Business of Medicine

The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulation that would ban noncompete agreements across the country seems like potential good news for doctors. Of course, many hospitals and employers are against it. As a result, the FTC’s sweeping proposal has tongues wagging on both sides of the issue.

Many physicians are thrilled that they may soon have more control over their career and not be stuck in jobs where they feel frustrated, underpaid, or blocked in their progress.

If passed, the proposed ban would allow physicians to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place. As of 2018, as many as 45% of primary care physicians had inked such agreements with their employers.

Typically, the agreements prevent physicians from practicing medicine with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area. No matter how attractive an alternate offer of employment might be, doctors are bound by the agreements to say no if the offer exists in that defined area and time period.

The period for public comment on the proposed regulation ended on April 19, and there is currently no set date for a decision.

In a Medscape poll of 558 physicians, more than 9 out of 10 respondents said that they were either currently bound by a noncompete clause or that they had been bound by one in the past that had forced them to temporarily stop working, commute long distances, move to a different area, or switch fields.

The new proposal would make it illegal for an employer, such as a hospital or large group, to enter a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

It also would not only ban future noncompete agreements but also retroactively invalidate existing ones. The FTC reasons that noncompete clauses could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. If the ruling were to move forward, it would represent part of President Biden’s “worker-forward” priorities, focusing on how competition can be a good thing for employees. The President billed the FTC’s announcement as a “huge win for workers.”

In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower consumer prices across the board by as much as $150 billion per year and return nearly $300 million to workers each year.

However, even if passed, the draft rule would keep in place nonsolicitation rules that many health care organizations have put into place. That means that, if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to switch to him or her in the new job.

Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such nonsolicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a noncompete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stays, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the noncompete law. So there’s value in reading all the fine print should the ban move forward.
 

Could the ban bring potential downsides?

Most physicians view the potential to break free of a noncompete agreement as a victory. Peter Glennon, an employment litigation attorney with The Glennon Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y., says not so fast. “If you ask anyone if they’d prefer a noncompete agreement, of course they’re going to say no,” he said in an interview. “It sounds like a restriction, one that can hold you back.”

Mr. Glennon believes that there are actually upsides to physician noncompetes. For instance, many noncompetes come with sign-on bonuses that could potentially disappear without the agreements. There’s also the fact that when some physicians sign a noncompete agreement, they then receive pro bono training and continuing education along with marketing and promotion of their skills. Without signing a noncompete, employers may be less incentivized to provide all those benefits to their physician employers.

Those benefits – and the noncompetes – also vary by specialty, Mr. Glennon said. “In 2021, Washington, DC, banned noncompetes for doctors making less than $250,000. So, most generalists there can walk across the street and get a new job. For specialists like cardiologists or neurosurgeons, however, advanced training and marketing benefits matter, so many of them don’t want to lose noncompetes.”

Still, most physicians hope that the FTC’s ban takes hold. Manan Shah, MD, founder, and chief medical officer at Wyndly, an allergy relief startup practice, is one of them.

“Initially, it might disincentivize hospital systems from helping new physicians build up their name and practice because they might be concerned about a physician leaving and starting anew,” he said. “But in the long term, hospitals require physicians to bring their patients to them for care, so the best hospitals will always compete for the best physicians and support them as they build up their practice.”

Dr. Shah views noncompetes as overly prohibitive to physicians. “Right now, if a physician starts a job at a large hospital system and realizes they want to switch jobs, the noncompete distances are so wide they often have to move cities to continue practicing,” he said. “Picking up and starting over in a new city isn’t an option for everyone and can be especially difficult for someone with a family.”

Where Mr. Glennon argued that a physician leaving a team-based practice might harm patients, Shah takes a different perspective. “Imagine you have a doctor whom you trust and have been working with,” he said. “If something changes at their hospital and they decide to move, you literally have to find a new doctor instead of just being able to see them at another location down the street.”

Another potential burden of the noncompete agreements is that they could possibly squelch doctor’s desires to hang up their own shingle. According to Dr. Shah, the agreements make it so that if a physician wants to work independently, it’s nearly impossible to fly solo. “This is frustrating because independent practices have been shown to be more cost effective and allow patients to build better relationships with their doctors,” he claimed.

A 2016 study from Annals of Family Medicine supports that claim, at least for small general practices. Another study appearing in JAMA concurred. It does point out, however, that the cost equation is nuanced and that benefits of larger systems include more resilience to economic downturns and can provide more specialized care.
 

Will nonprofit hospitals be subject to this noncompete ban?

Further complicating the noncompete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions versus their for-profit peers. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would be exempt from the rule because the FTC Act provides that it can enforce against “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” which are further defined as entities “organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members.”

The fallout from this, said Dr. Shah, is that it “would disproportionately affect health care providers, since many hospital systems are nonprofits. This is disconcerting because we know that many nonprofit systems make large profits anyway and can offer executive teams’ lucrative packages, while the nurses, assistants, and physicians providing the care are generally not well compensated.”

So far, about nine states plus Washington, D.C., have already put noncompete bans in place, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each varies in its specifics. Some, like Indiana, outright ban them, whereas others limit them based on variables like income and industry. “We’re seeing these states responding to local market conditions,” said Darryl Drevna, senior director of regulatory affairs at the American Medical Group Association. “Health care is a hyperlocal market. Depending on the situation, the bans adapt and respond specific to those states.”

Should the federal ban take hold, however, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Some opponents of the federal ban proposal question its authority to begin with, however, Mr. Glennon included. “Many people believe the FTC is overstepping,” he said. “Some people believe that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets.”

Mr. Drevna noted that the FTC has taken an aggressive stance, one that will ultimately wind up in the courts. “How it works out is anyone’s guess,” he said. “Ideally, the FTC will consider the comments and concerns of groups like AMGA and realize that states are best suited to regulate in this area.”

In general, the ban’s supporters are employees/physicians; those who oppose it are their employers. Joining the AMGA in speaking out against the noncompete ban is the American Hospital Association, whereas the American College of Emergency Physicians has come out largely in support of the ban.

Still, doctors like Dr. Shah remain hopeful. “I am optimistic that perhaps my colleagues will not continue to be stuck in overrestrictive noncompetes, but I am also realistic,” he said. “Hospital systems are already coming out strongly against this and they have deep pockets, so I won’t be surprised if it does not come to pass.”

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

The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulation that would ban noncompete agreements across the country seems like potential good news for doctors. Of course, many hospitals and employers are against it. As a result, the FTC’s sweeping proposal has tongues wagging on both sides of the issue.

Many physicians are thrilled that they may soon have more control over their career and not be stuck in jobs where they feel frustrated, underpaid, or blocked in their progress.

If passed, the proposed ban would allow physicians to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place. As of 2018, as many as 45% of primary care physicians had inked such agreements with their employers.

Typically, the agreements prevent physicians from practicing medicine with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area. No matter how attractive an alternate offer of employment might be, doctors are bound by the agreements to say no if the offer exists in that defined area and time period.

The period for public comment on the proposed regulation ended on April 19, and there is currently no set date for a decision.

In a Medscape poll of 558 physicians, more than 9 out of 10 respondents said that they were either currently bound by a noncompete clause or that they had been bound by one in the past that had forced them to temporarily stop working, commute long distances, move to a different area, or switch fields.

The new proposal would make it illegal for an employer, such as a hospital or large group, to enter a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

It also would not only ban future noncompete agreements but also retroactively invalidate existing ones. The FTC reasons that noncompete clauses could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. If the ruling were to move forward, it would represent part of President Biden’s “worker-forward” priorities, focusing on how competition can be a good thing for employees. The President billed the FTC’s announcement as a “huge win for workers.”

In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower consumer prices across the board by as much as $150 billion per year and return nearly $300 million to workers each year.

However, even if passed, the draft rule would keep in place nonsolicitation rules that many health care organizations have put into place. That means that, if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to switch to him or her in the new job.

Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such nonsolicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a noncompete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stays, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the noncompete law. So there’s value in reading all the fine print should the ban move forward.
 

Could the ban bring potential downsides?

Most physicians view the potential to break free of a noncompete agreement as a victory. Peter Glennon, an employment litigation attorney with The Glennon Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y., says not so fast. “If you ask anyone if they’d prefer a noncompete agreement, of course they’re going to say no,” he said in an interview. “It sounds like a restriction, one that can hold you back.”

Mr. Glennon believes that there are actually upsides to physician noncompetes. For instance, many noncompetes come with sign-on bonuses that could potentially disappear without the agreements. There’s also the fact that when some physicians sign a noncompete agreement, they then receive pro bono training and continuing education along with marketing and promotion of their skills. Without signing a noncompete, employers may be less incentivized to provide all those benefits to their physician employers.

Those benefits – and the noncompetes – also vary by specialty, Mr. Glennon said. “In 2021, Washington, DC, banned noncompetes for doctors making less than $250,000. So, most generalists there can walk across the street and get a new job. For specialists like cardiologists or neurosurgeons, however, advanced training and marketing benefits matter, so many of them don’t want to lose noncompetes.”

Still, most physicians hope that the FTC’s ban takes hold. Manan Shah, MD, founder, and chief medical officer at Wyndly, an allergy relief startup practice, is one of them.

“Initially, it might disincentivize hospital systems from helping new physicians build up their name and practice because they might be concerned about a physician leaving and starting anew,” he said. “But in the long term, hospitals require physicians to bring their patients to them for care, so the best hospitals will always compete for the best physicians and support them as they build up their practice.”

Dr. Shah views noncompetes as overly prohibitive to physicians. “Right now, if a physician starts a job at a large hospital system and realizes they want to switch jobs, the noncompete distances are so wide they often have to move cities to continue practicing,” he said. “Picking up and starting over in a new city isn’t an option for everyone and can be especially difficult for someone with a family.”

Where Mr. Glennon argued that a physician leaving a team-based practice might harm patients, Shah takes a different perspective. “Imagine you have a doctor whom you trust and have been working with,” he said. “If something changes at their hospital and they decide to move, you literally have to find a new doctor instead of just being able to see them at another location down the street.”

Another potential burden of the noncompete agreements is that they could possibly squelch doctor’s desires to hang up their own shingle. According to Dr. Shah, the agreements make it so that if a physician wants to work independently, it’s nearly impossible to fly solo. “This is frustrating because independent practices have been shown to be more cost effective and allow patients to build better relationships with their doctors,” he claimed.

A 2016 study from Annals of Family Medicine supports that claim, at least for small general practices. Another study appearing in JAMA concurred. It does point out, however, that the cost equation is nuanced and that benefits of larger systems include more resilience to economic downturns and can provide more specialized care.
 

Will nonprofit hospitals be subject to this noncompete ban?

Further complicating the noncompete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions versus their for-profit peers. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would be exempt from the rule because the FTC Act provides that it can enforce against “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” which are further defined as entities “organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members.”

The fallout from this, said Dr. Shah, is that it “would disproportionately affect health care providers, since many hospital systems are nonprofits. This is disconcerting because we know that many nonprofit systems make large profits anyway and can offer executive teams’ lucrative packages, while the nurses, assistants, and physicians providing the care are generally not well compensated.”

So far, about nine states plus Washington, D.C., have already put noncompete bans in place, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each varies in its specifics. Some, like Indiana, outright ban them, whereas others limit them based on variables like income and industry. “We’re seeing these states responding to local market conditions,” said Darryl Drevna, senior director of regulatory affairs at the American Medical Group Association. “Health care is a hyperlocal market. Depending on the situation, the bans adapt and respond specific to those states.”

Should the federal ban take hold, however, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Some opponents of the federal ban proposal question its authority to begin with, however, Mr. Glennon included. “Many people believe the FTC is overstepping,” he said. “Some people believe that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets.”

Mr. Drevna noted that the FTC has taken an aggressive stance, one that will ultimately wind up in the courts. “How it works out is anyone’s guess,” he said. “Ideally, the FTC will consider the comments and concerns of groups like AMGA and realize that states are best suited to regulate in this area.”

In general, the ban’s supporters are employees/physicians; those who oppose it are their employers. Joining the AMGA in speaking out against the noncompete ban is the American Hospital Association, whereas the American College of Emergency Physicians has come out largely in support of the ban.

Still, doctors like Dr. Shah remain hopeful. “I am optimistic that perhaps my colleagues will not continue to be stuck in overrestrictive noncompetes, but I am also realistic,” he said. “Hospital systems are already coming out strongly against this and they have deep pockets, so I won’t be surprised if it does not come to pass.”

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

The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulation that would ban noncompete agreements across the country seems like potential good news for doctors. Of course, many hospitals and employers are against it. As a result, the FTC’s sweeping proposal has tongues wagging on both sides of the issue.

Many physicians are thrilled that they may soon have more control over their career and not be stuck in jobs where they feel frustrated, underpaid, or blocked in their progress.

If passed, the proposed ban would allow physicians to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place. As of 2018, as many as 45% of primary care physicians had inked such agreements with their employers.

Typically, the agreements prevent physicians from practicing medicine with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area. No matter how attractive an alternate offer of employment might be, doctors are bound by the agreements to say no if the offer exists in that defined area and time period.

The period for public comment on the proposed regulation ended on April 19, and there is currently no set date for a decision.

In a Medscape poll of 558 physicians, more than 9 out of 10 respondents said that they were either currently bound by a noncompete clause or that they had been bound by one in the past that had forced them to temporarily stop working, commute long distances, move to a different area, or switch fields.

The new proposal would make it illegal for an employer, such as a hospital or large group, to enter a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

It also would not only ban future noncompete agreements but also retroactively invalidate existing ones. The FTC reasons that noncompete clauses could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. If the ruling were to move forward, it would represent part of President Biden’s “worker-forward” priorities, focusing on how competition can be a good thing for employees. The President billed the FTC’s announcement as a “huge win for workers.”

In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower consumer prices across the board by as much as $150 billion per year and return nearly $300 million to workers each year.

However, even if passed, the draft rule would keep in place nonsolicitation rules that many health care organizations have put into place. That means that, if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to switch to him or her in the new job.

Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such nonsolicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a noncompete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stays, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the noncompete law. So there’s value in reading all the fine print should the ban move forward.
 

Could the ban bring potential downsides?

Most physicians view the potential to break free of a noncompete agreement as a victory. Peter Glennon, an employment litigation attorney with The Glennon Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y., says not so fast. “If you ask anyone if they’d prefer a noncompete agreement, of course they’re going to say no,” he said in an interview. “It sounds like a restriction, one that can hold you back.”

Mr. Glennon believes that there are actually upsides to physician noncompetes. For instance, many noncompetes come with sign-on bonuses that could potentially disappear without the agreements. There’s also the fact that when some physicians sign a noncompete agreement, they then receive pro bono training and continuing education along with marketing and promotion of their skills. Without signing a noncompete, employers may be less incentivized to provide all those benefits to their physician employers.

Those benefits – and the noncompetes – also vary by specialty, Mr. Glennon said. “In 2021, Washington, DC, banned noncompetes for doctors making less than $250,000. So, most generalists there can walk across the street and get a new job. For specialists like cardiologists or neurosurgeons, however, advanced training and marketing benefits matter, so many of them don’t want to lose noncompetes.”

Still, most physicians hope that the FTC’s ban takes hold. Manan Shah, MD, founder, and chief medical officer at Wyndly, an allergy relief startup practice, is one of them.

“Initially, it might disincentivize hospital systems from helping new physicians build up their name and practice because they might be concerned about a physician leaving and starting anew,” he said. “But in the long term, hospitals require physicians to bring their patients to them for care, so the best hospitals will always compete for the best physicians and support them as they build up their practice.”

Dr. Shah views noncompetes as overly prohibitive to physicians. “Right now, if a physician starts a job at a large hospital system and realizes they want to switch jobs, the noncompete distances are so wide they often have to move cities to continue practicing,” he said. “Picking up and starting over in a new city isn’t an option for everyone and can be especially difficult for someone with a family.”

Where Mr. Glennon argued that a physician leaving a team-based practice might harm patients, Shah takes a different perspective. “Imagine you have a doctor whom you trust and have been working with,” he said. “If something changes at their hospital and they decide to move, you literally have to find a new doctor instead of just being able to see them at another location down the street.”

Another potential burden of the noncompete agreements is that they could possibly squelch doctor’s desires to hang up their own shingle. According to Dr. Shah, the agreements make it so that if a physician wants to work independently, it’s nearly impossible to fly solo. “This is frustrating because independent practices have been shown to be more cost effective and allow patients to build better relationships with their doctors,” he claimed.

A 2016 study from Annals of Family Medicine supports that claim, at least for small general practices. Another study appearing in JAMA concurred. It does point out, however, that the cost equation is nuanced and that benefits of larger systems include more resilience to economic downturns and can provide more specialized care.
 

Will nonprofit hospitals be subject to this noncompete ban?

Further complicating the noncompete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions versus their for-profit peers. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would be exempt from the rule because the FTC Act provides that it can enforce against “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” which are further defined as entities “organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members.”

The fallout from this, said Dr. Shah, is that it “would disproportionately affect health care providers, since many hospital systems are nonprofits. This is disconcerting because we know that many nonprofit systems make large profits anyway and can offer executive teams’ lucrative packages, while the nurses, assistants, and physicians providing the care are generally not well compensated.”

So far, about nine states plus Washington, D.C., have already put noncompete bans in place, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each varies in its specifics. Some, like Indiana, outright ban them, whereas others limit them based on variables like income and industry. “We’re seeing these states responding to local market conditions,” said Darryl Drevna, senior director of regulatory affairs at the American Medical Group Association. “Health care is a hyperlocal market. Depending on the situation, the bans adapt and respond specific to those states.”

Should the federal ban take hold, however, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Some opponents of the federal ban proposal question its authority to begin with, however, Mr. Glennon included. “Many people believe the FTC is overstepping,” he said. “Some people believe that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets.”

Mr. Drevna noted that the FTC has taken an aggressive stance, one that will ultimately wind up in the courts. “How it works out is anyone’s guess,” he said. “Ideally, the FTC will consider the comments and concerns of groups like AMGA and realize that states are best suited to regulate in this area.”

In general, the ban’s supporters are employees/physicians; those who oppose it are their employers. Joining the AMGA in speaking out against the noncompete ban is the American Hospital Association, whereas the American College of Emergency Physicians has come out largely in support of the ban.

Still, doctors like Dr. Shah remain hopeful. “I am optimistic that perhaps my colleagues will not continue to be stuck in overrestrictive noncompetes, but I am also realistic,” he said. “Hospital systems are already coming out strongly against this and they have deep pockets, so I won’t be surprised if it does not come to pass.”

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

SEATTLE – The majority of patients who underwent a teledermatology follow-up after Mohs micrographic surgery reported that they preferred it to in-person follow up, according to new findings.

In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.

“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”

The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.

Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.

“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.

The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.

There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”

In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.

Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”

The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.

On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.

Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”

There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”

“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”

Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.

“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – The majority of patients who underwent a teledermatology follow-up after Mohs micrographic surgery reported that they preferred it to in-person follow up, according to new findings.

In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.

“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”

The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.

Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.

“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.

The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.

There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”

In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.

Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”

The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.

On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.

Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”

There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”

“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”

Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.

“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – The majority of patients who underwent a teledermatology follow-up after Mohs micrographic surgery reported that they preferred it to in-person follow up, according to new findings.

In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.

“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”

The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.

Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.

“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.

The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.

There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”

In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.

Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”

The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.

On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.

Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”

There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”

“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”

Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.

“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

Hagop Kantarjian, MD, has been named the recipient of the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in recognition of his practice-changing clinical-translational research in leukemia.

This award is the society’s “highest scientific honor, and I am extremely happy and honored to receive it,” Dr. Kantarjian commented in an interview with this news organization.

Dr. Kantarjian serves as the chair of the department of leukemia and currently holds the Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“No doubt that this is not an individual award. It represents an award for the accomplishments of all the leukemia faculty at MD Anderson across 4 decades. It’s really a teamwork effort that led to so many discoveries and improvements in treatment and care of patients with leukemia,” he commented.

The David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award has been presented annually since 1970 to recognize oncologists who have made outstanding contributions to cancer research, diagnosis, or treatment, ASCO noted.
 

From Lebanon to Texas

Dr. Kantarjian received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, in Lebanon, in 1979 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the same institution in 1981.

It was his experience at MD Anderson as a young medical student and later as a fellow that fueled his interest and career in leukemia, he said.

“In 1978, I took a 4-month elective at MD Anderson, and I soon realized how different and innovative the atmosphere at MD Anderson was, compared to where I was training in Lebanon,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Working with mentors that included MD Anderson heavyweights Emil Freireich, MD, Kenneth McCredie, MD, and Michael Keating, MD, helped shape his career and guide his leukemia research, he said.
 

Transformative impact on leukemia outcomes

The award citation notes that over the past 4 decades, Dr. Kantarjian’s research has transformed some standards of care and has dramatically improved survival in several leukemia subtypes, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).

“Four decades ago, most of the leukemias were incurable. Today, most of the leukemias are potentially curable with targeted therapies. That’s what I am most proud of,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Among Dr. Kantarjian’s contributions to the field of leukemia:

• Developing the HYPER-CVAD regimen (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) as a standard-of-care, frontline therapy for adults with ALL.
• Establishing clinical biology parameters of CML, including definitions of CML phases and cytogenetic responses, and establishing new prognostic factors that were subsequently adopted in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• Leading the development of decitabine and epigenetic hypomethylation therapy for MDS and for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Pioneering research with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax, which led to FDA approval of HMA-venetoclax combinations for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Championing the development of clofarabine, conducting animal toxicology studies, and leading subsequent phase 1 and 2 trials and pivotal phase 3 and 4 trials that led to FDA approval of clofarabine for pediatric ALL.
• Developing several FLT3 inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors, and venetoclax, which all received FDA approval for the treatment of AML and its subsets.
• Developing regimens for inotuzumab and blinatumomab combined with chemotherapy for adults with pre-B ALL.
• Working on the development of imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, and omacetaxine, which all received FDA approval for CML therapy.

“Dr. Kantarjian’s long list of accomplishments and groundbreaking discoveries are a testament to his lifelong commitment to impactful cancer research and patient care,” Giulio Draetta, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a statement.
 

Giving back

Dr. Kantarjian has written more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles and more than 100 book chapters. In 2012, he cofounded the Society of Hematologic Oncology, which has now expanded worldwide.

He has served on multiple ASCO committees throughout the years and served on the ASCO board of directors from 2010 to 2015.

Dr. Kantarjian is passionately involved in mentoring and education. In 2000 he created the MD Anderson Leukemia Fellowship, which now trains about 10 fellows in leukemia annually.

He is a nonresident fellow in health care at the Rice Baker Institute and has written extensively on important health care issues in cancer, including the importance of universal equitable health care, health care safety nets, health care as a human right, and the problem of drug shortages.

Dr. Kantarjian is a strong advocate for more affordable drug therapies. For years he has been outspoken about the high price of leukemia drugs and has written high-profile articles in medical journals. He has even appeared on a popular television program to publicize the issue.

“Drug costs have been increasing over time. If you think about it, even if you discover a drug that cures cancer, but the drug is affordable for the 1% of the patients, then you have no cure for cancer,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

“I started speaking about the issue of the cancer drug costs in 2012. Unfortunately, we have not made progress simply because of the for-profit nature of health care and the strong lobbying by drug companies,” he added. Dr. Kantarjian hopes new legislation will eventually turn the tide.

Dr. Kantarjian has received many other honors throughout his distinguished career, including the American Lebanese Medical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the American Association for Cancer Research’s Joseph H. Burchenal Memorial Award, and the Leukemia Society of America’s Outstanding Service to Mankind Award. He also was named an ASCO Fellow and a Leukemia Society of America Special Fellow and Scholar.

Dr. Kantarjian will be presented with the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award, which includes a $25,000 honorarium, and will give a scientific lecture about his research at the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago in early June.

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

Hagop Kantarjian, MD, has been named the recipient of the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in recognition of his practice-changing clinical-translational research in leukemia.

This award is the society’s “highest scientific honor, and I am extremely happy and honored to receive it,” Dr. Kantarjian commented in an interview with this news organization.

Dr. Kantarjian serves as the chair of the department of leukemia and currently holds the Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“No doubt that this is not an individual award. It represents an award for the accomplishments of all the leukemia faculty at MD Anderson across 4 decades. It’s really a teamwork effort that led to so many discoveries and improvements in treatment and care of patients with leukemia,” he commented.

The David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award has been presented annually since 1970 to recognize oncologists who have made outstanding contributions to cancer research, diagnosis, or treatment, ASCO noted.
 

From Lebanon to Texas

Dr. Kantarjian received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, in Lebanon, in 1979 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the same institution in 1981.

It was his experience at MD Anderson as a young medical student and later as a fellow that fueled his interest and career in leukemia, he said.

“In 1978, I took a 4-month elective at MD Anderson, and I soon realized how different and innovative the atmosphere at MD Anderson was, compared to where I was training in Lebanon,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Working with mentors that included MD Anderson heavyweights Emil Freireich, MD, Kenneth McCredie, MD, and Michael Keating, MD, helped shape his career and guide his leukemia research, he said.
 

Transformative impact on leukemia outcomes

The award citation notes that over the past 4 decades, Dr. Kantarjian’s research has transformed some standards of care and has dramatically improved survival in several leukemia subtypes, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).

“Four decades ago, most of the leukemias were incurable. Today, most of the leukemias are potentially curable with targeted therapies. That’s what I am most proud of,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Among Dr. Kantarjian’s contributions to the field of leukemia:

• Developing the HYPER-CVAD regimen (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) as a standard-of-care, frontline therapy for adults with ALL.
• Establishing clinical biology parameters of CML, including definitions of CML phases and cytogenetic responses, and establishing new prognostic factors that were subsequently adopted in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• Leading the development of decitabine and epigenetic hypomethylation therapy for MDS and for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Pioneering research with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax, which led to FDA approval of HMA-venetoclax combinations for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Championing the development of clofarabine, conducting animal toxicology studies, and leading subsequent phase 1 and 2 trials and pivotal phase 3 and 4 trials that led to FDA approval of clofarabine for pediatric ALL.
• Developing several FLT3 inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors, and venetoclax, which all received FDA approval for the treatment of AML and its subsets.
• Developing regimens for inotuzumab and blinatumomab combined with chemotherapy for adults with pre-B ALL.
• Working on the development of imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, and omacetaxine, which all received FDA approval for CML therapy.

“Dr. Kantarjian’s long list of accomplishments and groundbreaking discoveries are a testament to his lifelong commitment to impactful cancer research and patient care,” Giulio Draetta, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a statement.
 

Giving back

Dr. Kantarjian has written more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles and more than 100 book chapters. In 2012, he cofounded the Society of Hematologic Oncology, which has now expanded worldwide.

He has served on multiple ASCO committees throughout the years and served on the ASCO board of directors from 2010 to 2015.

Dr. Kantarjian is passionately involved in mentoring and education. In 2000 he created the MD Anderson Leukemia Fellowship, which now trains about 10 fellows in leukemia annually.

He is a nonresident fellow in health care at the Rice Baker Institute and has written extensively on important health care issues in cancer, including the importance of universal equitable health care, health care safety nets, health care as a human right, and the problem of drug shortages.

Dr. Kantarjian is a strong advocate for more affordable drug therapies. For years he has been outspoken about the high price of leukemia drugs and has written high-profile articles in medical journals. He has even appeared on a popular television program to publicize the issue.

“Drug costs have been increasing over time. If you think about it, even if you discover a drug that cures cancer, but the drug is affordable for the 1% of the patients, then you have no cure for cancer,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

“I started speaking about the issue of the cancer drug costs in 2012. Unfortunately, we have not made progress simply because of the for-profit nature of health care and the strong lobbying by drug companies,” he added. Dr. Kantarjian hopes new legislation will eventually turn the tide.

Dr. Kantarjian has received many other honors throughout his distinguished career, including the American Lebanese Medical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the American Association for Cancer Research’s Joseph H. Burchenal Memorial Award, and the Leukemia Society of America’s Outstanding Service to Mankind Award. He also was named an ASCO Fellow and a Leukemia Society of America Special Fellow and Scholar.

Dr. Kantarjian will be presented with the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award, which includes a $25,000 honorarium, and will give a scientific lecture about his research at the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago in early June.

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

Hagop Kantarjian, MD, has been named the recipient of the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in recognition of his practice-changing clinical-translational research in leukemia.

This award is the society’s “highest scientific honor, and I am extremely happy and honored to receive it,” Dr. Kantarjian commented in an interview with this news organization.

Dr. Kantarjian serves as the chair of the department of leukemia and currently holds the Samsung Distinguished University Chair in Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“No doubt that this is not an individual award. It represents an award for the accomplishments of all the leukemia faculty at MD Anderson across 4 decades. It’s really a teamwork effort that led to so many discoveries and improvements in treatment and care of patients with leukemia,” he commented.

The David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award has been presented annually since 1970 to recognize oncologists who have made outstanding contributions to cancer research, diagnosis, or treatment, ASCO noted.
 

From Lebanon to Texas

Dr. Kantarjian received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, in Lebanon, in 1979 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the same institution in 1981.

It was his experience at MD Anderson as a young medical student and later as a fellow that fueled his interest and career in leukemia, he said.

“In 1978, I took a 4-month elective at MD Anderson, and I soon realized how different and innovative the atmosphere at MD Anderson was, compared to where I was training in Lebanon,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Working with mentors that included MD Anderson heavyweights Emil Freireich, MD, Kenneth McCredie, MD, and Michael Keating, MD, helped shape his career and guide his leukemia research, he said.
 

Transformative impact on leukemia outcomes

The award citation notes that over the past 4 decades, Dr. Kantarjian’s research has transformed some standards of care and has dramatically improved survival in several leukemia subtypes, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).

“Four decades ago, most of the leukemias were incurable. Today, most of the leukemias are potentially curable with targeted therapies. That’s what I am most proud of,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

Among Dr. Kantarjian’s contributions to the field of leukemia:

• Developing the HYPER-CVAD regimen (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) as a standard-of-care, frontline therapy for adults with ALL.
• Establishing clinical biology parameters of CML, including definitions of CML phases and cytogenetic responses, and establishing new prognostic factors that were subsequently adopted in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
• Leading the development of decitabine and epigenetic hypomethylation therapy for MDS and for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Pioneering research with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in combination with venetoclax, which led to FDA approval of HMA-venetoclax combinations for older/unfit patients with AML.
• Championing the development of clofarabine, conducting animal toxicology studies, and leading subsequent phase 1 and 2 trials and pivotal phase 3 and 4 trials that led to FDA approval of clofarabine for pediatric ALL.
• Developing several FLT3 inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors, and venetoclax, which all received FDA approval for the treatment of AML and its subsets.
• Developing regimens for inotuzumab and blinatumomab combined with chemotherapy for adults with pre-B ALL.
• Working on the development of imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, and omacetaxine, which all received FDA approval for CML therapy.

“Dr. Kantarjian’s long list of accomplishments and groundbreaking discoveries are a testament to his lifelong commitment to impactful cancer research and patient care,” Giulio Draetta, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a statement.
 

Giving back

Dr. Kantarjian has written more than 2,200 peer-reviewed articles and more than 100 book chapters. In 2012, he cofounded the Society of Hematologic Oncology, which has now expanded worldwide.

He has served on multiple ASCO committees throughout the years and served on the ASCO board of directors from 2010 to 2015.

Dr. Kantarjian is passionately involved in mentoring and education. In 2000 he created the MD Anderson Leukemia Fellowship, which now trains about 10 fellows in leukemia annually.

He is a nonresident fellow in health care at the Rice Baker Institute and has written extensively on important health care issues in cancer, including the importance of universal equitable health care, health care safety nets, health care as a human right, and the problem of drug shortages.

Dr. Kantarjian is a strong advocate for more affordable drug therapies. For years he has been outspoken about the high price of leukemia drugs and has written high-profile articles in medical journals. He has even appeared on a popular television program to publicize the issue.

“Drug costs have been increasing over time. If you think about it, even if you discover a drug that cures cancer, but the drug is affordable for the 1% of the patients, then you have no cure for cancer,” Dr. Kantarjian told this news organization.

“I started speaking about the issue of the cancer drug costs in 2012. Unfortunately, we have not made progress simply because of the for-profit nature of health care and the strong lobbying by drug companies,” he added. Dr. Kantarjian hopes new legislation will eventually turn the tide.

Dr. Kantarjian has received many other honors throughout his distinguished career, including the American Lebanese Medical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the American Association for Cancer Research’s Joseph H. Burchenal Memorial Award, and the Leukemia Society of America’s Outstanding Service to Mankind Award. He also was named an ASCO Fellow and a Leukemia Society of America Special Fellow and Scholar.

Dr. Kantarjian will be presented with the 2023 David A. Karnofsky Memorial Award, which includes a $25,000 honorarium, and will give a scientific lecture about his research at the ASCO annual meeting in Chicago in early June.

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

SEATTLE – At least for now, the number of physicians trained to perform Mohs surgery is not only stable but appears to be increasing. New findings show that the number of new fellows offsets the attrition rate and that has been the case for the past 5 years.

Using CMS billing codes as a surrogate, the researchers found that there was a steady increase in the number of physicians who billed from 2015 to 2020. With the exception of 2020, which was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of times that a specific code was billed for increased on average by 4.7% annually.

“Thus, if the attrition rate remains stable, even with changes in board certification and potential payer eligibility restrictions, the number of physicians will continue to increase,” study author Ji Won Ahn, MD, who specializes in dermatology and Mohs surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery, where she presented the results.

The growth in the number of Mohs surgeons has been fueled by several factors, including a rising incidence of skin cancer as well as the superior cure rates and cosmetic outcomes with the procedure. Reimbursement has been favorable and training pathways have expanded. A 2019 retrospective study reported that there were 2,240 dermatologists who performed Mohs surgery in the United States, with nearly all of them (94.6%) residing in metropolitan areas.

Dr. Ahn explained that it was important to define the workforce because of several new factors that will be affecting it in the future. “With the establishment of Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology [MSDO] board certification that went into effect 2 years ago, potential future payer eligibility restrictions may be coming,” she said. “The adequacy of the Mohs surgery workforce is an important consideration.”

Another issue is that new board certification will be limited to fellowship-trained physicians after the first 5 years. “We wanted to compare these numbers with the fellowship numbers,” she said. “Although fellowship numbers are something that the college potentially has the power to change.”

Dr. Ahn and colleagues used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database to evaluate the use of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 17311, which is one of the most common billing codes for Mohs micrographic technique. Looking at data from 2015-2020, they found that there was an annual increase in the number of unique national provider identifiers (NPIs) billing for 17311, at an average rate of 75.6 per year.

The total number of times that 17311 was billed also increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average rate of 4.7% per year but declined in 2020 by 8.4%. “Overall, there was an average of 135 new NPIs that appeared and an average of 59.4 NPIs that stopped billing for 17311,” thus, an attrition rate of 59 surgeons, Dr. Ahn explained.

She emphasized that notably, the number of approved MSDO fellowship spots has remained stable since 2016 and is about 92 to 93 per year. “There are about 135 new surgeons and about two-thirds are new fellowship graduates,” she said.

The researchers were also interested in seeing how saturated each surgeon was and looked at the approximate number of cases that they were handling.

Of the physicians who billed 17311 through CMS, over 26% billed less than 100 times and more than 45% billed less than 200 times, and over 80% billed less than 500 times.

“One might be able to conclude that there might be some potential flexibility depending on the future need for surgeons,” she said.

The study was limited by several factors, one being that the researchers looked only at CPT code 17311 and not other designated codes for Mohs surgery. Other factors such as staff and space limitations were not accounted for since only billing data were used.

Dr. Ahn and her team are going to continue their work, and the next steps are to look at geographic trends and monitor for insurance network eligibility changes. “We are currently doing a workforce survey so we can better understand our current workforce rather than just historical data,” she concluded.

Asked to comment on the results, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, noted that the increase in the “billing rates of the first stage of Mohs micrographic surgery highlights not only the growing skin cancer epidemic, but also the number of providers who are providing these services. This underscores the importance of standardized training guidelines and board certifications of Mohs micrographic surgeons to assure high levels of patient care and the appropriate use of Mohs micrographic surgery,” he said.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Ahn reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – At least for now, the number of physicians trained to perform Mohs surgery is not only stable but appears to be increasing. New findings show that the number of new fellows offsets the attrition rate and that has been the case for the past 5 years.

Using CMS billing codes as a surrogate, the researchers found that there was a steady increase in the number of physicians who billed from 2015 to 2020. With the exception of 2020, which was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of times that a specific code was billed for increased on average by 4.7% annually.

“Thus, if the attrition rate remains stable, even with changes in board certification and potential payer eligibility restrictions, the number of physicians will continue to increase,” study author Ji Won Ahn, MD, who specializes in dermatology and Mohs surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery, where she presented the results.

The growth in the number of Mohs surgeons has been fueled by several factors, including a rising incidence of skin cancer as well as the superior cure rates and cosmetic outcomes with the procedure. Reimbursement has been favorable and training pathways have expanded. A 2019 retrospective study reported that there were 2,240 dermatologists who performed Mohs surgery in the United States, with nearly all of them (94.6%) residing in metropolitan areas.

Dr. Ahn explained that it was important to define the workforce because of several new factors that will be affecting it in the future. “With the establishment of Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology [MSDO] board certification that went into effect 2 years ago, potential future payer eligibility restrictions may be coming,” she said. “The adequacy of the Mohs surgery workforce is an important consideration.”

Another issue is that new board certification will be limited to fellowship-trained physicians after the first 5 years. “We wanted to compare these numbers with the fellowship numbers,” she said. “Although fellowship numbers are something that the college potentially has the power to change.”

Dr. Ahn and colleagues used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database to evaluate the use of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 17311, which is one of the most common billing codes for Mohs micrographic technique. Looking at data from 2015-2020, they found that there was an annual increase in the number of unique national provider identifiers (NPIs) billing for 17311, at an average rate of 75.6 per year.

The total number of times that 17311 was billed also increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average rate of 4.7% per year but declined in 2020 by 8.4%. “Overall, there was an average of 135 new NPIs that appeared and an average of 59.4 NPIs that stopped billing for 17311,” thus, an attrition rate of 59 surgeons, Dr. Ahn explained.

She emphasized that notably, the number of approved MSDO fellowship spots has remained stable since 2016 and is about 92 to 93 per year. “There are about 135 new surgeons and about two-thirds are new fellowship graduates,” she said.

The researchers were also interested in seeing how saturated each surgeon was and looked at the approximate number of cases that they were handling.

Of the physicians who billed 17311 through CMS, over 26% billed less than 100 times and more than 45% billed less than 200 times, and over 80% billed less than 500 times.

“One might be able to conclude that there might be some potential flexibility depending on the future need for surgeons,” she said.

The study was limited by several factors, one being that the researchers looked only at CPT code 17311 and not other designated codes for Mohs surgery. Other factors such as staff and space limitations were not accounted for since only billing data were used.

Dr. Ahn and her team are going to continue their work, and the next steps are to look at geographic trends and monitor for insurance network eligibility changes. “We are currently doing a workforce survey so we can better understand our current workforce rather than just historical data,” she concluded.

Asked to comment on the results, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, noted that the increase in the “billing rates of the first stage of Mohs micrographic surgery highlights not only the growing skin cancer epidemic, but also the number of providers who are providing these services. This underscores the importance of standardized training guidelines and board certifications of Mohs micrographic surgeons to assure high levels of patient care and the appropriate use of Mohs micrographic surgery,” he said.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Ahn reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – At least for now, the number of physicians trained to perform Mohs surgery is not only stable but appears to be increasing. New findings show that the number of new fellows offsets the attrition rate and that has been the case for the past 5 years.

Using CMS billing codes as a surrogate, the researchers found that there was a steady increase in the number of physicians who billed from 2015 to 2020. With the exception of 2020, which was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of times that a specific code was billed for increased on average by 4.7% annually.

“Thus, if the attrition rate remains stable, even with changes in board certification and potential payer eligibility restrictions, the number of physicians will continue to increase,” study author Ji Won Ahn, MD, who specializes in dermatology and Mohs surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery, where she presented the results.

The growth in the number of Mohs surgeons has been fueled by several factors, including a rising incidence of skin cancer as well as the superior cure rates and cosmetic outcomes with the procedure. Reimbursement has been favorable and training pathways have expanded. A 2019 retrospective study reported that there were 2,240 dermatologists who performed Mohs surgery in the United States, with nearly all of them (94.6%) residing in metropolitan areas.

Dr. Ahn explained that it was important to define the workforce because of several new factors that will be affecting it in the future. “With the establishment of Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology [MSDO] board certification that went into effect 2 years ago, potential future payer eligibility restrictions may be coming,” she said. “The adequacy of the Mohs surgery workforce is an important consideration.”

Another issue is that new board certification will be limited to fellowship-trained physicians after the first 5 years. “We wanted to compare these numbers with the fellowship numbers,” she said. “Although fellowship numbers are something that the college potentially has the power to change.”

Dr. Ahn and colleagues used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database to evaluate the use of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 17311, which is one of the most common billing codes for Mohs micrographic technique. Looking at data from 2015-2020, they found that there was an annual increase in the number of unique national provider identifiers (NPIs) billing for 17311, at an average rate of 75.6 per year.

The total number of times that 17311 was billed also increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average rate of 4.7% per year but declined in 2020 by 8.4%. “Overall, there was an average of 135 new NPIs that appeared and an average of 59.4 NPIs that stopped billing for 17311,” thus, an attrition rate of 59 surgeons, Dr. Ahn explained.

She emphasized that notably, the number of approved MSDO fellowship spots has remained stable since 2016 and is about 92 to 93 per year. “There are about 135 new surgeons and about two-thirds are new fellowship graduates,” she said.

The researchers were also interested in seeing how saturated each surgeon was and looked at the approximate number of cases that they were handling.

Of the physicians who billed 17311 through CMS, over 26% billed less than 100 times and more than 45% billed less than 200 times, and over 80% billed less than 500 times.

“One might be able to conclude that there might be some potential flexibility depending on the future need for surgeons,” she said.

The study was limited by several factors, one being that the researchers looked only at CPT code 17311 and not other designated codes for Mohs surgery. Other factors such as staff and space limitations were not accounted for since only billing data were used.

Dr. Ahn and her team are going to continue their work, and the next steps are to look at geographic trends and monitor for insurance network eligibility changes. “We are currently doing a workforce survey so we can better understand our current workforce rather than just historical data,” she concluded.

Asked to comment on the results, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, noted that the increase in the “billing rates of the first stage of Mohs micrographic surgery highlights not only the growing skin cancer epidemic, but also the number of providers who are providing these services. This underscores the importance of standardized training guidelines and board certifications of Mohs micrographic surgeons to assure high levels of patient care and the appropriate use of Mohs micrographic surgery,” he said.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Ahn reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

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

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

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

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

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

There’s been some recent news about medical schools gradually dropping the long-established practice of legacy admissions. This is where people related to successful alumni and/or big donors can get preferential admission, possibly over more qualified people.

All of us likely experienced this from one side or another, though realistically I haven’t thought about it years. My kids went to the same state school I did, but I’m pretty sure I had nothing to do with their being accepted. I never gave the school a single donation, nor did I call anyone there to try and get them in. Not that anyone would have known who I was if I’d tried. I’m just another one of many who went there, preserved only in some filing cabinet of transcripts somewhere.

I’m all for the legacy system ending, though, for one simple reason: It’s not fair.

If someone is qualified, great. They should be admitted on their own merits. But if they’re not, they shouldn’t get into medical school just because one (or both) of their parents went there, or is a VIP, or paid for a new library wing.

The reason I’m writing this is because the recent reporting did bring back a memory.

A long time ago, when I was in college, I hung out with other premed students. We knew we were all competing with each other for the same spots at the state medical school, but also knew that we wouldn’t all get in there. That didn’t make us enemies, it was just the truth. It’s that point in life where ANY medical school admission is all you want.

Pete (not his real name) was a nice guy, but his grades weren’t the best. His MCAT scores lagged behind the rest of us in the clique, and ... he didn’t care.

Pete’s dad had graduated from the state medical school, and was still on staff there. He was now on the teaching staff ... and on the school’s admissions board. To Pete, tests and grades didn’t matter. His admission was assured.

So it was no surprise when he got in ahead of the rest of us with better qualifications. Most of us, including me, did get in somewhere, so we were still happy. We just had to move farther and pay more, but that’s life.

I really didn’t think much about Pete again after that. I was now in medical school, I had a whole new social group, and more importantly I didn’t really have time to think of much beyond when the next exam was.

Then I moved home, and started residency. During my PGY-2 year we had a changing group of medical students assigned to my wards rotation.

And, as you probably guessed, one of them was Pete.

Pete was in his last year of medical school. But we’d both started in the same year, and now I was 2 years ahead of him. I didn’t ask him what happened, but another medical student told me he wasn’t known to be the best student, but the university refused to drop him, and just kept setting him back a class here, a year there.

Maybe they’d have done the same for anyone, but I doubt it.

I never saw Pete again after that. When I looked him up online tonight he’s not listed as being a doctor, and isn’t even in medicine. Granted, a lot of doctors have left medicine, and maybe he did too.

But the more likely reason is that Pete never should have been there in the first place. He got in as a legacy, taking a medical school slot from someone who may have been more capable and driven.

And that just doesn’t seem right to me. It didn’t then and it doesn’t now.

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

There’s been some recent news about medical schools gradually dropping the long-established practice of legacy admissions. This is where people related to successful alumni and/or big donors can get preferential admission, possibly over more qualified people.

All of us likely experienced this from one side or another, though realistically I haven’t thought about it years. My kids went to the same state school I did, but I’m pretty sure I had nothing to do with their being accepted. I never gave the school a single donation, nor did I call anyone there to try and get them in. Not that anyone would have known who I was if I’d tried. I’m just another one of many who went there, preserved only in some filing cabinet of transcripts somewhere.

I’m all for the legacy system ending, though, for one simple reason: It’s not fair.

If someone is qualified, great. They should be admitted on their own merits. But if they’re not, they shouldn’t get into medical school just because one (or both) of their parents went there, or is a VIP, or paid for a new library wing.

The reason I’m writing this is because the recent reporting did bring back a memory.

A long time ago, when I was in college, I hung out with other premed students. We knew we were all competing with each other for the same spots at the state medical school, but also knew that we wouldn’t all get in there. That didn’t make us enemies, it was just the truth. It’s that point in life where ANY medical school admission is all you want.

Pete (not his real name) was a nice guy, but his grades weren’t the best. His MCAT scores lagged behind the rest of us in the clique, and ... he didn’t care.

Pete’s dad had graduated from the state medical school, and was still on staff there. He was now on the teaching staff ... and on the school’s admissions board. To Pete, tests and grades didn’t matter. His admission was assured.

So it was no surprise when he got in ahead of the rest of us with better qualifications. Most of us, including me, did get in somewhere, so we were still happy. We just had to move farther and pay more, but that’s life.

I really didn’t think much about Pete again after that. I was now in medical school, I had a whole new social group, and more importantly I didn’t really have time to think of much beyond when the next exam was.

Then I moved home, and started residency. During my PGY-2 year we had a changing group of medical students assigned to my wards rotation.

And, as you probably guessed, one of them was Pete.

Pete was in his last year of medical school. But we’d both started in the same year, and now I was 2 years ahead of him. I didn’t ask him what happened, but another medical student told me he wasn’t known to be the best student, but the university refused to drop him, and just kept setting him back a class here, a year there.

Maybe they’d have done the same for anyone, but I doubt it.

I never saw Pete again after that. When I looked him up online tonight he’s not listed as being a doctor, and isn’t even in medicine. Granted, a lot of doctors have left medicine, and maybe he did too.

But the more likely reason is that Pete never should have been there in the first place. He got in as a legacy, taking a medical school slot from someone who may have been more capable and driven.

And that just doesn’t seem right to me. It didn’t then and it doesn’t now.

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

There’s been some recent news about medical schools gradually dropping the long-established practice of legacy admissions. This is where people related to successful alumni and/or big donors can get preferential admission, possibly over more qualified people.

All of us likely experienced this from one side or another, though realistically I haven’t thought about it years. My kids went to the same state school I did, but I’m pretty sure I had nothing to do with their being accepted. I never gave the school a single donation, nor did I call anyone there to try and get them in. Not that anyone would have known who I was if I’d tried. I’m just another one of many who went there, preserved only in some filing cabinet of transcripts somewhere.

I’m all for the legacy system ending, though, for one simple reason: It’s not fair.

If someone is qualified, great. They should be admitted on their own merits. But if they’re not, they shouldn’t get into medical school just because one (or both) of their parents went there, or is a VIP, or paid for a new library wing.

The reason I’m writing this is because the recent reporting did bring back a memory.

A long time ago, when I was in college, I hung out with other premed students. We knew we were all competing with each other for the same spots at the state medical school, but also knew that we wouldn’t all get in there. That didn’t make us enemies, it was just the truth. It’s that point in life where ANY medical school admission is all you want.

Pete (not his real name) was a nice guy, but his grades weren’t the best. His MCAT scores lagged behind the rest of us in the clique, and ... he didn’t care.

Pete’s dad had graduated from the state medical school, and was still on staff there. He was now on the teaching staff ... and on the school’s admissions board. To Pete, tests and grades didn’t matter. His admission was assured.

So it was no surprise when he got in ahead of the rest of us with better qualifications. Most of us, including me, did get in somewhere, so we were still happy. We just had to move farther and pay more, but that’s life.

I really didn’t think much about Pete again after that. I was now in medical school, I had a whole new social group, and more importantly I didn’t really have time to think of much beyond when the next exam was.

Then I moved home, and started residency. During my PGY-2 year we had a changing group of medical students assigned to my wards rotation.

And, as you probably guessed, one of them was Pete.

Pete was in his last year of medical school. But we’d both started in the same year, and now I was 2 years ahead of him. I didn’t ask him what happened, but another medical student told me he wasn’t known to be the best student, but the university refused to drop him, and just kept setting him back a class here, a year there.

Maybe they’d have done the same for anyone, but I doubt it.

I never saw Pete again after that. When I looked him up online tonight he’s not listed as being a doctor, and isn’t even in medicine. Granted, a lot of doctors have left medicine, and maybe he did too.

But the more likely reason is that Pete never should have been there in the first place. He got in as a legacy, taking a medical school slot from someone who may have been more capable and driven.

And that just doesn’t seem right to me. It didn’t then and it doesn’t now.

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

On average, physicians reported in the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023 that they worked 50 hours per week. Five specialties, including critical care, cardiology, and general surgery reported working 55 or more hours weekly.

But there’s a small segment of physicians that has bucked the norm. They’ve scaled back their hours to part time, clocking in only 25-30 hours a week.

In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that part-time physician careers were rising. At the time, part-time doctors made up 21% of the physician workforce, up from 13% in 2005.

In a more recent survey from the California Health Care Foundation, only 12% of California physicians said they devoted 20-29 hours a week to patient care. 

Amy Knoup, a senior recruitment adviser with Provider Solutions & Development), has been helping doctors find jobs for over a decade, and she’s noticed a trend.

“Not only are more physicians seeking part-time roles than they were 10 years ago, but more large health care systems are also offering part time or per diem as well,” said Ms. Knoup.
 

Who’s working part time, and why?

Ten years ago, the fastest growing segment of part-timers were men nearing retirement and early- to mid-career women.

Pediatricians led the part-time pack in 2002, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study. At the time, 15% of pediatricians reported their hours as part time. However, the numbers may have increased over the years. For example, a 2021 study by the department of pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, and Boston University found that almost 30% of graduating pediatricians sought part-time work at the end of their training. 

At PS&D, Ms. Knoup said she has noticed a trend toward part-timers among primary care, behavioral health, and outpatient specialties such as endocrinology. “We’re also seeing it with the inpatient side in roles that are more shift based like hospitalists, radiologists, and critical care and ER doctors.”

Another trend Ms. Knoup has noticed is with early-career doctors. “They have a different mindset,” she said. “Younger generations are acutely aware of burnout. They may have experienced it in residency or during the pandemic. They’ve had a taste of that and don’t want to go down that road again, so they’re seeking part-time roles. It’s an intentional choice.” 

Tracey O’Connell, MD, a radiologist, always knew that she wanted to work part time. “I had a baby as a resident, and I was pregnant with my second child as a fellow,” she said. “I was already feeling overwhelmed with medical training and having a family.”

Dr. O’Connell worked in private practice for 16 years on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with no nights or weekends. 

“I still found it completely overwhelming,” she said. “Even though I had more days not working than working, I felt like the demands of medical life had advanced faster than human beings could adapt, and I still feel that way.”

Today she runs a part-time teleradiology practice from home but spends more time on her second career as a life coach. “Most of my clients are physicians looking for more fulfillment and sustainable ways of practicing medicine while maintaining their own identity as human beings, not just the all-consuming identity of ‘doctor,’ ” she said. 

On the other end of the career spectrum is Lois Goodman, MD, an ob.gyn. in her late 70s. After 42 years in a group practice, she started her solo practice at 72, seeing patients 3 days per week. “I’m just happy to be working. That’s a tremendous payoff for me. I need to keep working for my mental health.”
 

How does part-time work affect physician shortages and care delivery?

Reducing clinical effort is one of the strategies physicians use to scale down overload. Still, it’s not viable as a long-term solution, said Christine Sinsky, MD, AMA’s vice president of professional satisfaction and a nationally regarded researcher on physician burnout.

“If all the physicians in a community went from working 100% FTE clinical to 50% FTE clinical, then the people in that community would have half the access to care that they had,” said Dr. Sinsky. “There’s less capacity in the system to care for patients.”

Some could argue, then, that part-time physician work may contribute to physician shortage predictions. An Association of American Medical Colleges report estimates there will be a shortage of 37,800 to 124,000 physicians by 2034.

But physicians working part-time express a contrasting point of view. “I don’t believe that part-time workers are responsible for the health care shortage but rather, a great solution,” said Dr. O’Connell. “Because in order to continue working for a long time rather than quitting when the demands exceed human capacity, working part time is a great compromise to offer a life of more sustainable well-being and longevity as a physician, and still live a wholehearted life.”
 

Pros and cons of being a part-time physician

Pros

Less burnout: The American Medical Association has tracked burnout rates for 22 years. By the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians reported burnout symptoms, compared with 38% the year before. Going part time appears to reduce burnout, suggests a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Better work-life balance: Rachel Miller, MD, an ob.gyn., worked 60-70 hours weekly for 9 years. In 2022, she went to work as an OB hospitalist for a health care system that welcomes part-time clinicians. Since then, she has achieved a better work-life balance, putting in 26-28 hours a week. Dr. Miller now spends more time with her kids and in her additional role as an executive coach to leaders in the medical field. 

More focus: “When I’m at work, I’m 100% mentally in and focused,” said Dr. Miller. “My interactions with patients are different because I’m not burned out. My demeanor and my willingness to connect are stronger.”

Better health: Mehmet Cilingiroglu, MD, with CardioSolution, traded full-time work for part time when health issues and a kidney transplant sidelined his 30-year career in 2018. “Despite my significant health issues, I’ve been able to continue working at a pace that suits me rather than having to retire,” he said. “Part-time physicians can still enjoy patient care, research, innovation, education, and training while balancing that with other areas of life.” 

Errin Weisman, a DO who gave up full-time work in 2016, said cutting back makes her feel healthier, happier, and more energized. “Part-time work helps me to bring my A game each day I work and deliver the best care.” She’s also a life coach encouraging other physicians to find balance in their professional and personal lives.
 

Cons

Cut in pay: Obviously, the No. 1 con is you’ll make less working part time, so adjusting to a salary decrease can be a huge issue, especially if you don’t have other sources of income. Physicians paying off student loans, those caring for children or elderly parents, or those in their prime earning years needing to save for retirement may not be able to go part time.

Diminished career: The chance for promotions or being well known in your field can be diminished, as well as a loss of proficiency if you’re only performing surgery or procedures part time. In some specialties, working part time and not keeping up with (or being able to practice) newer technology developments can harm your career or reputation in the long run.

Missing out: While working part time has many benefits, physicians also experience a wide range of drawbacks. Dr. Goodman, for example, said she misses delivering babies and doing surgeries. Dr. Miller said she gave up some aspects of her specialty, like performing hysterectomies, participating in complex cases, and no longer having an office like she did as a full-time ob.gyn.

Loss of fellowship: Dr. O’Connell said she missed the camaraderie and sense of belonging when she scaled back her hours. “I felt like a fish out of water, that my values didn’t align with the group’s values,” she said. This led to self-doubt, frustrated colleagues, and a reduction in benefits.

Lost esteem: Dr. O’Connell also felt she was expected to work overtime without additional pay and was no longer eligible for bonuses. “I was treated as a team player when I was needed, but not when it came to perks and benefits and insider privilege,” she said. There may be a loss of esteem among colleagues and supervisors.

Overcoming stigma: Because part-time physician work is still not prevalent among colleagues, some may resist the idea, have less respect for it, perceive it as not being serious about your career as a physician, or associate it with being lazy or entitled.

Summing it up

Every physician must weigh the value and drawbacks of part-time work, but the more physicians who go this route, the more part-time medicine gains traction and the more physicians can learn about its values versus its drawbacks.

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

On average, physicians reported in the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023 that they worked 50 hours per week. Five specialties, including critical care, cardiology, and general surgery reported working 55 or more hours weekly.

But there’s a small segment of physicians that has bucked the norm. They’ve scaled back their hours to part time, clocking in only 25-30 hours a week.

In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that part-time physician careers were rising. At the time, part-time doctors made up 21% of the physician workforce, up from 13% in 2005.

In a more recent survey from the California Health Care Foundation, only 12% of California physicians said they devoted 20-29 hours a week to patient care. 

Amy Knoup, a senior recruitment adviser with Provider Solutions & Development), has been helping doctors find jobs for over a decade, and she’s noticed a trend.

“Not only are more physicians seeking part-time roles than they were 10 years ago, but more large health care systems are also offering part time or per diem as well,” said Ms. Knoup.
 

Who’s working part time, and why?

Ten years ago, the fastest growing segment of part-timers were men nearing retirement and early- to mid-career women.

Pediatricians led the part-time pack in 2002, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study. At the time, 15% of pediatricians reported their hours as part time. However, the numbers may have increased over the years. For example, a 2021 study by the department of pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, and Boston University found that almost 30% of graduating pediatricians sought part-time work at the end of their training. 

At PS&D, Ms. Knoup said she has noticed a trend toward part-timers among primary care, behavioral health, and outpatient specialties such as endocrinology. “We’re also seeing it with the inpatient side in roles that are more shift based like hospitalists, radiologists, and critical care and ER doctors.”

Another trend Ms. Knoup has noticed is with early-career doctors. “They have a different mindset,” she said. “Younger generations are acutely aware of burnout. They may have experienced it in residency or during the pandemic. They’ve had a taste of that and don’t want to go down that road again, so they’re seeking part-time roles. It’s an intentional choice.” 

Tracey O’Connell, MD, a radiologist, always knew that she wanted to work part time. “I had a baby as a resident, and I was pregnant with my second child as a fellow,” she said. “I was already feeling overwhelmed with medical training and having a family.”

Dr. O’Connell worked in private practice for 16 years on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with no nights or weekends. 

“I still found it completely overwhelming,” she said. “Even though I had more days not working than working, I felt like the demands of medical life had advanced faster than human beings could adapt, and I still feel that way.”

Today she runs a part-time teleradiology practice from home but spends more time on her second career as a life coach. “Most of my clients are physicians looking for more fulfillment and sustainable ways of practicing medicine while maintaining their own identity as human beings, not just the all-consuming identity of ‘doctor,’ ” she said. 

On the other end of the career spectrum is Lois Goodman, MD, an ob.gyn. in her late 70s. After 42 years in a group practice, she started her solo practice at 72, seeing patients 3 days per week. “I’m just happy to be working. That’s a tremendous payoff for me. I need to keep working for my mental health.”
 

How does part-time work affect physician shortages and care delivery?

Reducing clinical effort is one of the strategies physicians use to scale down overload. Still, it’s not viable as a long-term solution, said Christine Sinsky, MD, AMA’s vice president of professional satisfaction and a nationally regarded researcher on physician burnout.

“If all the physicians in a community went from working 100% FTE clinical to 50% FTE clinical, then the people in that community would have half the access to care that they had,” said Dr. Sinsky. “There’s less capacity in the system to care for patients.”

Some could argue, then, that part-time physician work may contribute to physician shortage predictions. An Association of American Medical Colleges report estimates there will be a shortage of 37,800 to 124,000 physicians by 2034.

But physicians working part-time express a contrasting point of view. “I don’t believe that part-time workers are responsible for the health care shortage but rather, a great solution,” said Dr. O’Connell. “Because in order to continue working for a long time rather than quitting when the demands exceed human capacity, working part time is a great compromise to offer a life of more sustainable well-being and longevity as a physician, and still live a wholehearted life.”
 

Pros and cons of being a part-time physician

Pros

Less burnout: The American Medical Association has tracked burnout rates for 22 years. By the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians reported burnout symptoms, compared with 38% the year before. Going part time appears to reduce burnout, suggests a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Better work-life balance: Rachel Miller, MD, an ob.gyn., worked 60-70 hours weekly for 9 years. In 2022, she went to work as an OB hospitalist for a health care system that welcomes part-time clinicians. Since then, she has achieved a better work-life balance, putting in 26-28 hours a week. Dr. Miller now spends more time with her kids and in her additional role as an executive coach to leaders in the medical field. 

More focus: “When I’m at work, I’m 100% mentally in and focused,” said Dr. Miller. “My interactions with patients are different because I’m not burned out. My demeanor and my willingness to connect are stronger.”

Better health: Mehmet Cilingiroglu, MD, with CardioSolution, traded full-time work for part time when health issues and a kidney transplant sidelined his 30-year career in 2018. “Despite my significant health issues, I’ve been able to continue working at a pace that suits me rather than having to retire,” he said. “Part-time physicians can still enjoy patient care, research, innovation, education, and training while balancing that with other areas of life.” 

Errin Weisman, a DO who gave up full-time work in 2016, said cutting back makes her feel healthier, happier, and more energized. “Part-time work helps me to bring my A game each day I work and deliver the best care.” She’s also a life coach encouraging other physicians to find balance in their professional and personal lives.
 

Cons

Cut in pay: Obviously, the No. 1 con is you’ll make less working part time, so adjusting to a salary decrease can be a huge issue, especially if you don’t have other sources of income. Physicians paying off student loans, those caring for children or elderly parents, or those in their prime earning years needing to save for retirement may not be able to go part time.

Diminished career: The chance for promotions or being well known in your field can be diminished, as well as a loss of proficiency if you’re only performing surgery or procedures part time. In some specialties, working part time and not keeping up with (or being able to practice) newer technology developments can harm your career or reputation in the long run.

Missing out: While working part time has many benefits, physicians also experience a wide range of drawbacks. Dr. Goodman, for example, said she misses delivering babies and doing surgeries. Dr. Miller said she gave up some aspects of her specialty, like performing hysterectomies, participating in complex cases, and no longer having an office like she did as a full-time ob.gyn.

Loss of fellowship: Dr. O’Connell said she missed the camaraderie and sense of belonging when she scaled back her hours. “I felt like a fish out of water, that my values didn’t align with the group’s values,” she said. This led to self-doubt, frustrated colleagues, and a reduction in benefits.

Lost esteem: Dr. O’Connell also felt she was expected to work overtime without additional pay and was no longer eligible for bonuses. “I was treated as a team player when I was needed, but not when it came to perks and benefits and insider privilege,” she said. There may be a loss of esteem among colleagues and supervisors.

Overcoming stigma: Because part-time physician work is still not prevalent among colleagues, some may resist the idea, have less respect for it, perceive it as not being serious about your career as a physician, or associate it with being lazy or entitled.

Summing it up

Every physician must weigh the value and drawbacks of part-time work, but the more physicians who go this route, the more part-time medicine gains traction and the more physicians can learn about its values versus its drawbacks.

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

On average, physicians reported in the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023 that they worked 50 hours per week. Five specialties, including critical care, cardiology, and general surgery reported working 55 or more hours weekly.

But there’s a small segment of physicians that has bucked the norm. They’ve scaled back their hours to part time, clocking in only 25-30 hours a week.

In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that part-time physician careers were rising. At the time, part-time doctors made up 21% of the physician workforce, up from 13% in 2005.

In a more recent survey from the California Health Care Foundation, only 12% of California physicians said they devoted 20-29 hours a week to patient care. 

Amy Knoup, a senior recruitment adviser with Provider Solutions & Development), has been helping doctors find jobs for over a decade, and she’s noticed a trend.

“Not only are more physicians seeking part-time roles than they were 10 years ago, but more large health care systems are also offering part time or per diem as well,” said Ms. Knoup.
 

Who’s working part time, and why?

Ten years ago, the fastest growing segment of part-timers were men nearing retirement and early- to mid-career women.

Pediatricians led the part-time pack in 2002, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study. At the time, 15% of pediatricians reported their hours as part time. However, the numbers may have increased over the years. For example, a 2021 study by the department of pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, and Boston University found that almost 30% of graduating pediatricians sought part-time work at the end of their training. 

At PS&D, Ms. Knoup said she has noticed a trend toward part-timers among primary care, behavioral health, and outpatient specialties such as endocrinology. “We’re also seeing it with the inpatient side in roles that are more shift based like hospitalists, radiologists, and critical care and ER doctors.”

Another trend Ms. Knoup has noticed is with early-career doctors. “They have a different mindset,” she said. “Younger generations are acutely aware of burnout. They may have experienced it in residency or during the pandemic. They’ve had a taste of that and don’t want to go down that road again, so they’re seeking part-time roles. It’s an intentional choice.” 

Tracey O’Connell, MD, a radiologist, always knew that she wanted to work part time. “I had a baby as a resident, and I was pregnant with my second child as a fellow,” she said. “I was already feeling overwhelmed with medical training and having a family.”

Dr. O’Connell worked in private practice for 16 years on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with no nights or weekends. 

“I still found it completely overwhelming,” she said. “Even though I had more days not working than working, I felt like the demands of medical life had advanced faster than human beings could adapt, and I still feel that way.”

Today she runs a part-time teleradiology practice from home but spends more time on her second career as a life coach. “Most of my clients are physicians looking for more fulfillment and sustainable ways of practicing medicine while maintaining their own identity as human beings, not just the all-consuming identity of ‘doctor,’ ” she said. 

On the other end of the career spectrum is Lois Goodman, MD, an ob.gyn. in her late 70s. After 42 years in a group practice, she started her solo practice at 72, seeing patients 3 days per week. “I’m just happy to be working. That’s a tremendous payoff for me. I need to keep working for my mental health.”
 

How does part-time work affect physician shortages and care delivery?

Reducing clinical effort is one of the strategies physicians use to scale down overload. Still, it’s not viable as a long-term solution, said Christine Sinsky, MD, AMA’s vice president of professional satisfaction and a nationally regarded researcher on physician burnout.

“If all the physicians in a community went from working 100% FTE clinical to 50% FTE clinical, then the people in that community would have half the access to care that they had,” said Dr. Sinsky. “There’s less capacity in the system to care for patients.”

Some could argue, then, that part-time physician work may contribute to physician shortage predictions. An Association of American Medical Colleges report estimates there will be a shortage of 37,800 to 124,000 physicians by 2034.

But physicians working part-time express a contrasting point of view. “I don’t believe that part-time workers are responsible for the health care shortage but rather, a great solution,” said Dr. O’Connell. “Because in order to continue working for a long time rather than quitting when the demands exceed human capacity, working part time is a great compromise to offer a life of more sustainable well-being and longevity as a physician, and still live a wholehearted life.”
 

Pros and cons of being a part-time physician

Pros

Less burnout: The American Medical Association has tracked burnout rates for 22 years. By the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians reported burnout symptoms, compared with 38% the year before. Going part time appears to reduce burnout, suggests a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Better work-life balance: Rachel Miller, MD, an ob.gyn., worked 60-70 hours weekly for 9 years. In 2022, she went to work as an OB hospitalist for a health care system that welcomes part-time clinicians. Since then, she has achieved a better work-life balance, putting in 26-28 hours a week. Dr. Miller now spends more time with her kids and in her additional role as an executive coach to leaders in the medical field. 

More focus: “When I’m at work, I’m 100% mentally in and focused,” said Dr. Miller. “My interactions with patients are different because I’m not burned out. My demeanor and my willingness to connect are stronger.”

Better health: Mehmet Cilingiroglu, MD, with CardioSolution, traded full-time work for part time when health issues and a kidney transplant sidelined his 30-year career in 2018. “Despite my significant health issues, I’ve been able to continue working at a pace that suits me rather than having to retire,” he said. “Part-time physicians can still enjoy patient care, research, innovation, education, and training while balancing that with other areas of life.” 

Errin Weisman, a DO who gave up full-time work in 2016, said cutting back makes her feel healthier, happier, and more energized. “Part-time work helps me to bring my A game each day I work and deliver the best care.” She’s also a life coach encouraging other physicians to find balance in their professional and personal lives.
 

Cons

Cut in pay: Obviously, the No. 1 con is you’ll make less working part time, so adjusting to a salary decrease can be a huge issue, especially if you don’t have other sources of income. Physicians paying off student loans, those caring for children or elderly parents, or those in their prime earning years needing to save for retirement may not be able to go part time.

Diminished career: The chance for promotions or being well known in your field can be diminished, as well as a loss of proficiency if you’re only performing surgery or procedures part time. In some specialties, working part time and not keeping up with (or being able to practice) newer technology developments can harm your career or reputation in the long run.

Missing out: While working part time has many benefits, physicians also experience a wide range of drawbacks. Dr. Goodman, for example, said she misses delivering babies and doing surgeries. Dr. Miller said she gave up some aspects of her specialty, like performing hysterectomies, participating in complex cases, and no longer having an office like she did as a full-time ob.gyn.

Loss of fellowship: Dr. O’Connell said she missed the camaraderie and sense of belonging when she scaled back her hours. “I felt like a fish out of water, that my values didn’t align with the group’s values,” she said. This led to self-doubt, frustrated colleagues, and a reduction in benefits.

Lost esteem: Dr. O’Connell also felt she was expected to work overtime without additional pay and was no longer eligible for bonuses. “I was treated as a team player when I was needed, but not when it came to perks and benefits and insider privilege,” she said. There may be a loss of esteem among colleagues and supervisors.

Overcoming stigma: Because part-time physician work is still not prevalent among colleagues, some may resist the idea, have less respect for it, perceive it as not being serious about your career as a physician, or associate it with being lazy or entitled.

Summing it up

Every physician must weigh the value and drawbacks of part-time work, but the more physicians who go this route, the more part-time medicine gains traction and the more physicians can learn about its values versus its drawbacks.

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

Try practicing inpatient medicine without nurses.

You can’t.

In a world where doctors get top billing, nurses are the unsung heroes that really make it all happen. We blow in and out of the rooms, write notes, check results and vitals, then move on to the next person.

But the nurses are the ones who actually make this all happen. And, amazingly, can do all that work with a smile.

But in our current postpandemic world, we’re facing a serious shortage. A recent survey of registered nurses found that only 15% of hospital nurses were planning on being there in 1 year. Thirty percent said they were planning on changing careers entirely in the aftermath of the pandemic. Their job satisfaction scores have dropped 15% from 2019 to 2023. Their stress scores, and concerns that the job is affecting their health, have increased 15%-20%.

The problem reflects a combination of things intersecting at a bad time: Staffing shortages resulting in more patients per nurse, hospital administrators cutting corners on staffing and pay, and the ongoing state of incivility.

The last one is a particularly new issue. Difficult patients and their families are nothing new. We all encounter them, and learn to deal with them in our own way. It’s part of the territory.

But since 2020 it’s climbed to a new-level of in-your-face confrontation, rudeness, and aggression, sometimes leading to violence. Physical attacks on people in all jobs have increased, but health care workers are five times more likely to encounter workplace violence than any other field.

Underpaid, overworked, and a sitting duck for violence. Can you blame people for looking elsewhere?

All of this is coming at a time when a whole generation of nurses is retiring, another generation is starting to reach an age of needing more health care, and nursing schools are short on teaching staff, limiting the number of new people that can be trained. Nursing education, like medical school, isn’t a place to cut corners (neither is care, obviously).

These days we toss the word “burnout” around to the point that it’s become almost meaningless, but to those affected by it, the consequences are quite real. And when it causes a loss of staff and impairs the ability of all to provide quality medical care, it quickly becomes everyone’s problem.

Finding solutions for such things isn’t a can you just kick down the road, as governmental agencies have always been so good at doing. These are things that have real-world consequences for all involved, and solutions need to involve private, public, and educational sectors working together.

I don’t have any ideas, but I hope the people who can change this will sit down and work some out.

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

Try practicing inpatient medicine without nurses.

You can’t.

In a world where doctors get top billing, nurses are the unsung heroes that really make it all happen. We blow in and out of the rooms, write notes, check results and vitals, then move on to the next person.

But the nurses are the ones who actually make this all happen. And, amazingly, can do all that work with a smile.

But in our current postpandemic world, we’re facing a serious shortage. A recent survey of registered nurses found that only 15% of hospital nurses were planning on being there in 1 year. Thirty percent said they were planning on changing careers entirely in the aftermath of the pandemic. Their job satisfaction scores have dropped 15% from 2019 to 2023. Their stress scores, and concerns that the job is affecting their health, have increased 15%-20%.

The problem reflects a combination of things intersecting at a bad time: Staffing shortages resulting in more patients per nurse, hospital administrators cutting corners on staffing and pay, and the ongoing state of incivility.

The last one is a particularly new issue. Difficult patients and their families are nothing new. We all encounter them, and learn to deal with them in our own way. It’s part of the territory.

But since 2020 it’s climbed to a new-level of in-your-face confrontation, rudeness, and aggression, sometimes leading to violence. Physical attacks on people in all jobs have increased, but health care workers are five times more likely to encounter workplace violence than any other field.

Underpaid, overworked, and a sitting duck for violence. Can you blame people for looking elsewhere?

All of this is coming at a time when a whole generation of nurses is retiring, another generation is starting to reach an age of needing more health care, and nursing schools are short on teaching staff, limiting the number of new people that can be trained. Nursing education, like medical school, isn’t a place to cut corners (neither is care, obviously).

These days we toss the word “burnout” around to the point that it’s become almost meaningless, but to those affected by it, the consequences are quite real. And when it causes a loss of staff and impairs the ability of all to provide quality medical care, it quickly becomes everyone’s problem.

Finding solutions for such things isn’t a can you just kick down the road, as governmental agencies have always been so good at doing. These are things that have real-world consequences for all involved, and solutions need to involve private, public, and educational sectors working together.

I don’t have any ideas, but I hope the people who can change this will sit down and work some out.

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

Try practicing inpatient medicine without nurses.

You can’t.

In a world where doctors get top billing, nurses are the unsung heroes that really make it all happen. We blow in and out of the rooms, write notes, check results and vitals, then move on to the next person.

But the nurses are the ones who actually make this all happen. And, amazingly, can do all that work with a smile.

But in our current postpandemic world, we’re facing a serious shortage. A recent survey of registered nurses found that only 15% of hospital nurses were planning on being there in 1 year. Thirty percent said they were planning on changing careers entirely in the aftermath of the pandemic. Their job satisfaction scores have dropped 15% from 2019 to 2023. Their stress scores, and concerns that the job is affecting their health, have increased 15%-20%.

The problem reflects a combination of things intersecting at a bad time: Staffing shortages resulting in more patients per nurse, hospital administrators cutting corners on staffing and pay, and the ongoing state of incivility.

The last one is a particularly new issue. Difficult patients and their families are nothing new. We all encounter them, and learn to deal with them in our own way. It’s part of the territory.

But since 2020 it’s climbed to a new-level of in-your-face confrontation, rudeness, and aggression, sometimes leading to violence. Physical attacks on people in all jobs have increased, but health care workers are five times more likely to encounter workplace violence than any other field.

Underpaid, overworked, and a sitting duck for violence. Can you blame people for looking elsewhere?

All of this is coming at a time when a whole generation of nurses is retiring, another generation is starting to reach an age of needing more health care, and nursing schools are short on teaching staff, limiting the number of new people that can be trained. Nursing education, like medical school, isn’t a place to cut corners (neither is care, obviously).

These days we toss the word “burnout” around to the point that it’s become almost meaningless, but to those affected by it, the consequences are quite real. And when it causes a loss of staff and impairs the ability of all to provide quality medical care, it quickly becomes everyone’s problem.

Finding solutions for such things isn’t a can you just kick down the road, as governmental agencies have always been so good at doing. These are things that have real-world consequences for all involved, and solutions need to involve private, public, and educational sectors working together.

I don’t have any ideas, but I hope the people who can change this will sit down and work some out.

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