Business of Medicine

On Nov. 22, three Food and Drug Administration inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck. Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.

Seven months later, doctors and their patients are facing the unimaginable: In California, Virginia, and everywhere in between, they are being forced into grim contemplation of untested rationing plans for breast, cervical, bladder, ovarian, lung, testicular, and other cancers. Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, ADHD pills, blood thinners, and antibiotics. COVID-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry. Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.

The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures – undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?

“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, MD, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”

“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, MD, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Ark., who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin. Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.

“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, MD, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during COVID; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”

The cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives – though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects – are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.

Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.

“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”

Mr. McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family – his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight – were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.

At Dr. Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.

On June 2, Dr. Moore and colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale – only with mortal consequences at stake.

She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”

Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.
 

Generics manufacturers are pulling out

The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big negotiators of such purchases, such as Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February. Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Lannett, with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.

The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Mr. Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said. Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market. Mr. Sardella testified in May that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions.

The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.

Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.

Asked why it waited 2 months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”

Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-mg bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at dr. Moore’s clinic.

“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients – ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
 

Should government step in?

Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.

As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.

Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”

More lasting solutions are under discussion. Mr. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.

“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Va., that will produce dozens more, Mr. Coukell said.

Dr. Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri, MD, recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.

In fact, Dr. Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store 2 years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.

“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

On Nov. 22, three Food and Drug Administration inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck. Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.

Seven months later, doctors and their patients are facing the unimaginable: In California, Virginia, and everywhere in between, they are being forced into grim contemplation of untested rationing plans for breast, cervical, bladder, ovarian, lung, testicular, and other cancers. Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, ADHD pills, blood thinners, and antibiotics. COVID-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry. Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.

The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures – undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?

“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, MD, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”

“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, MD, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Ark., who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin. Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.

“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, MD, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during COVID; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”

The cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives – though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects – are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.

Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.

“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”

Mr. McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family – his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight – were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.

At Dr. Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.

On June 2, Dr. Moore and colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale – only with mortal consequences at stake.

She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”

Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.
 

Generics manufacturers are pulling out

The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big negotiators of such purchases, such as Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February. Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Lannett, with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.

The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Mr. Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said. Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market. Mr. Sardella testified in May that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions.

The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.

Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.

Asked why it waited 2 months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”

Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-mg bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at dr. Moore’s clinic.

“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients – ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
 

Should government step in?

Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.

As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.

Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”

More lasting solutions are under discussion. Mr. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.

“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Va., that will produce dozens more, Mr. Coukell said.

Dr. Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri, MD, recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.

In fact, Dr. Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store 2 years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.

“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

On Nov. 22, three Food and Drug Administration inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck. Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.

Seven months later, doctors and their patients are facing the unimaginable: In California, Virginia, and everywhere in between, they are being forced into grim contemplation of untested rationing plans for breast, cervical, bladder, ovarian, lung, testicular, and other cancers. Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, ADHD pills, blood thinners, and antibiotics. COVID-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry. Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.

The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures – undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?

“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, MD, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”

“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, MD, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Ark., who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin. Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.

“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, MD, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during COVID; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”

The cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives – though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects – are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.

Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.

“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”

Mr. McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family – his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight – were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.

At Dr. Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.

On June 2, Dr. Moore and colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale – only with mortal consequences at stake.

She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”

Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.
 

Generics manufacturers are pulling out

The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big negotiators of such purchases, such as Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February. Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Lannett, with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.

The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Mr. Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said. Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market. Mr. Sardella testified in May that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions.

The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.

Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.

Asked why it waited 2 months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”

Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-mg bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at dr. Moore’s clinic.

“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients – ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
 

Should government step in?

Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.

As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.

Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”

More lasting solutions are under discussion. Mr. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.

“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Va., that will produce dozens more, Mr. Coukell said.

Dr. Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri, MD, recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.

In fact, Dr. Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store 2 years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.

“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

TOPLINE:

The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.

METHODOLOGY:

• Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
• Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
• Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
• Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAYS:

• U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
• These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
• After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.

IN PRACTICE:

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.

LIMITATIONS:

Study could not exclude residual confounding.

Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.

Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.

Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.

Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

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

TOPLINE:

The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.

METHODOLOGY:

• Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
• Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
• Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
• Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAYS:

• U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
• These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
• After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.

IN PRACTICE:

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.

LIMITATIONS:

Study could not exclude residual confounding.

Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.

Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.

Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.

Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

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

TOPLINE:

The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.

METHODOLOGY:

• Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
• Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
• Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
• Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAYS:

• U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
• These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
• After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.

IN PRACTICE:

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.

LIMITATIONS:

Study could not exclude residual confounding.

Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.

Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.

Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.

Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Low-calorie tastes sweeter with a little salt

Diet and sugar-free foods and drinks seem like a good idea, but it’s hard to get past that strange aftertaste, right? It’s the calling card for the noncaloric aspartame- and stevia-containing sweeteners that we consume to make us feel like we can have the best of both worlds.

That weird lingering taste can be a total turn-off for some (raises hand), but researchers have found an almost facepalm solution to the not-so-sweet problem, and it’s salt.

Jason Tuinstra/Unsplash

Now, the concept of sweet and salty is not a far-fetched partnership when it comes to snack consumption (try M&Ms in your popcorn). The researchers at Almendra, a manufacturer of stevia sweeteners, put that iconic flavor pair to the test by adding mineral salts that have some nutritional value to lessen the effect of a stevia compound, rebaudioside A, found in noncaloric sweeteners.

The researchers added in magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride separately to lessen rebaudioside A’s intensity, but they needed so much salt that it killed the sweet taste completely. A blend of the three mineral salts, however, reduced the lingering taste by 79% and improved the real sugar-like taste. The researchers tried this blend in reduced-calorie orange juice and a citrus-flavored soft drink, improving the taste in both.

The salty and sweet match comes in for the win once again. This time helping against the fight of obesity instead of making it worse.

Pseudomonas’ Achilles’ heel is more of an Achilles’ genetic switch

Today, on the long-awaited return of “Bacteria vs. the World,” we meet one of the rock stars of infectious disease.

LOTME: Through the use of imaginary technology, we’re talking to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thanks for joining us on such short notice, after Neisseria gonorrhoeae canceled at the last minute.

P. aeruginosa: No problem. I think we can all guess what that little devil is up to.

Benoit-Joseph Laventie, Biozentrum, University of Basel

LOTME: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem for our species. What makes you so hard to fight?

P. aeruginosa: We’ve been trying to keep that a secret, actually, but now that researchers in Switzerland and Denmark seem to have figured it out, I guess it’s okay for me to spill the beans.

LOTME: Beans? What do beans have to do with it?

P. aeruginosa: Nothing, it’s just a colloquial expression that means I’m sharing previously private information.

LOTME: Sure, we knew that. Please, continue your spilling.

P. aeruginosa: The secret is … Well, let’s just say we were a little worried when the Clash released “Should I Stay or Should I Go” back in the 1980s.

LOTME: The Clash? Now we’re really confused.

P. aeruginosa: The answer to their question, “Should I stay or should I go? is yes. Successful invasion of a human is all about division of labor. “While one fraction of the bacterial population adheres to the mucosal surface and forms a biofilm, the other subpopulation spreads to distant tissue sites,” is how the investigators described it. We can increase surface colonization by using a “job-sharing” process, they said, and even resist antibiotics because most of us remain in the protective biofilm.

LOTME: And they say you guys don’t have brains.

P. aeruginosa: But wait, there’s more. We don’t just divide the labor randomly. After the initial colonization we form two functionally distinct subpopulations. One has high levels of the bacterial signaling molecule c-di-GMP and stays put to work on the biofilm. The other group, with low levels of c-di-GMP, heads out to the surrounding tissue to continue the colonization. As project leader Urs Jenal put it, “By identifying the genetic switch, we have tracked down the Achilles heel of the pathogen.”

LOTME: Pretty clever stuff, for humans, anyway.

P. aeruginosa: We agree, but now that you know our secret, we can’t let you share it.

LOTME: Wait! The journal article’s already been published. Your secret is out. You can’t stop that by infecting me.

P. aeruginosa: True enough, but are you familiar with the fable of the scorpion and the frog? It’s our nature.

LOTME: Nooooo! N. gonorrhoeae wouldn’t have done this!
 

What a pain in the Butt

Businesses rise and businesses fall. We all know that one cursed location, that spot in town where we see businesses move in and close up in a matter of months. At the same time, though, there are also businesses that have been around as long as anyone can remember, pillars of the community.

Corydon, IN., likely has a few such long-lived shops, but it is officially down one 70-year-old family business as of late April, with the unfortunate passing of beloved local pharmacy Butt Drugs. Prescription pick-up in rear.

Bildflut/Wikimedia Commons

The business dates back to 1952, when it was founded as William H. Butt Drugs. We’re sure William Butt was never teased about his last name. Nope. No one would ever do that. After he passed the store to his children, it underwent a stint as Butt Rexall Drugs. When the shop was passed down to its third-generation and ultimately final owner, Katie Butt Beckort, she decided to simplify the name. Get right down to the bottom of things, as it were.

Butt Drugs was a popular spot, featuring an old-school soda fountain and themed souvenirs. According to Ms. Butt Beckort, people would come from miles away to buy “I love Butt Drugs” T-shirts, magnets, and so on. Yes, they knew perfectly well what they were sitting on.

So, if was such a hit, why did it close? Butt Drugs may have a hilarious name and merchandise to match, but the pharmacy portion of the pharmacy had been losing money for years. You know, the actual point of the business. As with so many things, we can blame it on the insurance companies. More than half the drugs that passed through Butt Drugs’ doors were sold at a loss, because the insurance companies refused to reimburse the store more than the wholesale price of the drug. Not even a good butt drug could clear up that financial diarrhea.

And so, we’ve lost Butt Drugs forever. Spicy food enthusiasts, coffee drinkers, and all patrons of Taco Bell, take a moment to reflect and mourn on what you’ve lost. No more Butt Drugs to relieve your suffering. A true kick in the butt indeed.

Low-calorie tastes sweeter with a little salt

Diet and sugar-free foods and drinks seem like a good idea, but it’s hard to get past that strange aftertaste, right? It’s the calling card for the noncaloric aspartame- and stevia-containing sweeteners that we consume to make us feel like we can have the best of both worlds.

That weird lingering taste can be a total turn-off for some (raises hand), but researchers have found an almost facepalm solution to the not-so-sweet problem, and it’s salt.

Jason Tuinstra/Unsplash

Now, the concept of sweet and salty is not a far-fetched partnership when it comes to snack consumption (try M&Ms in your popcorn). The researchers at Almendra, a manufacturer of stevia sweeteners, put that iconic flavor pair to the test by adding mineral salts that have some nutritional value to lessen the effect of a stevia compound, rebaudioside A, found in noncaloric sweeteners.

The researchers added in magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride separately to lessen rebaudioside A’s intensity, but they needed so much salt that it killed the sweet taste completely. A blend of the three mineral salts, however, reduced the lingering taste by 79% and improved the real sugar-like taste. The researchers tried this blend in reduced-calorie orange juice and a citrus-flavored soft drink, improving the taste in both.

The salty and sweet match comes in for the win once again. This time helping against the fight of obesity instead of making it worse.

Pseudomonas’ Achilles’ heel is more of an Achilles’ genetic switch

Today, on the long-awaited return of “Bacteria vs. the World,” we meet one of the rock stars of infectious disease.

LOTME: Through the use of imaginary technology, we’re talking to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thanks for joining us on such short notice, after Neisseria gonorrhoeae canceled at the last minute.

P. aeruginosa: No problem. I think we can all guess what that little devil is up to.

Benoit-Joseph Laventie, Biozentrum, University of Basel

LOTME: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem for our species. What makes you so hard to fight?

P. aeruginosa: We’ve been trying to keep that a secret, actually, but now that researchers in Switzerland and Denmark seem to have figured it out, I guess it’s okay for me to spill the beans.

LOTME: Beans? What do beans have to do with it?

P. aeruginosa: Nothing, it’s just a colloquial expression that means I’m sharing previously private information.

LOTME: Sure, we knew that. Please, continue your spilling.

P. aeruginosa: The secret is … Well, let’s just say we were a little worried when the Clash released “Should I Stay or Should I Go” back in the 1980s.

LOTME: The Clash? Now we’re really confused.

P. aeruginosa: The answer to their question, “Should I stay or should I go? is yes. Successful invasion of a human is all about division of labor. “While one fraction of the bacterial population adheres to the mucosal surface and forms a biofilm, the other subpopulation spreads to distant tissue sites,” is how the investigators described it. We can increase surface colonization by using a “job-sharing” process, they said, and even resist antibiotics because most of us remain in the protective biofilm.

LOTME: And they say you guys don’t have brains.

P. aeruginosa: But wait, there’s more. We don’t just divide the labor randomly. After the initial colonization we form two functionally distinct subpopulations. One has high levels of the bacterial signaling molecule c-di-GMP and stays put to work on the biofilm. The other group, with low levels of c-di-GMP, heads out to the surrounding tissue to continue the colonization. As project leader Urs Jenal put it, “By identifying the genetic switch, we have tracked down the Achilles heel of the pathogen.”

LOTME: Pretty clever stuff, for humans, anyway.

P. aeruginosa: We agree, but now that you know our secret, we can’t let you share it.

LOTME: Wait! The journal article’s already been published. Your secret is out. You can’t stop that by infecting me.

P. aeruginosa: True enough, but are you familiar with the fable of the scorpion and the frog? It’s our nature.

LOTME: Nooooo! N. gonorrhoeae wouldn’t have done this!
 

What a pain in the Butt

Businesses rise and businesses fall. We all know that one cursed location, that spot in town where we see businesses move in and close up in a matter of months. At the same time, though, there are also businesses that have been around as long as anyone can remember, pillars of the community.

Corydon, IN., likely has a few such long-lived shops, but it is officially down one 70-year-old family business as of late April, with the unfortunate passing of beloved local pharmacy Butt Drugs. Prescription pick-up in rear.

Bildflut/Wikimedia Commons

The business dates back to 1952, when it was founded as William H. Butt Drugs. We’re sure William Butt was never teased about his last name. Nope. No one would ever do that. After he passed the store to his children, it underwent a stint as Butt Rexall Drugs. When the shop was passed down to its third-generation and ultimately final owner, Katie Butt Beckort, she decided to simplify the name. Get right down to the bottom of things, as it were.

Butt Drugs was a popular spot, featuring an old-school soda fountain and themed souvenirs. According to Ms. Butt Beckort, people would come from miles away to buy “I love Butt Drugs” T-shirts, magnets, and so on. Yes, they knew perfectly well what they were sitting on.

So, if was such a hit, why did it close? Butt Drugs may have a hilarious name and merchandise to match, but the pharmacy portion of the pharmacy had been losing money for years. You know, the actual point of the business. As with so many things, we can blame it on the insurance companies. More than half the drugs that passed through Butt Drugs’ doors were sold at a loss, because the insurance companies refused to reimburse the store more than the wholesale price of the drug. Not even a good butt drug could clear up that financial diarrhea.

And so, we’ve lost Butt Drugs forever. Spicy food enthusiasts, coffee drinkers, and all patrons of Taco Bell, take a moment to reflect and mourn on what you’ve lost. No more Butt Drugs to relieve your suffering. A true kick in the butt indeed.

Low-calorie tastes sweeter with a little salt

Diet and sugar-free foods and drinks seem like a good idea, but it’s hard to get past that strange aftertaste, right? It’s the calling card for the noncaloric aspartame- and stevia-containing sweeteners that we consume to make us feel like we can have the best of both worlds.

That weird lingering taste can be a total turn-off for some (raises hand), but researchers have found an almost facepalm solution to the not-so-sweet problem, and it’s salt.

Jason Tuinstra/Unsplash

Now, the concept of sweet and salty is not a far-fetched partnership when it comes to snack consumption (try M&Ms in your popcorn). The researchers at Almendra, a manufacturer of stevia sweeteners, put that iconic flavor pair to the test by adding mineral salts that have some nutritional value to lessen the effect of a stevia compound, rebaudioside A, found in noncaloric sweeteners.

The researchers added in magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride separately to lessen rebaudioside A’s intensity, but they needed so much salt that it killed the sweet taste completely. A blend of the three mineral salts, however, reduced the lingering taste by 79% and improved the real sugar-like taste. The researchers tried this blend in reduced-calorie orange juice and a citrus-flavored soft drink, improving the taste in both.

The salty and sweet match comes in for the win once again. This time helping against the fight of obesity instead of making it worse.

Pseudomonas’ Achilles’ heel is more of an Achilles’ genetic switch

Today, on the long-awaited return of “Bacteria vs. the World,” we meet one of the rock stars of infectious disease.

LOTME: Through the use of imaginary technology, we’re talking to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thanks for joining us on such short notice, after Neisseria gonorrhoeae canceled at the last minute.

P. aeruginosa: No problem. I think we can all guess what that little devil is up to.

Benoit-Joseph Laventie, Biozentrum, University of Basel

LOTME: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem for our species. What makes you so hard to fight?

P. aeruginosa: We’ve been trying to keep that a secret, actually, but now that researchers in Switzerland and Denmark seem to have figured it out, I guess it’s okay for me to spill the beans.

LOTME: Beans? What do beans have to do with it?

P. aeruginosa: Nothing, it’s just a colloquial expression that means I’m sharing previously private information.

LOTME: Sure, we knew that. Please, continue your spilling.

P. aeruginosa: The secret is … Well, let’s just say we were a little worried when the Clash released “Should I Stay or Should I Go” back in the 1980s.

LOTME: The Clash? Now we’re really confused.

P. aeruginosa: The answer to their question, “Should I stay or should I go? is yes. Successful invasion of a human is all about division of labor. “While one fraction of the bacterial population adheres to the mucosal surface and forms a biofilm, the other subpopulation spreads to distant tissue sites,” is how the investigators described it. We can increase surface colonization by using a “job-sharing” process, they said, and even resist antibiotics because most of us remain in the protective biofilm.

LOTME: And they say you guys don’t have brains.

P. aeruginosa: But wait, there’s more. We don’t just divide the labor randomly. After the initial colonization we form two functionally distinct subpopulations. One has high levels of the bacterial signaling molecule c-di-GMP and stays put to work on the biofilm. The other group, with low levels of c-di-GMP, heads out to the surrounding tissue to continue the colonization. As project leader Urs Jenal put it, “By identifying the genetic switch, we have tracked down the Achilles heel of the pathogen.”

LOTME: Pretty clever stuff, for humans, anyway.

P. aeruginosa: We agree, but now that you know our secret, we can’t let you share it.

LOTME: Wait! The journal article’s already been published. Your secret is out. You can’t stop that by infecting me.

P. aeruginosa: True enough, but are you familiar with the fable of the scorpion and the frog? It’s our nature.

LOTME: Nooooo! N. gonorrhoeae wouldn’t have done this!
 

What a pain in the Butt

Businesses rise and businesses fall. We all know that one cursed location, that spot in town where we see businesses move in and close up in a matter of months. At the same time, though, there are also businesses that have been around as long as anyone can remember, pillars of the community.

Corydon, IN., likely has a few such long-lived shops, but it is officially down one 70-year-old family business as of late April, with the unfortunate passing of beloved local pharmacy Butt Drugs. Prescription pick-up in rear.

Bildflut/Wikimedia Commons

The business dates back to 1952, when it was founded as William H. Butt Drugs. We’re sure William Butt was never teased about his last name. Nope. No one would ever do that. After he passed the store to his children, it underwent a stint as Butt Rexall Drugs. When the shop was passed down to its third-generation and ultimately final owner, Katie Butt Beckort, she decided to simplify the name. Get right down to the bottom of things, as it were.

Butt Drugs was a popular spot, featuring an old-school soda fountain and themed souvenirs. According to Ms. Butt Beckort, people would come from miles away to buy “I love Butt Drugs” T-shirts, magnets, and so on. Yes, they knew perfectly well what they were sitting on.

So, if was such a hit, why did it close? Butt Drugs may have a hilarious name and merchandise to match, but the pharmacy portion of the pharmacy had been losing money for years. You know, the actual point of the business. As with so many things, we can blame it on the insurance companies. More than half the drugs that passed through Butt Drugs’ doors were sold at a loss, because the insurance companies refused to reimburse the store more than the wholesale price of the drug. Not even a good butt drug could clear up that financial diarrhea.

And so, we’ve lost Butt Drugs forever. Spicy food enthusiasts, coffee drinkers, and all patrons of Taco Bell, take a moment to reflect and mourn on what you’ve lost. No more Butt Drugs to relieve your suffering. A true kick in the butt indeed.

An influential panel proposed capping Medicare Part B pay for some drugs, arguing this would remove financial incentives to use more costly medicines when there are less expensive equivalents.

Medical groups have objected to both this recommendation from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the panel’s underlying premise. MedPAC said financial as well as clinical factors can come into play in clinicians’ choices of drugs for patients.

In an interview, Christina Downey, MD, chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the American College of Rheumatology, said physicians in her field cannot switch patients’ medicines to try to make a profit.

“Patients only respond to the drugs that they respond to,” Dr. Downey said. “It’s frankly very insulting to say that physicians just force patients to go on medicines that are going to make them a bunch of money.”

In a June report to Congress, MedPAC recommended reducing the add-on payment for many drugs given in hospitals and clinics, which are thus covered by Part B, as part of a package of suggestions for addressing rising costs. Part B drug spending grew about 9% annually between 2009 and 2021, rising from $15.4 billion to $42.9 billion, MedPAC said.

Medicare’s current Part B drug pricing model starts with the reported average sales price (ASP) and then adds about 4.3% or 6%, depending on current budget-sequester law, to the cost of medicines.

MedPAC members voted 17-0 in April in favor of a general recommendation to revise the Part B payment approach. In the June report, MedPAC fleshes out this idea. It mentions a model in which the add-on Part B payment would be the lesser of either 6% of the ASP, 3% plus $24, or $220.

The majority of Part B drug administrations are for very low-priced drugs, MedPAC said. But for some of the more costly ones, annual prices can be more than $400,000 per patient, and future launch prices may be even higher for certain types of products, such as gene therapies, MedPAC said.

“There is no evidence that the costs of a drug’s administration are proportionate to the price of the drug,” MedPAC said.

Concerns about how well Medicare covers the cost of drug administration should be addressed through other pathways, such as the American Medical

Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), MedPAC said. AMA’s RUC advises the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the physician fee schedule.

Congress is not obliged to act on or to even consider MedPAC’s work. In general, lawmakers and CMS often pay heed to the panel’s recommendations, sometimes incorporating them into new policy.

But this new MedPAC Part B recommendation has drawn strong opposition, similar to the response to a 2016 CMS plan to cut the Part B add-on payment. That plan, which CMS later abandoned, would have cut the markup on Part B drugs to 2.5% and added a flat fee to cover administration costs.
 

Why not focus on PBMs instead?

The timing of the MedPAC recommendation is poor, given that CMS already is trying to implement the Inflation Reduction Act and create a new system of direct Medicare drug price negotiations, as ordered by Congress, said Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist based in New Orleans.

A better approach for lowering drug prices would be to focus more on the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), said Dr. Feldman, who also is vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations. A pending bipartisan Senate bill, for example, would prohibit PBM compensation based on the price of a drug as a condition of entering into a contract with a Medicare Part D plan.

Congress needs to take steps to unlink the profits of PBMs from higher drug prices, Dr. Feldman said.

“Until that happens, we can put all the lipstick we want on this big pig, but it’s not going to really fix the problem,” she said.
 

Reduced pay for drugs acquired through 340B program?

In an interview about the new MedPAC proposal, Ted Okon, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, urged renewed attention to what he sees as unintended consequences of the 340B discount drug program.

Under this program, certain hospitals can acquire drugs at steeply reduced prices, but they are not obliged to share those discounts with patients. Hospitals that participate in the 340B program can gain funds when patients and their insurers, including Medicare, pay more for the medicines hospitals and other organizations acquired with the 340B discount. Hospitals say they use the money from the 340B program to expand resources in their communities.

But rapid growth of the program in recent years has led to questions, especially about the role of contract pharmacies that manage the program. Congress created the 340B program in 1992 as a workaround to then new rules on Medicaid drug coverage.

In 2021, participating hospitals and clinics and organizations purchased about $44 billion worth of medicines through the 340B drug program. This was an increase of 16% from the previous year, according to a report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. The number of sites, including hospitals and pharmacies, enrolled in the 340B program rose from 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 by 2020, the report said.

MedPAC in 2016 urged CMS to reduce the amount Medicare pays for drugs acquired through the 340B program. CMS did so during the Trump administration, a policy later defended by the Biden administration.

But the U.S. Supreme Court last year said Medicare erred in its approach to making this cut, as earlier reported. Federal law required that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a survey to support such a step, and HHS did not do this, the court said. CMS thus was ordered to return Medicare to the ASP+6% payment model for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program.

In the June report, though, MedPAC stuck by its 2016 recommendation that Medicare reduce its payments for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program despite this setback.

“We continue to believe that this approach is appropriate, and the specific level of payment reduction could be considered further as newer data become available,” MedPAC said.
 

Hospital, PhRMA split

Hospitals would certainly contest any renewed bid by CMS to drop Medicare’s pay for drugs purchased through the 340B program. The American Hospital Association objected to the MedPAC proposal regarding the add-on payment in Part B drug pricing.

MedPAC commissioners discussed this idea at a January meeting, prompting a February letter from the AHA to the panel. Like Dr. Feldman, AHA said it would be “premature” to launch into a revision of Part B drug pricing while the impact of the IRA on drug prices was still unclear.

AHA also noted that a reduction in Part B drug reimbursement would “shift the responsibility for the rapid increase in drug prices away from drug manufacturers, and instead places the burden on hospitals and patients.”

But the AHA gave a much warmer reception to another proposal MedPAC considered this year and that it included in its June report, which is a plan to address the high cost of certain drugs of as yet unconfirmed clinical benefit.

In April, the AHA said it supports a move toward a “value-based approach” in certain cases in which first-in-class medicines are sold under U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approvals. Medicare could then cap payment for such drugs that have excessively high launch prices and uncertain clinical benefit, AHA said.

In the June report, MedPAC recommended that Medicare be able to place such a limit on Part B payments in certain cases, including ones in which companies do not meet FDA deadlines for postmarketing confirmatory trials.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) objected to this proposed change. The trade group for drugmakers said the FDA often revises and extends enrollment milestones for pending confirmatory trials when companies hit snags, such as challenges in enrolling patients, PhRMA said.

Reducing Part B payment for drugs for which confirmatory trials have been delayed would have a “disproportionate impact” on smaller and rural communities, where independent practices struggle to keep their doors open as it is, PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo wrote in a blog post.

“If physicians can’t afford to administer a medicine, then they won’t and that means their patients won’t have access to them either,” Ms. Longo wrote.

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

An influential panel proposed capping Medicare Part B pay for some drugs, arguing this would remove financial incentives to use more costly medicines when there are less expensive equivalents.

Medical groups have objected to both this recommendation from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the panel’s underlying premise. MedPAC said financial as well as clinical factors can come into play in clinicians’ choices of drugs for patients.

In an interview, Christina Downey, MD, chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the American College of Rheumatology, said physicians in her field cannot switch patients’ medicines to try to make a profit.

“Patients only respond to the drugs that they respond to,” Dr. Downey said. “It’s frankly very insulting to say that physicians just force patients to go on medicines that are going to make them a bunch of money.”

In a June report to Congress, MedPAC recommended reducing the add-on payment for many drugs given in hospitals and clinics, which are thus covered by Part B, as part of a package of suggestions for addressing rising costs. Part B drug spending grew about 9% annually between 2009 and 2021, rising from $15.4 billion to $42.9 billion, MedPAC said.

Medicare’s current Part B drug pricing model starts with the reported average sales price (ASP) and then adds about 4.3% or 6%, depending on current budget-sequester law, to the cost of medicines.

MedPAC members voted 17-0 in April in favor of a general recommendation to revise the Part B payment approach. In the June report, MedPAC fleshes out this idea. It mentions a model in which the add-on Part B payment would be the lesser of either 6% of the ASP, 3% plus $24, or $220.

The majority of Part B drug administrations are for very low-priced drugs, MedPAC said. But for some of the more costly ones, annual prices can be more than $400,000 per patient, and future launch prices may be even higher for certain types of products, such as gene therapies, MedPAC said.

“There is no evidence that the costs of a drug’s administration are proportionate to the price of the drug,” MedPAC said.

Concerns about how well Medicare covers the cost of drug administration should be addressed through other pathways, such as the American Medical

Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), MedPAC said. AMA’s RUC advises the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the physician fee schedule.

Congress is not obliged to act on or to even consider MedPAC’s work. In general, lawmakers and CMS often pay heed to the panel’s recommendations, sometimes incorporating them into new policy.

But this new MedPAC Part B recommendation has drawn strong opposition, similar to the response to a 2016 CMS plan to cut the Part B add-on payment. That plan, which CMS later abandoned, would have cut the markup on Part B drugs to 2.5% and added a flat fee to cover administration costs.
 

Why not focus on PBMs instead?

The timing of the MedPAC recommendation is poor, given that CMS already is trying to implement the Inflation Reduction Act and create a new system of direct Medicare drug price negotiations, as ordered by Congress, said Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist based in New Orleans.

A better approach for lowering drug prices would be to focus more on the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), said Dr. Feldman, who also is vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations. A pending bipartisan Senate bill, for example, would prohibit PBM compensation based on the price of a drug as a condition of entering into a contract with a Medicare Part D plan.

Congress needs to take steps to unlink the profits of PBMs from higher drug prices, Dr. Feldman said.

“Until that happens, we can put all the lipstick we want on this big pig, but it’s not going to really fix the problem,” she said.
 

Reduced pay for drugs acquired through 340B program?

In an interview about the new MedPAC proposal, Ted Okon, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, urged renewed attention to what he sees as unintended consequences of the 340B discount drug program.

Under this program, certain hospitals can acquire drugs at steeply reduced prices, but they are not obliged to share those discounts with patients. Hospitals that participate in the 340B program can gain funds when patients and their insurers, including Medicare, pay more for the medicines hospitals and other organizations acquired with the 340B discount. Hospitals say they use the money from the 340B program to expand resources in their communities.

But rapid growth of the program in recent years has led to questions, especially about the role of contract pharmacies that manage the program. Congress created the 340B program in 1992 as a workaround to then new rules on Medicaid drug coverage.

In 2021, participating hospitals and clinics and organizations purchased about $44 billion worth of medicines through the 340B drug program. This was an increase of 16% from the previous year, according to a report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. The number of sites, including hospitals and pharmacies, enrolled in the 340B program rose from 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 by 2020, the report said.

MedPAC in 2016 urged CMS to reduce the amount Medicare pays for drugs acquired through the 340B program. CMS did so during the Trump administration, a policy later defended by the Biden administration.

But the U.S. Supreme Court last year said Medicare erred in its approach to making this cut, as earlier reported. Federal law required that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a survey to support such a step, and HHS did not do this, the court said. CMS thus was ordered to return Medicare to the ASP+6% payment model for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program.

In the June report, though, MedPAC stuck by its 2016 recommendation that Medicare reduce its payments for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program despite this setback.

“We continue to believe that this approach is appropriate, and the specific level of payment reduction could be considered further as newer data become available,” MedPAC said.
 

Hospital, PhRMA split

Hospitals would certainly contest any renewed bid by CMS to drop Medicare’s pay for drugs purchased through the 340B program. The American Hospital Association objected to the MedPAC proposal regarding the add-on payment in Part B drug pricing.

MedPAC commissioners discussed this idea at a January meeting, prompting a February letter from the AHA to the panel. Like Dr. Feldman, AHA said it would be “premature” to launch into a revision of Part B drug pricing while the impact of the IRA on drug prices was still unclear.

AHA also noted that a reduction in Part B drug reimbursement would “shift the responsibility for the rapid increase in drug prices away from drug manufacturers, and instead places the burden on hospitals and patients.”

But the AHA gave a much warmer reception to another proposal MedPAC considered this year and that it included in its June report, which is a plan to address the high cost of certain drugs of as yet unconfirmed clinical benefit.

In April, the AHA said it supports a move toward a “value-based approach” in certain cases in which first-in-class medicines are sold under U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approvals. Medicare could then cap payment for such drugs that have excessively high launch prices and uncertain clinical benefit, AHA said.

In the June report, MedPAC recommended that Medicare be able to place such a limit on Part B payments in certain cases, including ones in which companies do not meet FDA deadlines for postmarketing confirmatory trials.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) objected to this proposed change. The trade group for drugmakers said the FDA often revises and extends enrollment milestones for pending confirmatory trials when companies hit snags, such as challenges in enrolling patients, PhRMA said.

Reducing Part B payment for drugs for which confirmatory trials have been delayed would have a “disproportionate impact” on smaller and rural communities, where independent practices struggle to keep their doors open as it is, PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo wrote in a blog post.

“If physicians can’t afford to administer a medicine, then they won’t and that means their patients won’t have access to them either,” Ms. Longo wrote.

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

An influential panel proposed capping Medicare Part B pay for some drugs, arguing this would remove financial incentives to use more costly medicines when there are less expensive equivalents.

Medical groups have objected to both this recommendation from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the panel’s underlying premise. MedPAC said financial as well as clinical factors can come into play in clinicians’ choices of drugs for patients.

In an interview, Christina Downey, MD, chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the American College of Rheumatology, said physicians in her field cannot switch patients’ medicines to try to make a profit.

“Patients only respond to the drugs that they respond to,” Dr. Downey said. “It’s frankly very insulting to say that physicians just force patients to go on medicines that are going to make them a bunch of money.”

In a June report to Congress, MedPAC recommended reducing the add-on payment for many drugs given in hospitals and clinics, which are thus covered by Part B, as part of a package of suggestions for addressing rising costs. Part B drug spending grew about 9% annually between 2009 and 2021, rising from $15.4 billion to $42.9 billion, MedPAC said.

Medicare’s current Part B drug pricing model starts with the reported average sales price (ASP) and then adds about 4.3% or 6%, depending on current budget-sequester law, to the cost of medicines.

MedPAC members voted 17-0 in April in favor of a general recommendation to revise the Part B payment approach. In the June report, MedPAC fleshes out this idea. It mentions a model in which the add-on Part B payment would be the lesser of either 6% of the ASP, 3% plus $24, or $220.

The majority of Part B drug administrations are for very low-priced drugs, MedPAC said. But for some of the more costly ones, annual prices can be more than $400,000 per patient, and future launch prices may be even higher for certain types of products, such as gene therapies, MedPAC said.

“There is no evidence that the costs of a drug’s administration are proportionate to the price of the drug,” MedPAC said.

Concerns about how well Medicare covers the cost of drug administration should be addressed through other pathways, such as the American Medical

Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), MedPAC said. AMA’s RUC advises the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the physician fee schedule.

Congress is not obliged to act on or to even consider MedPAC’s work. In general, lawmakers and CMS often pay heed to the panel’s recommendations, sometimes incorporating them into new policy.

But this new MedPAC Part B recommendation has drawn strong opposition, similar to the response to a 2016 CMS plan to cut the Part B add-on payment. That plan, which CMS later abandoned, would have cut the markup on Part B drugs to 2.5% and added a flat fee to cover administration costs.
 

Why not focus on PBMs instead?

The timing of the MedPAC recommendation is poor, given that CMS already is trying to implement the Inflation Reduction Act and create a new system of direct Medicare drug price negotiations, as ordered by Congress, said Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist based in New Orleans.

A better approach for lowering drug prices would be to focus more on the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), said Dr. Feldman, who also is vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations. A pending bipartisan Senate bill, for example, would prohibit PBM compensation based on the price of a drug as a condition of entering into a contract with a Medicare Part D plan.

Congress needs to take steps to unlink the profits of PBMs from higher drug prices, Dr. Feldman said.

“Until that happens, we can put all the lipstick we want on this big pig, but it’s not going to really fix the problem,” she said.
 

Reduced pay for drugs acquired through 340B program?

In an interview about the new MedPAC proposal, Ted Okon, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, urged renewed attention to what he sees as unintended consequences of the 340B discount drug program.

Under this program, certain hospitals can acquire drugs at steeply reduced prices, but they are not obliged to share those discounts with patients. Hospitals that participate in the 340B program can gain funds when patients and their insurers, including Medicare, pay more for the medicines hospitals and other organizations acquired with the 340B discount. Hospitals say they use the money from the 340B program to expand resources in their communities.

But rapid growth of the program in recent years has led to questions, especially about the role of contract pharmacies that manage the program. Congress created the 340B program in 1992 as a workaround to then new rules on Medicaid drug coverage.

In 2021, participating hospitals and clinics and organizations purchased about $44 billion worth of medicines through the 340B drug program. This was an increase of 16% from the previous year, according to a report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. The number of sites, including hospitals and pharmacies, enrolled in the 340B program rose from 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 by 2020, the report said.

MedPAC in 2016 urged CMS to reduce the amount Medicare pays for drugs acquired through the 340B program. CMS did so during the Trump administration, a policy later defended by the Biden administration.

But the U.S. Supreme Court last year said Medicare erred in its approach to making this cut, as earlier reported. Federal law required that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a survey to support such a step, and HHS did not do this, the court said. CMS thus was ordered to return Medicare to the ASP+6% payment model for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program.

In the June report, though, MedPAC stuck by its 2016 recommendation that Medicare reduce its payments for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program despite this setback.

“We continue to believe that this approach is appropriate, and the specific level of payment reduction could be considered further as newer data become available,” MedPAC said.
 

Hospital, PhRMA split

Hospitals would certainly contest any renewed bid by CMS to drop Medicare’s pay for drugs purchased through the 340B program. The American Hospital Association objected to the MedPAC proposal regarding the add-on payment in Part B drug pricing.

MedPAC commissioners discussed this idea at a January meeting, prompting a February letter from the AHA to the panel. Like Dr. Feldman, AHA said it would be “premature” to launch into a revision of Part B drug pricing while the impact of the IRA on drug prices was still unclear.

AHA also noted that a reduction in Part B drug reimbursement would “shift the responsibility for the rapid increase in drug prices away from drug manufacturers, and instead places the burden on hospitals and patients.”

But the AHA gave a much warmer reception to another proposal MedPAC considered this year and that it included in its June report, which is a plan to address the high cost of certain drugs of as yet unconfirmed clinical benefit.

In April, the AHA said it supports a move toward a “value-based approach” in certain cases in which first-in-class medicines are sold under U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approvals. Medicare could then cap payment for such drugs that have excessively high launch prices and uncertain clinical benefit, AHA said.

In the June report, MedPAC recommended that Medicare be able to place such a limit on Part B payments in certain cases, including ones in which companies do not meet FDA deadlines for postmarketing confirmatory trials.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) objected to this proposed change. The trade group for drugmakers said the FDA often revises and extends enrollment milestones for pending confirmatory trials when companies hit snags, such as challenges in enrolling patients, PhRMA said.

Reducing Part B payment for drugs for which confirmatory trials have been delayed would have a “disproportionate impact” on smaller and rural communities, where independent practices struggle to keep their doors open as it is, PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo wrote in a blog post.

“If physicians can’t afford to administer a medicine, then they won’t and that means their patients won’t have access to them either,” Ms. Longo wrote.

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

1. Stride confidently into the room to greet your 84-year-old female patient.

2. Introduce yourself saying, “Hi, I’m Dr. Jeff Benabio.”

3. Extend your clenched fist toward her chest and wait for her to reciprocate.

4. Smile awkwardly behind your mask while you wait.

5. Advise that you are doing a fist bump instead of a handshake to prevent the spread of viruses.

6. Wait.

7. Explain that she can bump, also known as “dap,” you back by extending her clenched fist and bumping into yours.

8. Wait a bit more.

9. Lower your fist and pat her on the shoulder with your left hand. Do so gently so it doesn’t seem like you just did a quick right jab followed by a left hook.

10. Sit down diffidently and pray that you can help her so this office visit is not an utter disaster.

It seemed a good idea for 2020: Let’s stop shaking hands while we wait out this viral apocalypse. Sensible, but entering a patient room and just sitting down didn’t work. It felt cold, impolite – this isn’t the DMV. In medicine, a complete stranger has to trust us to get naked, tell intimate secrets, even be stuck by needles all within minutes of meeting. We needed a trust-building substitute greeting.

There was the Muslim hand-on-my-heart greeting. Or the Hindu “namaste” or Buddhist “amituofo” folded hands. Or perhaps the paternalistic shoulder pat? I went with the fist bump. With some of my partner docs, my old MBA squad, my neighbor, the fist bump felt natural, reciprocated without hesitation. But it fails with many patients. To understand why, it’s helpful to know the history of the fist bump, also known as the dap.

Dap is an acronym for Dignity And Pride. It’s a variation of a handshake that originated among Black soldiers in the Vietnam war as a means of showing fraternity and establishing connectedness. In Vietnam, 30% of the combat battalions were Black. Marginalized in the military and at home, they created a greeting that was meaningful and unique. The dap was a series of shakes, bumps, slaps, and hugs that was symbolic. It was a means of showing respect and humility, that no one is above others, that I’ve got your back and you’ve got mine. It was a powerful recognition of humanity and effective means of personal connection. It spread from the Black community to the general population and it exists still today. The choreographed pregame handshake you see so many NBA players engage in is a descendant of the dap. Like many rituals, it reinforces bonds with those who are your people, your team, those you trust.

webphotographeer/Getty

The more generalized version is the simple fist bump. It is widely used, notably by President Obama, and in the appropriate circumstance, will almost always be reciprocated. But it doesn’t work well to create trust with a stranger. With a patient for example, you are not showing them respect for some accomplishment. Nor are we connecting with them as a member of your team. Unless this is a patient whom you’ve seen many times before, a fist bump attempt might be met with “are you serious?” In fact, a survey done in 2016 asking infectious disease professionals what they thought of fist bumps as a greeting, very few replied it was a good idea. Most felt it was unprofessional. Not to mention that a fist bump does not symbolize an agreement in the way that a handshake does (and has done since at least the 9th century BC).

With COVID waning and masks doffed, I’ve found myself back to handshaking. Yes, I sanitize before and after, another ritual that has symbolic as well as practical significance. I get fewer sideways glances from my geriatric patients for sure. But I do still offer a little dap for my liquid nitrogen–survivor kids and for the occasional fellow Gen Xer. “Wonder Twin powers, activate!”

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]

1. Stride confidently into the room to greet your 84-year-old female patient.

2. Introduce yourself saying, “Hi, I’m Dr. Jeff Benabio.”

3. Extend your clenched fist toward her chest and wait for her to reciprocate.

4. Smile awkwardly behind your mask while you wait.

5. Advise that you are doing a fist bump instead of a handshake to prevent the spread of viruses.

6. Wait.

7. Explain that she can bump, also known as “dap,” you back by extending her clenched fist and bumping into yours.

8. Wait a bit more.

9. Lower your fist and pat her on the shoulder with your left hand. Do so gently so it doesn’t seem like you just did a quick right jab followed by a left hook.

10. Sit down diffidently and pray that you can help her so this office visit is not an utter disaster.

It seemed a good idea for 2020: Let’s stop shaking hands while we wait out this viral apocalypse. Sensible, but entering a patient room and just sitting down didn’t work. It felt cold, impolite – this isn’t the DMV. In medicine, a complete stranger has to trust us to get naked, tell intimate secrets, even be stuck by needles all within minutes of meeting. We needed a trust-building substitute greeting.

There was the Muslim hand-on-my-heart greeting. Or the Hindu “namaste” or Buddhist “amituofo” folded hands. Or perhaps the paternalistic shoulder pat? I went with the fist bump. With some of my partner docs, my old MBA squad, my neighbor, the fist bump felt natural, reciprocated without hesitation. But it fails with many patients. To understand why, it’s helpful to know the history of the fist bump, also known as the dap.

Dap is an acronym for Dignity And Pride. It’s a variation of a handshake that originated among Black soldiers in the Vietnam war as a means of showing fraternity and establishing connectedness. In Vietnam, 30% of the combat battalions were Black. Marginalized in the military and at home, they created a greeting that was meaningful and unique. The dap was a series of shakes, bumps, slaps, and hugs that was symbolic. It was a means of showing respect and humility, that no one is above others, that I’ve got your back and you’ve got mine. It was a powerful recognition of humanity and effective means of personal connection. It spread from the Black community to the general population and it exists still today. The choreographed pregame handshake you see so many NBA players engage in is a descendant of the dap. Like many rituals, it reinforces bonds with those who are your people, your team, those you trust.

webphotographeer/Getty

The more generalized version is the simple fist bump. It is widely used, notably by President Obama, and in the appropriate circumstance, will almost always be reciprocated. But it doesn’t work well to create trust with a stranger. With a patient for example, you are not showing them respect for some accomplishment. Nor are we connecting with them as a member of your team. Unless this is a patient whom you’ve seen many times before, a fist bump attempt might be met with “are you serious?” In fact, a survey done in 2016 asking infectious disease professionals what they thought of fist bumps as a greeting, very few replied it was a good idea. Most felt it was unprofessional. Not to mention that a fist bump does not symbolize an agreement in the way that a handshake does (and has done since at least the 9th century BC).

With COVID waning and masks doffed, I’ve found myself back to handshaking. Yes, I sanitize before and after, another ritual that has symbolic as well as practical significance. I get fewer sideways glances from my geriatric patients for sure. But I do still offer a little dap for my liquid nitrogen–survivor kids and for the occasional fellow Gen Xer. “Wonder Twin powers, activate!”

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]

1. Stride confidently into the room to greet your 84-year-old female patient.

2. Introduce yourself saying, “Hi, I’m Dr. Jeff Benabio.”

3. Extend your clenched fist toward her chest and wait for her to reciprocate.

4. Smile awkwardly behind your mask while you wait.

5. Advise that you are doing a fist bump instead of a handshake to prevent the spread of viruses.

6. Wait.

7. Explain that she can bump, also known as “dap,” you back by extending her clenched fist and bumping into yours.

8. Wait a bit more.

9. Lower your fist and pat her on the shoulder with your left hand. Do so gently so it doesn’t seem like you just did a quick right jab followed by a left hook.

10. Sit down diffidently and pray that you can help her so this office visit is not an utter disaster.

It seemed a good idea for 2020: Let’s stop shaking hands while we wait out this viral apocalypse. Sensible, but entering a patient room and just sitting down didn’t work. It felt cold, impolite – this isn’t the DMV. In medicine, a complete stranger has to trust us to get naked, tell intimate secrets, even be stuck by needles all within minutes of meeting. We needed a trust-building substitute greeting.

There was the Muslim hand-on-my-heart greeting. Or the Hindu “namaste” or Buddhist “amituofo” folded hands. Or perhaps the paternalistic shoulder pat? I went with the fist bump. With some of my partner docs, my old MBA squad, my neighbor, the fist bump felt natural, reciprocated without hesitation. But it fails with many patients. To understand why, it’s helpful to know the history of the fist bump, also known as the dap.

Dap is an acronym for Dignity And Pride. It’s a variation of a handshake that originated among Black soldiers in the Vietnam war as a means of showing fraternity and establishing connectedness. In Vietnam, 30% of the combat battalions were Black. Marginalized in the military and at home, they created a greeting that was meaningful and unique. The dap was a series of shakes, bumps, slaps, and hugs that was symbolic. It was a means of showing respect and humility, that no one is above others, that I’ve got your back and you’ve got mine. It was a powerful recognition of humanity and effective means of personal connection. It spread from the Black community to the general population and it exists still today. The choreographed pregame handshake you see so many NBA players engage in is a descendant of the dap. Like many rituals, it reinforces bonds with those who are your people, your team, those you trust.

webphotographeer/Getty

The more generalized version is the simple fist bump. It is widely used, notably by President Obama, and in the appropriate circumstance, will almost always be reciprocated. But it doesn’t work well to create trust with a stranger. With a patient for example, you are not showing them respect for some accomplishment. Nor are we connecting with them as a member of your team. Unless this is a patient whom you’ve seen many times before, a fist bump attempt might be met with “are you serious?” In fact, a survey done in 2016 asking infectious disease professionals what they thought of fist bumps as a greeting, very few replied it was a good idea. Most felt it was unprofessional. Not to mention that a fist bump does not symbolize an agreement in the way that a handshake does (and has done since at least the 9th century BC).

With COVID waning and masks doffed, I’ve found myself back to handshaking. Yes, I sanitize before and after, another ritual that has symbolic as well as practical significance. I get fewer sideways glances from my geriatric patients for sure. But I do still offer a little dap for my liquid nitrogen–survivor kids and for the occasional fellow Gen Xer. “Wonder Twin powers, activate!”

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]

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Primary care providers (PCPs) are addressing an increasing number of mental health visits, requiring collaborative and innovative approaches to providing psychiatric care.

This growth in the number of patients needing behavioral health–related care is likely driven by multiple factors, including a shortage of mental health care providers, an increasing incidence of psychiatric illness, and destigmatization of mental health in general, suggested Swetha P. Iruku, MD, MPH, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Medicine family physician in Philadelphia.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with mental health challenges related to the morbidity and mortality caused by the disease and to mitigation activities, including the impact of physical distancing and stay-at-home orders,” in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

From June 24 to 30, 2020, U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19, and symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder climbed during the months of April through June of the same year, compared with the same period in 2019, they wrote.

Even before the pandemic got underway, multiple studies of national data published this year suggested mental issues were on the rise in the United States. For example, the proportion of adult patient visits to primary care providers that addressed mental health concerns rose from 10.7% to 15.9% from 2006 to 2018, according to research published in Health Affairs. Plus, the number and proportion of pediatric acute care hospitalizations because of mental health diagnoses increased significantly between 2009 and 2019, according to a paper published in JAMA.

“I truly believe that we can’t, as primary care physicians, take care of someone’s physical health without also taking care of their mental health,” Dr. Iruku said in an interview. “It’s all intertwined.”

To rise to this challenge, PCPs first need a collaborative mindset, she suggested, as well as familiarity with available resources, both locally and virtually.

This article examines strategies for managing mental illness in primary care, outlines clinical resources, and reviews related educational opportunities.

In addition, clinical pearls are shared by Dr. Iruku and five other clinicians who provide or have provided mental health care to primary care patients or work in close collaboration with a primary care practice, including a clinical psychologist, a nurse practitioner licensed in psychiatric health, a pediatrician, and a licensed clinical social worker.
 

Build a network

Most of the providers interviewed cited the importance of collaboration in mental health care, particularly for complex cases.

“I would recommend [that primary care providers get] to know the psychiatric providers [in their area],” said Jessica Viton, DNP, FNP, PMHNP, who delivers mental health care through a community-based primary care practice in Colorado which she requested remain anonymous.

Dr. Iruku suggested making an in-person connection first, if possible.

“So much of what we do is ‘see one, do one, teach one,’ so learn a little bit, then go off and trial,” she said. “[It can be valuable] having someone in your back pocket that you can contact in the case of an emergency, or in a situation where you just don’t know how to tackle it.”
 

Screen for depression and anxiety

William J. Sieber, PhD, a clinical psychologist, director of integrated behavioral health, and professor in the department of family medicine and public health and the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said primary care providers should screen all adult patients for depression and anxiety with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), respectively.

To save time, he suggested a cascading approach.

“In primary care, everybody’s in a hurry,” Dr. Sieber said. “[With the cascading approach,] the first two items [from each questionnaire] are given, and if a person endorses either of those items … then they are asked to complete the other items.”

Jennifer Mullally, MD, a pediatrician at Sanford Health in Fargo, N.D., uses this cascading approach to depression and anxiety screening with all her patients aged 13-18. For younger kids, she screens only those who present with signs or symptoms of mental health issues, or if the parent shares a concern.

This approach differs slightly from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which suggest screening for anxiety in patients aged 8-18 years and depression in patients aged 12-18 years.
 

Use other screening tools only as needed

Dr. Sieber, the research director for the division of family medicine at UC San Diego, collaborates regularly with primary care providers via hallway consultations, by sharing cases, and through providing oversight of psychiatric care at 13 primary care practices within the UC San Diego network. He recommended against routine screening beyond depression and anxiety in the primary care setting.

“There are a lot of screening tools,” Dr. Sieber said. “It depends on what you’re presented with. The challenge in primary care is you’re going to see all kinds of things. It’s not like running a depression clinic.”

Other than the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, he suggested primary care providers establish familiarity with screening tools for posttraumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, noting again that these should be used only when one of the conditions is already suspected.

Dr. Mullally follows a similar approach with her pediatric population. In addition to the GAD-7, she investigates whether a patient has anxiety with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED). For depression, she couples the PHQ-9 with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

While additional screening tools like these are readily available online, Dr. Viton suggested that they should be employed only if the provider is trained to interpret and respond to those findings, and only if they know which tool to use, and when.

For example, she has recently observed PCPs diagnosing adults with ADHD using a three-question test, when in fact a full-length, standardized instrument should be administered by a provider with necessary training.

She also pointed out that bipolar disorder continues to be underdiagnosed, possibly because of providers detecting depression using a questionnaire like the PHQ-9, while failing to inquire about manic episodes.
 

Leverage online resources

If depression is confirmed, Dr. Iruku often directs the patient to the Mayo Clinic Depression Medication Choice Decision Aid. This website steers patients through medication options based on their answers to a questionnaire. Choices are listed alongside possible adverse effects.

For clinician use, Dr. Iruku recommended The Waco Guide to Psychopharmacology in Primary Care, which aids clinical decision-making for mental illness and substance abuse. The app processes case details to suggest first-, second-, and third-line pharmacotherapies, as well as modifications based on patient needs.

Even with tools like these, however, a referral may be needed.

“[Primary care providers] may not be the best fit for what the patient is looking for, from a mental health or behavioral standpoint,” Dr. Sieber said.

In this case, he encourages patients to visit Psychology Today, a “quite popular portal” that helps patients locate a suitable provider based on location, insurance, driving radius, and mental health concern. This usually generates 10-20 options, Dr. Sieber said, although results can vary.

“It may be discouraging, because maybe only three [providers] pop up based on your criteria, and the closest one is miles away,” he said.
 

Consider virtual support

If no local psychiatric help is available, Dr. Sieber suggested virtual support, highlighting that “it’s much easier now than it was 3 or 4 years ago” to connect patients with external mental health care.

But this strategy should be reserved for cases of actual need instead of pure convenience, cautioned Dr. Viton, who noted that virtual visits may fail to capture the nuance of an in-person meeting, as body language, mode of dress, and other clues can provide insights into mental health status.

“Occasionally, I think you do have to have an in-person visit, especially when you’re developing a rapport with someone,” Dr. Viton said.

Claire McArdle, a licensed clinical social worker in Fort Collins, Colo., noted that virtual care from an outside provider may also impede the collaboration needed to effectively address mental illness.

In her 11 years in primary care at Associates in Family Medicine, Ms. McArdle had countless interactions with colleagues seeking support when managing a complex case. “I’m coaching providers, front desk staff, and nursing staff on how to interact with patients [with] behavioral health needs,” she said, citing the multitude of nonmedical factors that need to be considered, such as family relationships and patient preferences.

These unscheduled conversations with colleagues throughout the day are impossible to have when sharing a case with an unknown, remote peer.

Ms. McArdle speaks from experience. She recently resigned from Associates in Family Medicine to start her own private therapy practice after her former employer was acquired by VillageMD, a national provider that terminated employment of most other social workers in the practice and began outsourcing mental health care to Mindoula Health, a virtual provider.

Dr. Sieber offered a similar perspective on in-person collaboration as the psychiatric specialist at his center. He routinely offers on-site support for both providers and patients, serving as “another set of eyes and ears” when there is a concern about patient safety or directly managing care when a patient is hospitalized for mental illness.

While virtual solutions may fall short of in-person management, they can offer care at a scale and cost impossible through traditional practice.

This could even be free. Zero-cost, automated software now allows individuals who are uninsured or unable to afford care at least one avenue to manage their mental health concerns.

For example, Bliss is a free, 8-session, interactive online therapy program for depression that was created by the Centre for Interactive Mental Health Solutions. The program offers a tool for monitoring mood and quizzes to test understanding of personal mental health management, among other features.

More advanced programs are emerging as artificial intelligence (AI) enables dialogues between humans and machines. This is the case with Woebot, an app that asks the user about their mood throughout the day, and responds with evidence-based strategies for managing concerns, all for free at press time.
 

Keep learning

A range of educational options and professional resources are available for primary care providers who would like to improve their knowledge of mental health care. These include formal fellowships in primary care psychiatry/behavioral health integration, free mental health webinars, and various other opportunities.

Eric Eschweiler, DNP, APRN, FNP-C, PHN, completed the University of California, Irvine, Train New Trainers (TNT) Primary Care Psychiatry (PCP) Fellowship in 2016, when he was working as a solo nurse practitioner.

“I was drowning in practice,” said Dr. Eschweiler, director of nursing and public health outreach services at Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Grand Terrace, Calif., in an interview. “I was a solo NP. There was no physician on site. We were seeing a lot of [individuals with] schizoaffective [disorder] in downtown San Bernardino, the homeless, unhoused – a lot of substance use. I felt I needed to have the skills to be able to treat them effectively. That’s what the fellowship did.”

The skills Dr. Eschweiler learned from participating in his fellowship allowed him to manage more cases of mental illness without need for referral. When a referral was needed for a complex or severe case, he had the confidence to bridge care and collaborate more effectively with psychiatric specialists.

“It was awesome, because we were able to communicate using the same language,” Dr. Eschweiler said of these collaborations. “It’s [about] talking that same language, starting those initial treatments, and then moving forward with specialty care, and vice versa. [Psychiatric specialists] would send me patients that needed medical care because of the types of medications they were taking. And I was then very well aware of those side effects and other issues that might come up from those treatments. So it’s a two-way street.”

Dr. Eschweiler was so impressed by his fellowship that he has since ushered multiple providers through the program since transitioning to an administrative role as director of nursing.

In Fargo, where psychiatric care is sparse and wait times for referral can be months long, Dr. Mullally, like Dr. Eschweiler, knew that she needed more training in mental health.

“I don’t feel like we get enough training in residency,” Dr. Mullally said. “So you do need to look at your options for further CME.”

Out of several CME courses she has taken to further her understanding of pediatric psychiatry, Dr. Mullally recommended The Reach Institute above all others, as their courses involve in-depth discussions and valuable handouts, particularly for medication selection.

“I think that a lot of the other CMEs tend to involve a lot more PowerPoint presentations,” Dr. Mullally said. “And you don’t necessarily leave with a lot of good documents. I still use my Reach handouts. I have them sitting right next to me. I use them every single day.”

Providers interested in The Reach Institute, however, should be prepared to invest both time and money, she added, citing a 2-3 day commitment, and calling it “not cheap.” To overcome these barriers, she suggested that providers get their institution to support their attendance.

For a lighter commitment, Dr. Iruku recommended the American Academy of Family Physicians CME portal, as this offers 13 online, accredited courses covering a range of topics, from adolescent health to substance abuse disorders.

Dr. Sieber suggested that primary care providers join the Collaborative Family Healthcare Association, which aims to integrate physical and behavioral health in routine practice. CFHA, of which he is a member, offers a “bevy of different resources” for interested providers, including a conference in Phoenix this October.

The interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are addressing an increasing number of mental health visits, requiring collaborative and innovative approaches to providing psychiatric care.

This growth in the number of patients needing behavioral health–related care is likely driven by multiple factors, including a shortage of mental health care providers, an increasing incidence of psychiatric illness, and destigmatization of mental health in general, suggested Swetha P. Iruku, MD, MPH, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Medicine family physician in Philadelphia.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with mental health challenges related to the morbidity and mortality caused by the disease and to mitigation activities, including the impact of physical distancing and stay-at-home orders,” in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

From June 24 to 30, 2020, U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19, and symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder climbed during the months of April through June of the same year, compared with the same period in 2019, they wrote.

Even before the pandemic got underway, multiple studies of national data published this year suggested mental issues were on the rise in the United States. For example, the proportion of adult patient visits to primary care providers that addressed mental health concerns rose from 10.7% to 15.9% from 2006 to 2018, according to research published in Health Affairs. Plus, the number and proportion of pediatric acute care hospitalizations because of mental health diagnoses increased significantly between 2009 and 2019, according to a paper published in JAMA.

“I truly believe that we can’t, as primary care physicians, take care of someone’s physical health without also taking care of their mental health,” Dr. Iruku said in an interview. “It’s all intertwined.”

To rise to this challenge, PCPs first need a collaborative mindset, she suggested, as well as familiarity with available resources, both locally and virtually.

This article examines strategies for managing mental illness in primary care, outlines clinical resources, and reviews related educational opportunities.

In addition, clinical pearls are shared by Dr. Iruku and five other clinicians who provide or have provided mental health care to primary care patients or work in close collaboration with a primary care practice, including a clinical psychologist, a nurse practitioner licensed in psychiatric health, a pediatrician, and a licensed clinical social worker.
 

Build a network

Most of the providers interviewed cited the importance of collaboration in mental health care, particularly for complex cases.

“I would recommend [that primary care providers get] to know the psychiatric providers [in their area],” said Jessica Viton, DNP, FNP, PMHNP, who delivers mental health care through a community-based primary care practice in Colorado which she requested remain anonymous.

Dr. Iruku suggested making an in-person connection first, if possible.

“So much of what we do is ‘see one, do one, teach one,’ so learn a little bit, then go off and trial,” she said. “[It can be valuable] having someone in your back pocket that you can contact in the case of an emergency, or in a situation where you just don’t know how to tackle it.”
 

Screen for depression and anxiety

William J. Sieber, PhD, a clinical psychologist, director of integrated behavioral health, and professor in the department of family medicine and public health and the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said primary care providers should screen all adult patients for depression and anxiety with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), respectively.

To save time, he suggested a cascading approach.

“In primary care, everybody’s in a hurry,” Dr. Sieber said. “[With the cascading approach,] the first two items [from each questionnaire] are given, and if a person endorses either of those items … then they are asked to complete the other items.”

Jennifer Mullally, MD, a pediatrician at Sanford Health in Fargo, N.D., uses this cascading approach to depression and anxiety screening with all her patients aged 13-18. For younger kids, she screens only those who present with signs or symptoms of mental health issues, or if the parent shares a concern.

This approach differs slightly from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which suggest screening for anxiety in patients aged 8-18 years and depression in patients aged 12-18 years.
 

Use other screening tools only as needed

Dr. Sieber, the research director for the division of family medicine at UC San Diego, collaborates regularly with primary care providers via hallway consultations, by sharing cases, and through providing oversight of psychiatric care at 13 primary care practices within the UC San Diego network. He recommended against routine screening beyond depression and anxiety in the primary care setting.

“There are a lot of screening tools,” Dr. Sieber said. “It depends on what you’re presented with. The challenge in primary care is you’re going to see all kinds of things. It’s not like running a depression clinic.”

Other than the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, he suggested primary care providers establish familiarity with screening tools for posttraumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, noting again that these should be used only when one of the conditions is already suspected.

Dr. Mullally follows a similar approach with her pediatric population. In addition to the GAD-7, she investigates whether a patient has anxiety with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED). For depression, she couples the PHQ-9 with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

While additional screening tools like these are readily available online, Dr. Viton suggested that they should be employed only if the provider is trained to interpret and respond to those findings, and only if they know which tool to use, and when.

For example, she has recently observed PCPs diagnosing adults with ADHD using a three-question test, when in fact a full-length, standardized instrument should be administered by a provider with necessary training.

She also pointed out that bipolar disorder continues to be underdiagnosed, possibly because of providers detecting depression using a questionnaire like the PHQ-9, while failing to inquire about manic episodes.
 

Leverage online resources

If depression is confirmed, Dr. Iruku often directs the patient to the Mayo Clinic Depression Medication Choice Decision Aid. This website steers patients through medication options based on their answers to a questionnaire. Choices are listed alongside possible adverse effects.

For clinician use, Dr. Iruku recommended The Waco Guide to Psychopharmacology in Primary Care, which aids clinical decision-making for mental illness and substance abuse. The app processes case details to suggest first-, second-, and third-line pharmacotherapies, as well as modifications based on patient needs.

Even with tools like these, however, a referral may be needed.

“[Primary care providers] may not be the best fit for what the patient is looking for, from a mental health or behavioral standpoint,” Dr. Sieber said.

In this case, he encourages patients to visit Psychology Today, a “quite popular portal” that helps patients locate a suitable provider based on location, insurance, driving radius, and mental health concern. This usually generates 10-20 options, Dr. Sieber said, although results can vary.

“It may be discouraging, because maybe only three [providers] pop up based on your criteria, and the closest one is miles away,” he said.
 

Consider virtual support

If no local psychiatric help is available, Dr. Sieber suggested virtual support, highlighting that “it’s much easier now than it was 3 or 4 years ago” to connect patients with external mental health care.

But this strategy should be reserved for cases of actual need instead of pure convenience, cautioned Dr. Viton, who noted that virtual visits may fail to capture the nuance of an in-person meeting, as body language, mode of dress, and other clues can provide insights into mental health status.

“Occasionally, I think you do have to have an in-person visit, especially when you’re developing a rapport with someone,” Dr. Viton said.

Claire McArdle, a licensed clinical social worker in Fort Collins, Colo., noted that virtual care from an outside provider may also impede the collaboration needed to effectively address mental illness.

In her 11 years in primary care at Associates in Family Medicine, Ms. McArdle had countless interactions with colleagues seeking support when managing a complex case. “I’m coaching providers, front desk staff, and nursing staff on how to interact with patients [with] behavioral health needs,” she said, citing the multitude of nonmedical factors that need to be considered, such as family relationships and patient preferences.

These unscheduled conversations with colleagues throughout the day are impossible to have when sharing a case with an unknown, remote peer.

Ms. McArdle speaks from experience. She recently resigned from Associates in Family Medicine to start her own private therapy practice after her former employer was acquired by VillageMD, a national provider that terminated employment of most other social workers in the practice and began outsourcing mental health care to Mindoula Health, a virtual provider.

Dr. Sieber offered a similar perspective on in-person collaboration as the psychiatric specialist at his center. He routinely offers on-site support for both providers and patients, serving as “another set of eyes and ears” when there is a concern about patient safety or directly managing care when a patient is hospitalized for mental illness.

While virtual solutions may fall short of in-person management, they can offer care at a scale and cost impossible through traditional practice.

This could even be free. Zero-cost, automated software now allows individuals who are uninsured or unable to afford care at least one avenue to manage their mental health concerns.

For example, Bliss is a free, 8-session, interactive online therapy program for depression that was created by the Centre for Interactive Mental Health Solutions. The program offers a tool for monitoring mood and quizzes to test understanding of personal mental health management, among other features.

More advanced programs are emerging as artificial intelligence (AI) enables dialogues between humans and machines. This is the case with Woebot, an app that asks the user about their mood throughout the day, and responds with evidence-based strategies for managing concerns, all for free at press time.
 

Keep learning

A range of educational options and professional resources are available for primary care providers who would like to improve their knowledge of mental health care. These include formal fellowships in primary care psychiatry/behavioral health integration, free mental health webinars, and various other opportunities.

Eric Eschweiler, DNP, APRN, FNP-C, PHN, completed the University of California, Irvine, Train New Trainers (TNT) Primary Care Psychiatry (PCP) Fellowship in 2016, when he was working as a solo nurse practitioner.

“I was drowning in practice,” said Dr. Eschweiler, director of nursing and public health outreach services at Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Grand Terrace, Calif., in an interview. “I was a solo NP. There was no physician on site. We were seeing a lot of [individuals with] schizoaffective [disorder] in downtown San Bernardino, the homeless, unhoused – a lot of substance use. I felt I needed to have the skills to be able to treat them effectively. That’s what the fellowship did.”

The skills Dr. Eschweiler learned from participating in his fellowship allowed him to manage more cases of mental illness without need for referral. When a referral was needed for a complex or severe case, he had the confidence to bridge care and collaborate more effectively with psychiatric specialists.

“It was awesome, because we were able to communicate using the same language,” Dr. Eschweiler said of these collaborations. “It’s [about] talking that same language, starting those initial treatments, and then moving forward with specialty care, and vice versa. [Psychiatric specialists] would send me patients that needed medical care because of the types of medications they were taking. And I was then very well aware of those side effects and other issues that might come up from those treatments. So it’s a two-way street.”

Dr. Eschweiler was so impressed by his fellowship that he has since ushered multiple providers through the program since transitioning to an administrative role as director of nursing.

In Fargo, where psychiatric care is sparse and wait times for referral can be months long, Dr. Mullally, like Dr. Eschweiler, knew that she needed more training in mental health.

“I don’t feel like we get enough training in residency,” Dr. Mullally said. “So you do need to look at your options for further CME.”

Out of several CME courses she has taken to further her understanding of pediatric psychiatry, Dr. Mullally recommended The Reach Institute above all others, as their courses involve in-depth discussions and valuable handouts, particularly for medication selection.

“I think that a lot of the other CMEs tend to involve a lot more PowerPoint presentations,” Dr. Mullally said. “And you don’t necessarily leave with a lot of good documents. I still use my Reach handouts. I have them sitting right next to me. I use them every single day.”

Providers interested in The Reach Institute, however, should be prepared to invest both time and money, she added, citing a 2-3 day commitment, and calling it “not cheap.” To overcome these barriers, she suggested that providers get their institution to support their attendance.

For a lighter commitment, Dr. Iruku recommended the American Academy of Family Physicians CME portal, as this offers 13 online, accredited courses covering a range of topics, from adolescent health to substance abuse disorders.

Dr. Sieber suggested that primary care providers join the Collaborative Family Healthcare Association, which aims to integrate physical and behavioral health in routine practice. CFHA, of which he is a member, offers a “bevy of different resources” for interested providers, including a conference in Phoenix this October.

The interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are addressing an increasing number of mental health visits, requiring collaborative and innovative approaches to providing psychiatric care.

This growth in the number of patients needing behavioral health–related care is likely driven by multiple factors, including a shortage of mental health care providers, an increasing incidence of psychiatric illness, and destigmatization of mental health in general, suggested Swetha P. Iruku, MD, MPH, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Medicine family physician in Philadelphia.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with mental health challenges related to the morbidity and mortality caused by the disease and to mitigation activities, including the impact of physical distancing and stay-at-home orders,” in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

From June 24 to 30, 2020, U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19, and symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder climbed during the months of April through June of the same year, compared with the same period in 2019, they wrote.

Even before the pandemic got underway, multiple studies of national data published this year suggested mental issues were on the rise in the United States. For example, the proportion of adult patient visits to primary care providers that addressed mental health concerns rose from 10.7% to 15.9% from 2006 to 2018, according to research published in Health Affairs. Plus, the number and proportion of pediatric acute care hospitalizations because of mental health diagnoses increased significantly between 2009 and 2019, according to a paper published in JAMA.

“I truly believe that we can’t, as primary care physicians, take care of someone’s physical health without also taking care of their mental health,” Dr. Iruku said in an interview. “It’s all intertwined.”

To rise to this challenge, PCPs first need a collaborative mindset, she suggested, as well as familiarity with available resources, both locally and virtually.

This article examines strategies for managing mental illness in primary care, outlines clinical resources, and reviews related educational opportunities.

In addition, clinical pearls are shared by Dr. Iruku and five other clinicians who provide or have provided mental health care to primary care patients or work in close collaboration with a primary care practice, including a clinical psychologist, a nurse practitioner licensed in psychiatric health, a pediatrician, and a licensed clinical social worker.
 

Build a network

Most of the providers interviewed cited the importance of collaboration in mental health care, particularly for complex cases.

“I would recommend [that primary care providers get] to know the psychiatric providers [in their area],” said Jessica Viton, DNP, FNP, PMHNP, who delivers mental health care through a community-based primary care practice in Colorado which she requested remain anonymous.

Dr. Iruku suggested making an in-person connection first, if possible.

“So much of what we do is ‘see one, do one, teach one,’ so learn a little bit, then go off and trial,” she said. “[It can be valuable] having someone in your back pocket that you can contact in the case of an emergency, or in a situation where you just don’t know how to tackle it.”
 

Screen for depression and anxiety

William J. Sieber, PhD, a clinical psychologist, director of integrated behavioral health, and professor in the department of family medicine and public health and the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said primary care providers should screen all adult patients for depression and anxiety with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), respectively.

To save time, he suggested a cascading approach.

“In primary care, everybody’s in a hurry,” Dr. Sieber said. “[With the cascading approach,] the first two items [from each questionnaire] are given, and if a person endorses either of those items … then they are asked to complete the other items.”

Jennifer Mullally, MD, a pediatrician at Sanford Health in Fargo, N.D., uses this cascading approach to depression and anxiety screening with all her patients aged 13-18. For younger kids, she screens only those who present with signs or symptoms of mental health issues, or if the parent shares a concern.

This approach differs slightly from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which suggest screening for anxiety in patients aged 8-18 years and depression in patients aged 12-18 years.
 

Use other screening tools only as needed

Dr. Sieber, the research director for the division of family medicine at UC San Diego, collaborates regularly with primary care providers via hallway consultations, by sharing cases, and through providing oversight of psychiatric care at 13 primary care practices within the UC San Diego network. He recommended against routine screening beyond depression and anxiety in the primary care setting.

“There are a lot of screening tools,” Dr. Sieber said. “It depends on what you’re presented with. The challenge in primary care is you’re going to see all kinds of things. It’s not like running a depression clinic.”

Other than the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, he suggested primary care providers establish familiarity with screening tools for posttraumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, noting again that these should be used only when one of the conditions is already suspected.

Dr. Mullally follows a similar approach with her pediatric population. In addition to the GAD-7, she investigates whether a patient has anxiety with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED). For depression, she couples the PHQ-9 with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

While additional screening tools like these are readily available online, Dr. Viton suggested that they should be employed only if the provider is trained to interpret and respond to those findings, and only if they know which tool to use, and when.

For example, she has recently observed PCPs diagnosing adults with ADHD using a three-question test, when in fact a full-length, standardized instrument should be administered by a provider with necessary training.

She also pointed out that bipolar disorder continues to be underdiagnosed, possibly because of providers detecting depression using a questionnaire like the PHQ-9, while failing to inquire about manic episodes.
 

Leverage online resources

If depression is confirmed, Dr. Iruku often directs the patient to the Mayo Clinic Depression Medication Choice Decision Aid. This website steers patients through medication options based on their answers to a questionnaire. Choices are listed alongside possible adverse effects.

For clinician use, Dr. Iruku recommended The Waco Guide to Psychopharmacology in Primary Care, which aids clinical decision-making for mental illness and substance abuse. The app processes case details to suggest first-, second-, and third-line pharmacotherapies, as well as modifications based on patient needs.

Even with tools like these, however, a referral may be needed.

“[Primary care providers] may not be the best fit for what the patient is looking for, from a mental health or behavioral standpoint,” Dr. Sieber said.

In this case, he encourages patients to visit Psychology Today, a “quite popular portal” that helps patients locate a suitable provider based on location, insurance, driving radius, and mental health concern. This usually generates 10-20 options, Dr. Sieber said, although results can vary.

“It may be discouraging, because maybe only three [providers] pop up based on your criteria, and the closest one is miles away,” he said.
 

Consider virtual support

If no local psychiatric help is available, Dr. Sieber suggested virtual support, highlighting that “it’s much easier now than it was 3 or 4 years ago” to connect patients with external mental health care.

But this strategy should be reserved for cases of actual need instead of pure convenience, cautioned Dr. Viton, who noted that virtual visits may fail to capture the nuance of an in-person meeting, as body language, mode of dress, and other clues can provide insights into mental health status.

“Occasionally, I think you do have to have an in-person visit, especially when you’re developing a rapport with someone,” Dr. Viton said.

Claire McArdle, a licensed clinical social worker in Fort Collins, Colo., noted that virtual care from an outside provider may also impede the collaboration needed to effectively address mental illness.

In her 11 years in primary care at Associates in Family Medicine, Ms. McArdle had countless interactions with colleagues seeking support when managing a complex case. “I’m coaching providers, front desk staff, and nursing staff on how to interact with patients [with] behavioral health needs,” she said, citing the multitude of nonmedical factors that need to be considered, such as family relationships and patient preferences.

These unscheduled conversations with colleagues throughout the day are impossible to have when sharing a case with an unknown, remote peer.

Ms. McArdle speaks from experience. She recently resigned from Associates in Family Medicine to start her own private therapy practice after her former employer was acquired by VillageMD, a national provider that terminated employment of most other social workers in the practice and began outsourcing mental health care to Mindoula Health, a virtual provider.

Dr. Sieber offered a similar perspective on in-person collaboration as the psychiatric specialist at his center. He routinely offers on-site support for both providers and patients, serving as “another set of eyes and ears” when there is a concern about patient safety or directly managing care when a patient is hospitalized for mental illness.

While virtual solutions may fall short of in-person management, they can offer care at a scale and cost impossible through traditional practice.

This could even be free. Zero-cost, automated software now allows individuals who are uninsured or unable to afford care at least one avenue to manage their mental health concerns.

For example, Bliss is a free, 8-session, interactive online therapy program for depression that was created by the Centre for Interactive Mental Health Solutions. The program offers a tool for monitoring mood and quizzes to test understanding of personal mental health management, among other features.

More advanced programs are emerging as artificial intelligence (AI) enables dialogues between humans and machines. This is the case with Woebot, an app that asks the user about their mood throughout the day, and responds with evidence-based strategies for managing concerns, all for free at press time.
 

Keep learning

A range of educational options and professional resources are available for primary care providers who would like to improve their knowledge of mental health care. These include formal fellowships in primary care psychiatry/behavioral health integration, free mental health webinars, and various other opportunities.

Eric Eschweiler, DNP, APRN, FNP-C, PHN, completed the University of California, Irvine, Train New Trainers (TNT) Primary Care Psychiatry (PCP) Fellowship in 2016, when he was working as a solo nurse practitioner.

“I was drowning in practice,” said Dr. Eschweiler, director of nursing and public health outreach services at Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Grand Terrace, Calif., in an interview. “I was a solo NP. There was no physician on site. We were seeing a lot of [individuals with] schizoaffective [disorder] in downtown San Bernardino, the homeless, unhoused – a lot of substance use. I felt I needed to have the skills to be able to treat them effectively. That’s what the fellowship did.”

The skills Dr. Eschweiler learned from participating in his fellowship allowed him to manage more cases of mental illness without need for referral. When a referral was needed for a complex or severe case, he had the confidence to bridge care and collaborate more effectively with psychiatric specialists.

“It was awesome, because we were able to communicate using the same language,” Dr. Eschweiler said of these collaborations. “It’s [about] talking that same language, starting those initial treatments, and then moving forward with specialty care, and vice versa. [Psychiatric specialists] would send me patients that needed medical care because of the types of medications they were taking. And I was then very well aware of those side effects and other issues that might come up from those treatments. So it’s a two-way street.”

Dr. Eschweiler was so impressed by his fellowship that he has since ushered multiple providers through the program since transitioning to an administrative role as director of nursing.

In Fargo, where psychiatric care is sparse and wait times for referral can be months long, Dr. Mullally, like Dr. Eschweiler, knew that she needed more training in mental health.

“I don’t feel like we get enough training in residency,” Dr. Mullally said. “So you do need to look at your options for further CME.”

Out of several CME courses she has taken to further her understanding of pediatric psychiatry, Dr. Mullally recommended The Reach Institute above all others, as their courses involve in-depth discussions and valuable handouts, particularly for medication selection.

“I think that a lot of the other CMEs tend to involve a lot more PowerPoint presentations,” Dr. Mullally said. “And you don’t necessarily leave with a lot of good documents. I still use my Reach handouts. I have them sitting right next to me. I use them every single day.”

Providers interested in The Reach Institute, however, should be prepared to invest both time and money, she added, citing a 2-3 day commitment, and calling it “not cheap.” To overcome these barriers, she suggested that providers get their institution to support their attendance.

For a lighter commitment, Dr. Iruku recommended the American Academy of Family Physicians CME portal, as this offers 13 online, accredited courses covering a range of topics, from adolescent health to substance abuse disorders.

Dr. Sieber suggested that primary care providers join the Collaborative Family Healthcare Association, which aims to integrate physical and behavioral health in routine practice. CFHA, of which he is a member, offers a “bevy of different resources” for interested providers, including a conference in Phoenix this October.

The interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Recently, Canada announced new regulations on tobacco, with warnings printed on individual cigarettes, such as “poison in every puff.” This is on top of the packaging already required to have 75% of its space devoted to similar warnings, often with graphic pictures, of the potential consequences.

Make no mistake, I don’t like cigarettes and try to get smokers to quit.

But I have to wonder how successful this is going to be. I mean, you’d have to have lived under a rock for the last 70 years (or more) to not know that cigarettes (and tobacco in general) aren’t good for you, and can cause stroke, heart disease, and a multitude of cancers.

I suppose you could ban cigarettes, but that only opens up a black market. From 1920 to 1933 the United States set an example for the world with prohibition, showing how such an idea can backfire horribly.

Realistically, there are always going to be people making bad health decisions of one kind or another, including myself. Whether it’s tobacco, alcohol, or a cheeseburger and fries.

Tobacco, of course, has a much worse track record than that of the cheeseburger. We all have to eat, even though some choices are better than others. Tobacco has absolutely no biological necessity, as do food, air, and water.

But it’s remarkably addictive, not to mention profitable. Those factors will always guarantee it a place in society.

At this point, if people want to smoke, I have a hard time believing that they’re unaware of the health risks.

There’s a legitimate argument to be made in trying to keep people from starting. The teenage years, where we all tend to believe we’re immortal, are when a lot of habits (good and bad) form. If gruesome pictures and repeated warnings cut down on those numbers, then in the long run it’s a very good thing. Given that Canada’s goal is to cut tobacco use from 13% down to less than 5% by 2035, this could happen. Only time will tell how it plays out.

On a side note, here in the United States tobacco use is 19% of the population. This is actually somewhat surprising to me, as a brief, not particularly scientific, review of my charts for the past few weeks found that less than 5% of my patients do it. So either some are lying or (more likely), it’s just the demographics of my practice area.

But at some point it doesn’t matter how many warnings or gory pictures people see, or where they encounter them. Some will keep smoking out of habit. Some because they actually like it. Some to be defiant. Some just because they can. And no amount of warnings is going to change their minds.

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

Recently, Canada announced new regulations on tobacco, with warnings printed on individual cigarettes, such as “poison in every puff.” This is on top of the packaging already required to have 75% of its space devoted to similar warnings, often with graphic pictures, of the potential consequences.

Make no mistake, I don’t like cigarettes and try to get smokers to quit.

But I have to wonder how successful this is going to be. I mean, you’d have to have lived under a rock for the last 70 years (or more) to not know that cigarettes (and tobacco in general) aren’t good for you, and can cause stroke, heart disease, and a multitude of cancers.

I suppose you could ban cigarettes, but that only opens up a black market. From 1920 to 1933 the United States set an example for the world with prohibition, showing how such an idea can backfire horribly.

Realistically, there are always going to be people making bad health decisions of one kind or another, including myself. Whether it’s tobacco, alcohol, or a cheeseburger and fries.

Tobacco, of course, has a much worse track record than that of the cheeseburger. We all have to eat, even though some choices are better than others. Tobacco has absolutely no biological necessity, as do food, air, and water.

But it’s remarkably addictive, not to mention profitable. Those factors will always guarantee it a place in society.

At this point, if people want to smoke, I have a hard time believing that they’re unaware of the health risks.

There’s a legitimate argument to be made in trying to keep people from starting. The teenage years, where we all tend to believe we’re immortal, are when a lot of habits (good and bad) form. If gruesome pictures and repeated warnings cut down on those numbers, then in the long run it’s a very good thing. Given that Canada’s goal is to cut tobacco use from 13% down to less than 5% by 2035, this could happen. Only time will tell how it plays out.

On a side note, here in the United States tobacco use is 19% of the population. This is actually somewhat surprising to me, as a brief, not particularly scientific, review of my charts for the past few weeks found that less than 5% of my patients do it. So either some are lying or (more likely), it’s just the demographics of my practice area.

But at some point it doesn’t matter how many warnings or gory pictures people see, or where they encounter them. Some will keep smoking out of habit. Some because they actually like it. Some to be defiant. Some just because they can. And no amount of warnings is going to change their minds.

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

Recently, Canada announced new regulations on tobacco, with warnings printed on individual cigarettes, such as “poison in every puff.” This is on top of the packaging already required to have 75% of its space devoted to similar warnings, often with graphic pictures, of the potential consequences.

Make no mistake, I don’t like cigarettes and try to get smokers to quit.

But I have to wonder how successful this is going to be. I mean, you’d have to have lived under a rock for the last 70 years (or more) to not know that cigarettes (and tobacco in general) aren’t good for you, and can cause stroke, heart disease, and a multitude of cancers.

I suppose you could ban cigarettes, but that only opens up a black market. From 1920 to 1933 the United States set an example for the world with prohibition, showing how such an idea can backfire horribly.

Realistically, there are always going to be people making bad health decisions of one kind or another, including myself. Whether it’s tobacco, alcohol, or a cheeseburger and fries.

Tobacco, of course, has a much worse track record than that of the cheeseburger. We all have to eat, even though some choices are better than others. Tobacco has absolutely no biological necessity, as do food, air, and water.

But it’s remarkably addictive, not to mention profitable. Those factors will always guarantee it a place in society.

At this point, if people want to smoke, I have a hard time believing that they’re unaware of the health risks.

There’s a legitimate argument to be made in trying to keep people from starting. The teenage years, where we all tend to believe we’re immortal, are when a lot of habits (good and bad) form. If gruesome pictures and repeated warnings cut down on those numbers, then in the long run it’s a very good thing. Given that Canada’s goal is to cut tobacco use from 13% down to less than 5% by 2035, this could happen. Only time will tell how it plays out.

On a side note, here in the United States tobacco use is 19% of the population. This is actually somewhat surprising to me, as a brief, not particularly scientific, review of my charts for the past few weeks found that less than 5% of my patients do it. So either some are lying or (more likely), it’s just the demographics of my practice area.

But at some point it doesn’t matter how many warnings or gory pictures people see, or where they encounter them. Some will keep smoking out of habit. Some because they actually like it. Some to be defiant. Some just because they can. And no amount of warnings is going to change their minds.

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

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.