extension of the machine, tuned by management such that he was as efficient as possible.

PublicDomain/commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_assembly_line_-_1913.jpg

A more insidious downside on the drive to efficiency lies in the nature of what we do. We aren’t factory workers punching out widgets, we’re physicians caring for people and people cannot be standardized. In this way, seeing patients is more like putting a toddler to bed than like assembling an iPhone. There will always be by-the-ways, basal cells hiding behind the ear, traffic jams, and bags of products that they want to review. Not sure how to use your fluorouracil? Let’s go over it again. Need to talk more about why you have granuloma annulare? Let me explain. Despite Taylor’s vision, some work simply cannot be optimized. And shouldn’t.

“Where’s my 11:30 patient who checked in half an hour ago?!” I asked my medical assistant. “Oh, she had to go to the bathroom.” Tap.
 

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 Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

“We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.” – Ernst Toller

A nice feature of the Apple watch is the stopwatch. With it, I can discreetly click the timer and watch seconds tick away. Tap. There’s one lap. Tap. Two. Tap. That was a quick visit, 6 minutes and 42 seconds. Tap. Under 2 minutes to close the chart. Let’s see if I can beat it. Tap. Tap. What if I moved my Mayo stand over to this side of the room? How about a sign, “All patients must have clothes off if you want a skin exam.” You think ob.gyns. are quick from skin to baby in a stat C-section? You should see how fast I can go from alcohol wipe to Drysol on a biopsy. Seconds. Tick, tick, tap.

Every day I look for ways to go faster. This is not so I can be out the door by 3. Rather, it’s simply to make it through the day without having to log on after we put the kids to bed at night.

Speaking of bedtimes, another nice feature of the Apple watch is the timer. With it, I can set a timer and a lovely chimey alarm will go off. This comes in handy with 3-year-olds. “Sloan, in two minutes we are going to brush your teeth.” Ding. “Sloan, you have one minute to get your pajamas on.” Ding. “Sloanie, I’ll give you 3 more minutes to put the kitties away, then get into bed.” Ding, ding, ding ...

As you can see, using the stopwatch to time a bedtime routine would be demoralizing. If you’ve tried to put a toddler to bed in summer you know. They explore every option to avoid sleeping: one more book (that would make 3), “accidentally” putting their pajamas on backwards, offering to brush their teeth a second time. And once the light is off, “Papa, I have to potty.” No, bedtime routines cannot be standardized. They resist being made efficient.

In contrast, we think of seeing patients as a standardizable process; work to be optimized. This idea that work should be as efficient as possible came from the father of business management, Frederick Taylor. Taylor, a mechanical engineer, observed inefficiencies on the factory floor. His work was seminal in the development of the second industrial revolution. Before then no one had applied scientific rigor to productivity. His book, “The Principles of Scientific Management,” written in 1909, is considered the most influential management book of the 20th century. He was the first to use stopwatches to perform time studies, noting how long each task took with the belief that there was one best way. The worker was an extension of the machine, tuned by management such that he was as efficient as possible.

PublicDomain/commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_assembly_line_-_1913.jpg

A more insidious downside on the drive to efficiency lies in the nature of what we do. We aren’t factory workers punching out widgets, we’re physicians caring for people and people cannot be standardized. In this way, seeing patients is more like putting a toddler to bed than like assembling an iPhone. There will always be by-the-ways, basal cells hiding behind the ear, traffic jams, and bags of products that they want to review. Not sure how to use your fluorouracil? Let’s go over it again. Need to talk more about why you have granuloma annulare? Let me explain. Despite Taylor’s vision, some work simply cannot be optimized. And shouldn’t.

“Where’s my 11:30 patient who checked in half an hour ago?!” I asked my medical assistant. “Oh, she had to go to the bathroom.” Tap.
 

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 Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

“We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.” – Ernst Toller

A nice feature of the Apple watch is the stopwatch. With it, I can discreetly click the timer and watch seconds tick away. Tap. There’s one lap. Tap. Two. Tap. That was a quick visit, 6 minutes and 42 seconds. Tap. Under 2 minutes to close the chart. Let’s see if I can beat it. Tap. Tap. What if I moved my Mayo stand over to this side of the room? How about a sign, “All patients must have clothes off if you want a skin exam.” You think ob.gyns. are quick from skin to baby in a stat C-section? You should see how fast I can go from alcohol wipe to Drysol on a biopsy. Seconds. Tick, tick, tap.

Every day I look for ways to go faster. This is not so I can be out the door by 3. Rather, it’s simply to make it through the day without having to log on after we put the kids to bed at night.

Speaking of bedtimes, another nice feature of the Apple watch is the timer. With it, I can set a timer and a lovely chimey alarm will go off. This comes in handy with 3-year-olds. “Sloan, in two minutes we are going to brush your teeth.” Ding. “Sloan, you have one minute to get your pajamas on.” Ding. “Sloanie, I’ll give you 3 more minutes to put the kitties away, then get into bed.” Ding, ding, ding ...

As you can see, using the stopwatch to time a bedtime routine would be demoralizing. If you’ve tried to put a toddler to bed in summer you know. They explore every option to avoid sleeping: one more book (that would make 3), “accidentally” putting their pajamas on backwards, offering to brush their teeth a second time. And once the light is off, “Papa, I have to potty.” No, bedtime routines cannot be standardized. They resist being made efficient.

In contrast, we think of seeing patients as a standardizable process; work to be optimized. This idea that work should be as efficient as possible came from the father of business management, Frederick Taylor. Taylor, a mechanical engineer, observed inefficiencies on the factory floor. His work was seminal in the development of the second industrial revolution. Before then no one had applied scientific rigor to productivity. His book, “The Principles of Scientific Management,” written in 1909, is considered the most influential management book of the 20th century. He was the first to use stopwatches to perform time studies, noting how long each task took with the belief that there was one best way. The worker was an extension of the machine, tuned by management such that he was as efficient as possible.

PublicDomain/commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_assembly_line_-_1913.jpg

A more insidious downside on the drive to efficiency lies in the nature of what we do. We aren’t factory workers punching out widgets, we’re physicians caring for people and people cannot be standardized. In this way, seeing patients is more like putting a toddler to bed than like assembling an iPhone. There will always be by-the-ways, basal cells hiding behind the ear, traffic jams, and bags of products that they want to review. Not sure how to use your fluorouracil? Let’s go over it again. Need to talk more about why you have granuloma annulare? Let me explain. Despite Taylor’s vision, some work simply cannot be optimized. And shouldn’t.

“Where’s my 11:30 patient who checked in half an hour ago?!” I asked my medical assistant. “Oh, she had to go to the bathroom.” Tap.
 

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 Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

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].

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

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].

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

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].

In case you are looking for a place to park your discretionary funds, I have recently learned that nonalcoholic beer is the fastest-growing segment of the beer industry. It is just barely outperforming the strong beer market while the standard beer market is flat. The reasons behind this surge in popularity are unclear. While the general population doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of diet and exercise, there seem to be enough folks who are health conscious to support a demand.

Possibly more important has been the emergence of a couple of small breweries that have been able to produce a nonalcoholic product that actually tastes as good as regular beer, and in some cases even better than the real stuff. In Europe, nonalcoholic beer has become popular as a rehydration drink among athletes. We recently found it everywhere we looked while bicycling in France. The large breweries have taken notice and it is hard to find a restaurant here in Maine that doesn’t offer nonalcoholic beer on its menu.

My history with beer goes back to preadolescence, when my father offered me a sip of his beer. I was never sure of his motive but that taste did not immediately whet my appetite for more. However, when I was in high school, New York State’s drinking age was 18 and beer just became part of growing up.

When I went into practice, my routine of having a can or bottle of beer with dinner presented a problem. When I was on call the odds of having to leave the house and see a patient or two was substantial. Back at the beginning I was never much concerned about having alcohol circulating through my brain but I didn’t want to be exhaling its vapors as I interacted with the parents and nurses. As I got older I became more aware that when I was tired, which was always the case at the end of a long office day, even just a glass of beer might impair my decision making. As a result, I drank only nonalcoholic beer when I was on call. Were I still practicing today this wouldn’t have represented a sacrifice on my part. However, until 5 years ago the nonalcoholic beer was not even a close approximation of the alcohol-containing product.

So this brings me to my question. Do you share any of my concerns about practicing under the influence of alcohol (P.U.I.)? And, if you have any concerns, how do you deal with them?

Do you make a distinction between physical and mental impairment? Would you have a drink if you were only fielding phone calls? Would your decision change if you knew you might be called in to perform surgery or start an intravenous on a premie?

Does the prospect of meeting face to face with your patient/parents change your decision? Is practicing telemedicine under the influence any less concerning to you than seeing patients in your office or the emergency room?

Can you imagine any extenuating circumstances? For example, let’s say you are the only pediatric ENT in your county. While you have office hours 4½ days per week, in effect you are on call 24/7 for emergencies. If you made a decision to never practice under the influence, does that mean you will never drink alcohol?

Am I making too big of a thing out of a can of beer or a glass of wine? We have certainly read concerns about patient safety when cared for by house officers working on schedules that leave them practicing while sleep deprived (P.W.S.D.) You don’t hear anything about physicians’ P.U.I. Is it a real problem? Certainly, with marijuana becoming legal in more states alcohol may not be the only influencer to consider.

In the bigger picture I suspect that P.W.S.D. is the bigger problem both for house officers and practicing physicians but it is time we swept away the cloud of silence around P.U.I and had a frank discussion about both among ourselves.
 

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

In case you are looking for a place to park your discretionary funds, I have recently learned that nonalcoholic beer is the fastest-growing segment of the beer industry. It is just barely outperforming the strong beer market while the standard beer market is flat. The reasons behind this surge in popularity are unclear. While the general population doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of diet and exercise, there seem to be enough folks who are health conscious to support a demand.

Possibly more important has been the emergence of a couple of small breweries that have been able to produce a nonalcoholic product that actually tastes as good as regular beer, and in some cases even better than the real stuff. In Europe, nonalcoholic beer has become popular as a rehydration drink among athletes. We recently found it everywhere we looked while bicycling in France. The large breweries have taken notice and it is hard to find a restaurant here in Maine that doesn’t offer nonalcoholic beer on its menu.

My history with beer goes back to preadolescence, when my father offered me a sip of his beer. I was never sure of his motive but that taste did not immediately whet my appetite for more. However, when I was in high school, New York State’s drinking age was 18 and beer just became part of growing up.

When I went into practice, my routine of having a can or bottle of beer with dinner presented a problem. When I was on call the odds of having to leave the house and see a patient or two was substantial. Back at the beginning I was never much concerned about having alcohol circulating through my brain but I didn’t want to be exhaling its vapors as I interacted with the parents and nurses. As I got older I became more aware that when I was tired, which was always the case at the end of a long office day, even just a glass of beer might impair my decision making. As a result, I drank only nonalcoholic beer when I was on call. Were I still practicing today this wouldn’t have represented a sacrifice on my part. However, until 5 years ago the nonalcoholic beer was not even a close approximation of the alcohol-containing product.

So this brings me to my question. Do you share any of my concerns about practicing under the influence of alcohol (P.U.I.)? And, if you have any concerns, how do you deal with them?

Do you make a distinction between physical and mental impairment? Would you have a drink if you were only fielding phone calls? Would your decision change if you knew you might be called in to perform surgery or start an intravenous on a premie?

Does the prospect of meeting face to face with your patient/parents change your decision? Is practicing telemedicine under the influence any less concerning to you than seeing patients in your office or the emergency room?

Can you imagine any extenuating circumstances? For example, let’s say you are the only pediatric ENT in your county. While you have office hours 4½ days per week, in effect you are on call 24/7 for emergencies. If you made a decision to never practice under the influence, does that mean you will never drink alcohol?

Am I making too big of a thing out of a can of beer or a glass of wine? We have certainly read concerns about patient safety when cared for by house officers working on schedules that leave them practicing while sleep deprived (P.W.S.D.) You don’t hear anything about physicians’ P.U.I. Is it a real problem? Certainly, with marijuana becoming legal in more states alcohol may not be the only influencer to consider.

In the bigger picture I suspect that P.W.S.D. is the bigger problem both for house officers and practicing physicians but it is time we swept away the cloud of silence around P.U.I and had a frank discussion about both among ourselves.
 

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

In case you are looking for a place to park your discretionary funds, I have recently learned that nonalcoholic beer is the fastest-growing segment of the beer industry. It is just barely outperforming the strong beer market while the standard beer market is flat. The reasons behind this surge in popularity are unclear. While the general population doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of diet and exercise, there seem to be enough folks who are health conscious to support a demand.

Possibly more important has been the emergence of a couple of small breweries that have been able to produce a nonalcoholic product that actually tastes as good as regular beer, and in some cases even better than the real stuff. In Europe, nonalcoholic beer has become popular as a rehydration drink among athletes. We recently found it everywhere we looked while bicycling in France. The large breweries have taken notice and it is hard to find a restaurant here in Maine that doesn’t offer nonalcoholic beer on its menu.

My history with beer goes back to preadolescence, when my father offered me a sip of his beer. I was never sure of his motive but that taste did not immediately whet my appetite for more. However, when I was in high school, New York State’s drinking age was 18 and beer just became part of growing up.

When I went into practice, my routine of having a can or bottle of beer with dinner presented a problem. When I was on call the odds of having to leave the house and see a patient or two was substantial. Back at the beginning I was never much concerned about having alcohol circulating through my brain but I didn’t want to be exhaling its vapors as I interacted with the parents and nurses. As I got older I became more aware that when I was tired, which was always the case at the end of a long office day, even just a glass of beer might impair my decision making. As a result, I drank only nonalcoholic beer when I was on call. Were I still practicing today this wouldn’t have represented a sacrifice on my part. However, until 5 years ago the nonalcoholic beer was not even a close approximation of the alcohol-containing product.

So this brings me to my question. Do you share any of my concerns about practicing under the influence of alcohol (P.U.I.)? And, if you have any concerns, how do you deal with them?

Do you make a distinction between physical and mental impairment? Would you have a drink if you were only fielding phone calls? Would your decision change if you knew you might be called in to perform surgery or start an intravenous on a premie?

Does the prospect of meeting face to face with your patient/parents change your decision? Is practicing telemedicine under the influence any less concerning to you than seeing patients in your office or the emergency room?

Can you imagine any extenuating circumstances? For example, let’s say you are the only pediatric ENT in your county. While you have office hours 4½ days per week, in effect you are on call 24/7 for emergencies. If you made a decision to never practice under the influence, does that mean you will never drink alcohol?

Am I making too big of a thing out of a can of beer or a glass of wine? We have certainly read concerns about patient safety when cared for by house officers working on schedules that leave them practicing while sleep deprived (P.W.S.D.) You don’t hear anything about physicians’ P.U.I. Is it a real problem? Certainly, with marijuana becoming legal in more states alcohol may not be the only influencer to consider.

In the bigger picture I suspect that P.W.S.D. is the bigger problem both for house officers and practicing physicians but it is time we swept away the cloud of silence around P.U.I and had a frank discussion about both among ourselves.
 

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

One of the most controversial issues today is whether a physician should be permitted, or even obligated, to assist patients with a terminal or incurable illness to end their life – a process known as medical assistance in dying (MAID) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS.)

Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.

However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.

A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”

Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
 

Cognitive distortion or objective reality?

Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.

But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.

A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”

Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”

“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”

Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”

Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
 

“Enormous suffering”

One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.

But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”

The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”

One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”

Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”

Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”

A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.

“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”

However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
 

Another form of eugenics?

Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.

“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”

Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.

A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”

Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”

Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.

Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
 

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

One of the most controversial issues today is whether a physician should be permitted, or even obligated, to assist patients with a terminal or incurable illness to end their life – a process known as medical assistance in dying (MAID) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS.)

Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.

However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.

A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”

Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
 

Cognitive distortion or objective reality?

Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.

But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.

A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”

Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”

“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”

Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”

Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
 

“Enormous suffering”

One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.

But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”

The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”

One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”

Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”

Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”

A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.

“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”

However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
 

Another form of eugenics?

Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.

“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”

Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.

A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”

Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”

Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.

Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
 

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

One of the most controversial issues today is whether a physician should be permitted, or even obligated, to assist patients with a terminal or incurable illness to end their life – a process known as medical assistance in dying (MAID) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS.)

Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.

However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.

A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”

Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
 

Cognitive distortion or objective reality?

Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.

But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.

A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”

Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”

“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”

Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”

Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
 

“Enormous suffering”

One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.

But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”

The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”

One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”

Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”

Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”

A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.

“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”

However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
 

Another form of eugenics?

Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.

“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”

Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.

A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”

Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”

Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.

Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
 

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

Use current health and desire for pregnancy to guide contraception discussions in primary care, according to authors of an updated report.

In an installment of the American College of Physicians’ In the Clinic series, Rachel Cannon, MD, Kelly Treder, MD, and Elisabeth J. Woodhams, MD, all of Boston Medical Center, presented an article on the complex topic of contraception for patients with chronic illness.

“Many patients with chronic illness or complex medical issues interact with a primary care provider on a frequent basis, which provides a great access point for contraceptive counseling with a provider they trust and know,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder in a joint interview. “We wanted to create a ‘go to’ resource for primary care physicians to review contraceptive options and counseling best practices for all of their patients. Contraceptive care is part of overall health care and should be included in the primary care encounter.”

The authors discussed the types of contraception, as well as risks and benefits, and offered guidance for choosing a contraceptive method for medically complex patients.

“In recent years, there has been a shift in contraceptive counseling toward shared decision-making, a counseling strategy that honors the patient as the expert in their body and their life experiences and emphasizes their autonomy and values,” the authors said. “For providers, this translates to understanding that contraceptive efficacy is not the only important characteristic to patients, and that many other important factors contribute to an individual’s decision to use a particular method or not use birth control at all,” they said.
 

Start the conversation

Start by assessing a patient’s interest in and readiness for pregnancy, if applicable, the authors said. One example of a screen, the PATH questionnaire (Parent/Pregnancy Attitudes, Timing, and How important), is designed for patients in any demographic, and includes questions about the timing and desire for pregnancy and feelings about birth control, as well as options for patients to express uncertainty or ambivalence about pregnancy and contraception.

Some patients may derive benefits from hormonal contraceptives beyond pregnancy prevention, the authors wrote. Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) may improve menorrhagia, and data suggest that CHC use also may reduce risk for some cancer types, including endometrial and ovarian cancers, they said.

Overall, contraceptive counseling should include discussions of safety, efficacy, and the patient’s lived experience.
 

Clinical considerations and contraindications

Medically complex patients who desire contraception may consider hormonal or nonhormonal methods based on their preferences and medical conditions, but clinicians need to consider comorbidities and contraindications, the authors wrote.

When a woman of childbearing age with any complex medical issue starts a new medication or receives a new diagnosis, contraception and pregnancy planning should be part of the discussion, the authors said. Safe and successful pregnancies are possible for women with complex medical issues when underlying health concerns are identified and addressed in advance, they added. Alternatively, for patients seeking to avoid pregnancy permanently, options for sterilization can be part of an informed discussion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use offers clinicians detailed information about the risks of both contraceptives and pregnancy for patients with various medical conditions, according to the authors.

The CDC document lists medical conditions associated with an increased risk for adverse health events if the individual becomes pregnant. These conditions include breast cancer, complicated valvular heart disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, endometrial or ovarian cancer, epilepsy, hypertension, bariatric surgery within 2 years of the pregnancy, HIV, ischemic heart disease, severe cirrhosis, stroke, lupus, solid organ transplant within 2 years of the pregnancy, and tuberculosis. Women with these and other conditions associated with increased risk of adverse events if pregnancy occurs should be advised of the high failure rate of barrier and behavior-based contraceptive methods, and informed about options for long-acting contraceptives, according to the CDC.
 

Risks, benefits, and balance

“It is important to remember that the alternative to contraception for many patients is pregnancy – for many patients with complex medical conditions, pregnancy is far more dangerous than any contraceptive method,” Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder said in an interview. “This is important to consider when thinking about relative contraindications to a certain method or when thinking about ‘less effective’ contraception methods. The most effective method is a method the patient will actually continue to use,” they said.

The recent approval of the over-the-counter minipill is “a huge win for reproductive health care,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder. The minipill has very few contraindications, and it is the most effective over-the-counter contraceptive now available, they said.

“An over-the-counter contraceptive pill can increase access to contraception without having to see a physician in the clinic, freeing patients from many of the challenges of navigating the health care system,” the authors added.

As for additional research, the establishment of a long-term safety record may help support other OTC contraceptive methods in the future, the authors said.
 

Contraceptive counseling is everyone’s specialty

In an accompanying editorial, Amy A. Sarma, MD, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, shared an example of the importance of contraceptive discussions with medically complex patients outside of an ob.gyn. setting. A young woman with a family history of myocardial infarction had neglected her own primary care until an MI of her own sent her to the hospital. While hospitalized, the patient was diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

“Her cardiology care team made every effort to optimize her cardiac care, but no one considered that she was also a woman of childbearing potential despite the teratogenic potential of several of her prescribed medications,” Dr. Sarma wrote. When the patient visited Dr. Sarma to discuss prevention of future MIs, Dr. Sarma took the opportunity to discuss the cardiovascular risks of pregnancy and the risks for this patient not only because of her recent MI, but also because of her chronic health conditions.

As it happened, the woman did not want a high-risk pregnancy and was interested in contraceptive methods. Dr. Sarma pointed out that, had the woman been engaged in routine primary care, these issues would have arisen in that setting, but like many younger women with cardiovascular disease, she did not make her own primary care a priority, and had missed out on other opportunities to discuss contraception. “Her MI opened a window of opportunity to help prevent an unintended and high-risk pregnancy,” Dr. Sarma noted.

Dr. Sarma’s patient anecdote illustrated the point of the In the Clinic review: that any clinician can discuss pregnancy and contraception with patients of childbearing age who have medical comorbidities that could affect a pregnancy. “All clinicians who care for patients of reproductive potential should become comfortable discussing pregnancy intent, preconception risk assessment, and contraceptive counseling,” Dr. Sarma said.

The research for this article was funded by the American College of Physicians. The review authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sarma had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use current health and desire for pregnancy to guide contraception discussions in primary care, according to authors of an updated report.

In an installment of the American College of Physicians’ In the Clinic series, Rachel Cannon, MD, Kelly Treder, MD, and Elisabeth J. Woodhams, MD, all of Boston Medical Center, presented an article on the complex topic of contraception for patients with chronic illness.

“Many patients with chronic illness or complex medical issues interact with a primary care provider on a frequent basis, which provides a great access point for contraceptive counseling with a provider they trust and know,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder in a joint interview. “We wanted to create a ‘go to’ resource for primary care physicians to review contraceptive options and counseling best practices for all of their patients. Contraceptive care is part of overall health care and should be included in the primary care encounter.”

The authors discussed the types of contraception, as well as risks and benefits, and offered guidance for choosing a contraceptive method for medically complex patients.

“In recent years, there has been a shift in contraceptive counseling toward shared decision-making, a counseling strategy that honors the patient as the expert in their body and their life experiences and emphasizes their autonomy and values,” the authors said. “For providers, this translates to understanding that contraceptive efficacy is not the only important characteristic to patients, and that many other important factors contribute to an individual’s decision to use a particular method or not use birth control at all,” they said.
 

Start the conversation

Start by assessing a patient’s interest in and readiness for pregnancy, if applicable, the authors said. One example of a screen, the PATH questionnaire (Parent/Pregnancy Attitudes, Timing, and How important), is designed for patients in any demographic, and includes questions about the timing and desire for pregnancy and feelings about birth control, as well as options for patients to express uncertainty or ambivalence about pregnancy and contraception.

Some patients may derive benefits from hormonal contraceptives beyond pregnancy prevention, the authors wrote. Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) may improve menorrhagia, and data suggest that CHC use also may reduce risk for some cancer types, including endometrial and ovarian cancers, they said.

Overall, contraceptive counseling should include discussions of safety, efficacy, and the patient’s lived experience.
 

Clinical considerations and contraindications

Medically complex patients who desire contraception may consider hormonal or nonhormonal methods based on their preferences and medical conditions, but clinicians need to consider comorbidities and contraindications, the authors wrote.

When a woman of childbearing age with any complex medical issue starts a new medication or receives a new diagnosis, contraception and pregnancy planning should be part of the discussion, the authors said. Safe and successful pregnancies are possible for women with complex medical issues when underlying health concerns are identified and addressed in advance, they added. Alternatively, for patients seeking to avoid pregnancy permanently, options for sterilization can be part of an informed discussion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use offers clinicians detailed information about the risks of both contraceptives and pregnancy for patients with various medical conditions, according to the authors.

The CDC document lists medical conditions associated with an increased risk for adverse health events if the individual becomes pregnant. These conditions include breast cancer, complicated valvular heart disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, endometrial or ovarian cancer, epilepsy, hypertension, bariatric surgery within 2 years of the pregnancy, HIV, ischemic heart disease, severe cirrhosis, stroke, lupus, solid organ transplant within 2 years of the pregnancy, and tuberculosis. Women with these and other conditions associated with increased risk of adverse events if pregnancy occurs should be advised of the high failure rate of barrier and behavior-based contraceptive methods, and informed about options for long-acting contraceptives, according to the CDC.
 

Risks, benefits, and balance

“It is important to remember that the alternative to contraception for many patients is pregnancy – for many patients with complex medical conditions, pregnancy is far more dangerous than any contraceptive method,” Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder said in an interview. “This is important to consider when thinking about relative contraindications to a certain method or when thinking about ‘less effective’ contraception methods. The most effective method is a method the patient will actually continue to use,” they said.

The recent approval of the over-the-counter minipill is “a huge win for reproductive health care,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder. The minipill has very few contraindications, and it is the most effective over-the-counter contraceptive now available, they said.

“An over-the-counter contraceptive pill can increase access to contraception without having to see a physician in the clinic, freeing patients from many of the challenges of navigating the health care system,” the authors added.

As for additional research, the establishment of a long-term safety record may help support other OTC contraceptive methods in the future, the authors said.
 

Contraceptive counseling is everyone’s specialty

In an accompanying editorial, Amy A. Sarma, MD, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, shared an example of the importance of contraceptive discussions with medically complex patients outside of an ob.gyn. setting. A young woman with a family history of myocardial infarction had neglected her own primary care until an MI of her own sent her to the hospital. While hospitalized, the patient was diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

“Her cardiology care team made every effort to optimize her cardiac care, but no one considered that she was also a woman of childbearing potential despite the teratogenic potential of several of her prescribed medications,” Dr. Sarma wrote. When the patient visited Dr. Sarma to discuss prevention of future MIs, Dr. Sarma took the opportunity to discuss the cardiovascular risks of pregnancy and the risks for this patient not only because of her recent MI, but also because of her chronic health conditions.

As it happened, the woman did not want a high-risk pregnancy and was interested in contraceptive methods. Dr. Sarma pointed out that, had the woman been engaged in routine primary care, these issues would have arisen in that setting, but like many younger women with cardiovascular disease, she did not make her own primary care a priority, and had missed out on other opportunities to discuss contraception. “Her MI opened a window of opportunity to help prevent an unintended and high-risk pregnancy,” Dr. Sarma noted.

Dr. Sarma’s patient anecdote illustrated the point of the In the Clinic review: that any clinician can discuss pregnancy and contraception with patients of childbearing age who have medical comorbidities that could affect a pregnancy. “All clinicians who care for patients of reproductive potential should become comfortable discussing pregnancy intent, preconception risk assessment, and contraceptive counseling,” Dr. Sarma said.

The research for this article was funded by the American College of Physicians. The review authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sarma had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use current health and desire for pregnancy to guide contraception discussions in primary care, according to authors of an updated report.

In an installment of the American College of Physicians’ In the Clinic series, Rachel Cannon, MD, Kelly Treder, MD, and Elisabeth J. Woodhams, MD, all of Boston Medical Center, presented an article on the complex topic of contraception for patients with chronic illness.

“Many patients with chronic illness or complex medical issues interact with a primary care provider on a frequent basis, which provides a great access point for contraceptive counseling with a provider they trust and know,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder in a joint interview. “We wanted to create a ‘go to’ resource for primary care physicians to review contraceptive options and counseling best practices for all of their patients. Contraceptive care is part of overall health care and should be included in the primary care encounter.”

The authors discussed the types of contraception, as well as risks and benefits, and offered guidance for choosing a contraceptive method for medically complex patients.

“In recent years, there has been a shift in contraceptive counseling toward shared decision-making, a counseling strategy that honors the patient as the expert in their body and their life experiences and emphasizes their autonomy and values,” the authors said. “For providers, this translates to understanding that contraceptive efficacy is not the only important characteristic to patients, and that many other important factors contribute to an individual’s decision to use a particular method or not use birth control at all,” they said.
 

Start the conversation

Start by assessing a patient’s interest in and readiness for pregnancy, if applicable, the authors said. One example of a screen, the PATH questionnaire (Parent/Pregnancy Attitudes, Timing, and How important), is designed for patients in any demographic, and includes questions about the timing and desire for pregnancy and feelings about birth control, as well as options for patients to express uncertainty or ambivalence about pregnancy and contraception.

Some patients may derive benefits from hormonal contraceptives beyond pregnancy prevention, the authors wrote. Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) may improve menorrhagia, and data suggest that CHC use also may reduce risk for some cancer types, including endometrial and ovarian cancers, they said.

Overall, contraceptive counseling should include discussions of safety, efficacy, and the patient’s lived experience.
 

Clinical considerations and contraindications

Medically complex patients who desire contraception may consider hormonal or nonhormonal methods based on their preferences and medical conditions, but clinicians need to consider comorbidities and contraindications, the authors wrote.

When a woman of childbearing age with any complex medical issue starts a new medication or receives a new diagnosis, contraception and pregnancy planning should be part of the discussion, the authors said. Safe and successful pregnancies are possible for women with complex medical issues when underlying health concerns are identified and addressed in advance, they added. Alternatively, for patients seeking to avoid pregnancy permanently, options for sterilization can be part of an informed discussion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use offers clinicians detailed information about the risks of both contraceptives and pregnancy for patients with various medical conditions, according to the authors.

The CDC document lists medical conditions associated with an increased risk for adverse health events if the individual becomes pregnant. These conditions include breast cancer, complicated valvular heart disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, endometrial or ovarian cancer, epilepsy, hypertension, bariatric surgery within 2 years of the pregnancy, HIV, ischemic heart disease, severe cirrhosis, stroke, lupus, solid organ transplant within 2 years of the pregnancy, and tuberculosis. Women with these and other conditions associated with increased risk of adverse events if pregnancy occurs should be advised of the high failure rate of barrier and behavior-based contraceptive methods, and informed about options for long-acting contraceptives, according to the CDC.
 

Risks, benefits, and balance

“It is important to remember that the alternative to contraception for many patients is pregnancy – for many patients with complex medical conditions, pregnancy is far more dangerous than any contraceptive method,” Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder said in an interview. “This is important to consider when thinking about relative contraindications to a certain method or when thinking about ‘less effective’ contraception methods. The most effective method is a method the patient will actually continue to use,” they said.

The recent approval of the over-the-counter minipill is “a huge win for reproductive health care,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder. The minipill has very few contraindications, and it is the most effective over-the-counter contraceptive now available, they said.

“An over-the-counter contraceptive pill can increase access to contraception without having to see a physician in the clinic, freeing patients from many of the challenges of navigating the health care system,” the authors added.

As for additional research, the establishment of a long-term safety record may help support other OTC contraceptive methods in the future, the authors said.
 

Contraceptive counseling is everyone’s specialty

In an accompanying editorial, Amy A. Sarma, MD, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, shared an example of the importance of contraceptive discussions with medically complex patients outside of an ob.gyn. setting. A young woman with a family history of myocardial infarction had neglected her own primary care until an MI of her own sent her to the hospital. While hospitalized, the patient was diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

“Her cardiology care team made every effort to optimize her cardiac care, but no one considered that she was also a woman of childbearing potential despite the teratogenic potential of several of her prescribed medications,” Dr. Sarma wrote. When the patient visited Dr. Sarma to discuss prevention of future MIs, Dr. Sarma took the opportunity to discuss the cardiovascular risks of pregnancy and the risks for this patient not only because of her recent MI, but also because of her chronic health conditions.

As it happened, the woman did not want a high-risk pregnancy and was interested in contraceptive methods. Dr. Sarma pointed out that, had the woman been engaged in routine primary care, these issues would have arisen in that setting, but like many younger women with cardiovascular disease, she did not make her own primary care a priority, and had missed out on other opportunities to discuss contraception. “Her MI opened a window of opportunity to help prevent an unintended and high-risk pregnancy,” Dr. Sarma noted.

Dr. Sarma’s patient anecdote illustrated the point of the In the Clinic review: that any clinician can discuss pregnancy and contraception with patients of childbearing age who have medical comorbidities that could affect a pregnancy. “All clinicians who care for patients of reproductive potential should become comfortable discussing pregnancy intent, preconception risk assessment, and contraceptive counseling,” Dr. Sarma said.

The research for this article was funded by the American College of Physicians. The review authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sarma had no financial conflicts to disclose.