Business of Medicine

CHICAGO – The total annual waste generated by a single, large academic endoscopy unit over 2 months could cover about two football fields, according to Madhav Desai, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. About 20% of the waste, most of which went to landfills, was potentially recyclable, he said in a presentation given at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are critical for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. But like other medical procedures, endoscopies are a source of environmental waste, including plastic, sharps, personal protective equipment (PPE), and cleaning supplies, and also energy waste.

Walter Alexander/MDedge News

“This all goes back to the damage that mankind is inflicting on the environment in general, with the health care sector as one of the top contributors to plastic waste generation, landfills and water wastage,” Dr. Desai said. “Endoscopies, with their numerous benefits, substantially increase waste generation through landfill waste and liquid consumption and waste through the cleaning of endoscopes. We have a responsibility to look into this topic.”

To prospectively assess total waste generation from their institution, Dr. Desai, who was with the Kansas City (Mo.) Veterans Administration Medical Center, when the research was conducted, collected data on the items used in 450 consecutive procedures from May to June 2022. The data included procedure type, accessory use, intravenous tubing, numbers of biopsy jars, linens, PPE, and more, beginning at the point of patient entry to the endoscopy unit until discharge. They also collected data on waste generation related to reprocessing after each procedure and daily energy use (including endoscopy equipment, lights, and computers). With an eye toward finding opportunities to improve and maximize waste recycling, they stratified waste into the three categories of biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable.

“We found that the total waste generated during the time period was 1,398.6 kg, with more than half of it, 61.6%, going directly to landfill,” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “That’s an amount that an average family in the U.S. would use for 2 months. That’s a huge amount.”
 

Most waste consists of sharps

Exactly one-third was biohazard waste and 5.1% was sharps, they found. A single procedure, on average, sent 2.19 kg of waste to landfill. Extrapolated to 1 year, the waste total amounts to 9,189 kg (equivalent to just over 10 U.S. tons) and per 100 procedures to 219 kg (about 483 pounds).

They estimated 20% of the landfill waste was potentially recyclable (such as plastic CO₂ tubing, O₂ connector, syringes, etc.), which could reduce the total landfill burden by 8.6 kg per day or 2,580 kg per year (or 61 kg per 100 procedures). Reprocessing endoscopes generated 194 gallons of liquid waste (735.26 kg) per day or 1,385 gallons per 100 procedures.

Turning to energy consumption, Dr. Desai reported that daily use in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW-hours (equivalent to 8.2 gallons of gasoline), adding up to about 1,980 kW per 100 procedures. “That 100-procedure amount is the equivalent of the energy used for an average fuel efficiency car to travel 1,200 miles, the distance from Seattle to San Diego,” he said.

“One next step,” Dr. Desai said, “is getting help from GI societies to come together and have endoscopy units track their own performance. You need benchmarks so that you can determine how good an endoscopist you are with respect to waste.”

He commented further:“We all owe it to the environment. And, we have all witnessed what Mother Nature can do to you.”

Working on the potentially recyclable materials that account for 20% of the total waste would be a simple initial step to reduce waste going to landfills, Dr. Desai and colleagues concluded in the meeting abstract. “These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and move toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units,” they wrote.

The authors reported no disclosures.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – The total annual waste generated by a single, large academic endoscopy unit over 2 months could cover about two football fields, according to Madhav Desai, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. About 20% of the waste, most of which went to landfills, was potentially recyclable, he said in a presentation given at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are critical for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. But like other medical procedures, endoscopies are a source of environmental waste, including plastic, sharps, personal protective equipment (PPE), and cleaning supplies, and also energy waste.

Walter Alexander/MDedge News

“This all goes back to the damage that mankind is inflicting on the environment in general, with the health care sector as one of the top contributors to plastic waste generation, landfills and water wastage,” Dr. Desai said. “Endoscopies, with their numerous benefits, substantially increase waste generation through landfill waste and liquid consumption and waste through the cleaning of endoscopes. We have a responsibility to look into this topic.”

To prospectively assess total waste generation from their institution, Dr. Desai, who was with the Kansas City (Mo.) Veterans Administration Medical Center, when the research was conducted, collected data on the items used in 450 consecutive procedures from May to June 2022. The data included procedure type, accessory use, intravenous tubing, numbers of biopsy jars, linens, PPE, and more, beginning at the point of patient entry to the endoscopy unit until discharge. They also collected data on waste generation related to reprocessing after each procedure and daily energy use (including endoscopy equipment, lights, and computers). With an eye toward finding opportunities to improve and maximize waste recycling, they stratified waste into the three categories of biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable.

“We found that the total waste generated during the time period was 1,398.6 kg, with more than half of it, 61.6%, going directly to landfill,” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “That’s an amount that an average family in the U.S. would use for 2 months. That’s a huge amount.”
 

Most waste consists of sharps

Exactly one-third was biohazard waste and 5.1% was sharps, they found. A single procedure, on average, sent 2.19 kg of waste to landfill. Extrapolated to 1 year, the waste total amounts to 9,189 kg (equivalent to just over 10 U.S. tons) and per 100 procedures to 219 kg (about 483 pounds).

They estimated 20% of the landfill waste was potentially recyclable (such as plastic CO₂ tubing, O₂ connector, syringes, etc.), which could reduce the total landfill burden by 8.6 kg per day or 2,580 kg per year (or 61 kg per 100 procedures). Reprocessing endoscopes generated 194 gallons of liquid waste (735.26 kg) per day or 1,385 gallons per 100 procedures.

Turning to energy consumption, Dr. Desai reported that daily use in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW-hours (equivalent to 8.2 gallons of gasoline), adding up to about 1,980 kW per 100 procedures. “That 100-procedure amount is the equivalent of the energy used for an average fuel efficiency car to travel 1,200 miles, the distance from Seattle to San Diego,” he said.

“One next step,” Dr. Desai said, “is getting help from GI societies to come together and have endoscopy units track their own performance. You need benchmarks so that you can determine how good an endoscopist you are with respect to waste.”

He commented further:“We all owe it to the environment. And, we have all witnessed what Mother Nature can do to you.”

Working on the potentially recyclable materials that account for 20% of the total waste would be a simple initial step to reduce waste going to landfills, Dr. Desai and colleagues concluded in the meeting abstract. “These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and move toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units,” they wrote.

The authors reported no disclosures.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – The total annual waste generated by a single, large academic endoscopy unit over 2 months could cover about two football fields, according to Madhav Desai, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. About 20% of the waste, most of which went to landfills, was potentially recyclable, he said in a presentation given at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are critical for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. But like other medical procedures, endoscopies are a source of environmental waste, including plastic, sharps, personal protective equipment (PPE), and cleaning supplies, and also energy waste.

Walter Alexander/MDedge News

“This all goes back to the damage that mankind is inflicting on the environment in general, with the health care sector as one of the top contributors to plastic waste generation, landfills and water wastage,” Dr. Desai said. “Endoscopies, with their numerous benefits, substantially increase waste generation through landfill waste and liquid consumption and waste through the cleaning of endoscopes. We have a responsibility to look into this topic.”

To prospectively assess total waste generation from their institution, Dr. Desai, who was with the Kansas City (Mo.) Veterans Administration Medical Center, when the research was conducted, collected data on the items used in 450 consecutive procedures from May to June 2022. The data included procedure type, accessory use, intravenous tubing, numbers of biopsy jars, linens, PPE, and more, beginning at the point of patient entry to the endoscopy unit until discharge. They also collected data on waste generation related to reprocessing after each procedure and daily energy use (including endoscopy equipment, lights, and computers). With an eye toward finding opportunities to improve and maximize waste recycling, they stratified waste into the three categories of biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable.

“We found that the total waste generated during the time period was 1,398.6 kg, with more than half of it, 61.6%, going directly to landfill,” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “That’s an amount that an average family in the U.S. would use for 2 months. That’s a huge amount.”
 

Most waste consists of sharps

Exactly one-third was biohazard waste and 5.1% was sharps, they found. A single procedure, on average, sent 2.19 kg of waste to landfill. Extrapolated to 1 year, the waste total amounts to 9,189 kg (equivalent to just over 10 U.S. tons) and per 100 procedures to 219 kg (about 483 pounds).

They estimated 20% of the landfill waste was potentially recyclable (such as plastic CO₂ tubing, O₂ connector, syringes, etc.), which could reduce the total landfill burden by 8.6 kg per day or 2,580 kg per year (or 61 kg per 100 procedures). Reprocessing endoscopes generated 194 gallons of liquid waste (735.26 kg) per day or 1,385 gallons per 100 procedures.

Turning to energy consumption, Dr. Desai reported that daily use in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW-hours (equivalent to 8.2 gallons of gasoline), adding up to about 1,980 kW per 100 procedures. “That 100-procedure amount is the equivalent of the energy used for an average fuel efficiency car to travel 1,200 miles, the distance from Seattle to San Diego,” he said.

“One next step,” Dr. Desai said, “is getting help from GI societies to come together and have endoscopy units track their own performance. You need benchmarks so that you can determine how good an endoscopist you are with respect to waste.”

He commented further:“We all owe it to the environment. And, we have all witnessed what Mother Nature can do to you.”

Working on the potentially recyclable materials that account for 20% of the total waste would be a simple initial step to reduce waste going to landfills, Dr. Desai and colleagues concluded in the meeting abstract. “These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and move toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units,” they wrote.

The authors reported no disclosures.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded options for veterans to receive government-paid health care from private sector community health care practitioners. The act tasked the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop rules that determine eligibility for outside care based on appointment wait times or distance to the nearest VA facility. As a part of those standards, VA opted not to include the availability of VA telehealth in its wait time calculations—a decision that we believe was a gross misjudgment with far-reaching consequences for veterans. Excluding telehealth from the guidelines has unnecessarily restricted veterans’ access to high-quality health care and has squandered large sums of taxpayer dollars.

The VA has reviewed its initial MISSION Act eligibility standards and proposed a correction that recognizes telehealth as a valid means of providing health care to veterans who prefer that option.¹ Telehealth may not have been an essential component of health care before the COVID-19 pandemic, but now it is clear that the best action VA can take is to swiftly enact its recommended change, stipulating that both VA telehealth and in-person health care constitute access to treatment. If implemented, this correction would save taxpayers an astronomical sum—according to a VA reportto Congress, about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.² The cost savings from this proposed correction is reason enough to implement it. But just as importantly, increased use of VA telehealth also means higher quality, quicker, and more convenient care for veterans.

The VA is the recognized world leader in providing telehealth that is effective, timely, and veteran centric. Veterans across the country have access to telehealth services in more than 30 specialties.³ To ensure accessibility, the VA has established partnerships with major mobile broadband carriers so that veterans can receive telehealth at home without additional charges.⁴ The VA project Accessing Telehealth through Local Area Stations (ATLAS) brings VA telehealth to areas where existing internet infrastructure may not be adequate to support video telehealth. ATLAS is a collaboration with private organizations, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and Walmart.⁴The agency also provides tablets to veterans who might not have access to telehealth, fostering higher access and patient satisfaction.⁴

The VA can initiate telehealth care rapidly. The “Anywhere to Anywhere” VA Health Care initiative and telecare hubs eliminate geographic constraints, allowing clinicians to provide team-based services across county and state lines to veterans’ homes and communities.

VA’s telehealth effort maximizes convenience for veterans. It reduces travel time, travel expenses, depletion of sick leave, and the need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or military sexual trauma who are triggered by traffic and waiting rooms, those with mobility issues, or those facing the stigma of mental health treatment often prefer to receive care in the familiarity of their home. Nonetheless, any veteran who desires an in-person appointment would continue to have that option under the proposed VA rule change.

VA telehealth is often used for mental health care, using the same evidence-based psychotherapies that VA has championed and are superior to that available in the private sector.^5,6 This advantage is largely due to VA’s rigorous training, consultation, case review, care delivery, measurement standards, and integrated care model. In a recent survey of veterans engaged in mental health care, 80% reported that VA virtual care via video and/or telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in‐person services.⁷And yet, because of existing regulations, VA telemental health (TMH) does not qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of TMH visits being outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be quickly and beneficially furnished by VA clinicians.

Telehealth has been shown to be as clinically effective as in-person care. A recent review of 38 meta-analyses covering telehealth with 10 medical disciplines found that for all disciplines, telehealth was as effective, if not more so, than conventional care.⁸ And because the likelihood of not showing up for telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments, continuity of care is uninterrupted, and health care outcomes are improved.

Telehealth is health care. The VA must end the double standard that has handicapped it from including telehealth availability in determinations of eligibility for community care. The VA has voiced its intention to seek stakeholder input before implementing its proposed correction. The change is long overdue. It will save the VA a billion dollars annually while ensuring that veterans have quicker access to better treatment.

The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded options for veterans to receive government-paid health care from private sector community health care practitioners. The act tasked the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop rules that determine eligibility for outside care based on appointment wait times or distance to the nearest VA facility. As a part of those standards, VA opted not to include the availability of VA telehealth in its wait time calculations—a decision that we believe was a gross misjudgment with far-reaching consequences for veterans. Excluding telehealth from the guidelines has unnecessarily restricted veterans’ access to high-quality health care and has squandered large sums of taxpayer dollars.

The VA has reviewed its initial MISSION Act eligibility standards and proposed a correction that recognizes telehealth as a valid means of providing health care to veterans who prefer that option.¹ Telehealth may not have been an essential component of health care before the COVID-19 pandemic, but now it is clear that the best action VA can take is to swiftly enact its recommended change, stipulating that both VA telehealth and in-person health care constitute access to treatment. If implemented, this correction would save taxpayers an astronomical sum—according to a VA reportto Congress, about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.² The cost savings from this proposed correction is reason enough to implement it. But just as importantly, increased use of VA telehealth also means higher quality, quicker, and more convenient care for veterans.

The VA is the recognized world leader in providing telehealth that is effective, timely, and veteran centric. Veterans across the country have access to telehealth services in more than 30 specialties.³ To ensure accessibility, the VA has established partnerships with major mobile broadband carriers so that veterans can receive telehealth at home without additional charges.⁴ The VA project Accessing Telehealth through Local Area Stations (ATLAS) brings VA telehealth to areas where existing internet infrastructure may not be adequate to support video telehealth. ATLAS is a collaboration with private organizations, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and Walmart.⁴The agency also provides tablets to veterans who might not have access to telehealth, fostering higher access and patient satisfaction.⁴

The VA can initiate telehealth care rapidly. The “Anywhere to Anywhere” VA Health Care initiative and telecare hubs eliminate geographic constraints, allowing clinicians to provide team-based services across county and state lines to veterans’ homes and communities.

VA’s telehealth effort maximizes convenience for veterans. It reduces travel time, travel expenses, depletion of sick leave, and the need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or military sexual trauma who are triggered by traffic and waiting rooms, those with mobility issues, or those facing the stigma of mental health treatment often prefer to receive care in the familiarity of their home. Nonetheless, any veteran who desires an in-person appointment would continue to have that option under the proposed VA rule change.

VA telehealth is often used for mental health care, using the same evidence-based psychotherapies that VA has championed and are superior to that available in the private sector.^5,6 This advantage is largely due to VA’s rigorous training, consultation, case review, care delivery, measurement standards, and integrated care model. In a recent survey of veterans engaged in mental health care, 80% reported that VA virtual care via video and/or telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in‐person services.⁷And yet, because of existing regulations, VA telemental health (TMH) does not qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of TMH visits being outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be quickly and beneficially furnished by VA clinicians.

Telehealth has been shown to be as clinically effective as in-person care. A recent review of 38 meta-analyses covering telehealth with 10 medical disciplines found that for all disciplines, telehealth was as effective, if not more so, than conventional care.⁸ And because the likelihood of not showing up for telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments, continuity of care is uninterrupted, and health care outcomes are improved.

Telehealth is health care. The VA must end the double standard that has handicapped it from including telehealth availability in determinations of eligibility for community care. The VA has voiced its intention to seek stakeholder input before implementing its proposed correction. The change is long overdue. It will save the VA a billion dollars annually while ensuring that veterans have quicker access to better treatment.

The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded options for veterans to receive government-paid health care from private sector community health care practitioners. The act tasked the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop rules that determine eligibility for outside care based on appointment wait times or distance to the nearest VA facility. As a part of those standards, VA opted not to include the availability of VA telehealth in its wait time calculations—a decision that we believe was a gross misjudgment with far-reaching consequences for veterans. Excluding telehealth from the guidelines has unnecessarily restricted veterans’ access to high-quality health care and has squandered large sums of taxpayer dollars.

The VA has reviewed its initial MISSION Act eligibility standards and proposed a correction that recognizes telehealth as a valid means of providing health care to veterans who prefer that option.¹ Telehealth may not have been an essential component of health care before the COVID-19 pandemic, but now it is clear that the best action VA can take is to swiftly enact its recommended change, stipulating that both VA telehealth and in-person health care constitute access to treatment. If implemented, this correction would save taxpayers an astronomical sum—according to a VA reportto Congress, about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.² The cost savings from this proposed correction is reason enough to implement it. But just as importantly, increased use of VA telehealth also means higher quality, quicker, and more convenient care for veterans.

The VA is the recognized world leader in providing telehealth that is effective, timely, and veteran centric. Veterans across the country have access to telehealth services in more than 30 specialties.³ To ensure accessibility, the VA has established partnerships with major mobile broadband carriers so that veterans can receive telehealth at home without additional charges.⁴ The VA project Accessing Telehealth through Local Area Stations (ATLAS) brings VA telehealth to areas where existing internet infrastructure may not be adequate to support video telehealth. ATLAS is a collaboration with private organizations, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and Walmart.⁴The agency also provides tablets to veterans who might not have access to telehealth, fostering higher access and patient satisfaction.⁴

The VA can initiate telehealth care rapidly. The “Anywhere to Anywhere” VA Health Care initiative and telecare hubs eliminate geographic constraints, allowing clinicians to provide team-based services across county and state lines to veterans’ homes and communities.

VA’s telehealth effort maximizes convenience for veterans. It reduces travel time, travel expenses, depletion of sick leave, and the need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or military sexual trauma who are triggered by traffic and waiting rooms, those with mobility issues, or those facing the stigma of mental health treatment often prefer to receive care in the familiarity of their home. Nonetheless, any veteran who desires an in-person appointment would continue to have that option under the proposed VA rule change.

VA telehealth is often used for mental health care, using the same evidence-based psychotherapies that VA has championed and are superior to that available in the private sector.^5,6 This advantage is largely due to VA’s rigorous training, consultation, case review, care delivery, measurement standards, and integrated care model. In a recent survey of veterans engaged in mental health care, 80% reported that VA virtual care via video and/or telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in‐person services.⁷And yet, because of existing regulations, VA telemental health (TMH) does not qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of TMH visits being outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be quickly and beneficially furnished by VA clinicians.

Telehealth has been shown to be as clinically effective as in-person care. A recent review of 38 meta-analyses covering telehealth with 10 medical disciplines found that for all disciplines, telehealth was as effective, if not more so, than conventional care.⁸ And because the likelihood of not showing up for telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments, continuity of care is uninterrupted, and health care outcomes are improved.

Telehealth is health care. The VA must end the double standard that has handicapped it from including telehealth availability in determinations of eligibility for community care. The VA has voiced its intention to seek stakeholder input before implementing its proposed correction. The change is long overdue. It will save the VA a billion dollars annually while ensuring that veterans have quicker access to better treatment.

WASHINGTON – A nonpharmacologic, interdisciplinary program significantly improved chronic pain in children and the quality of life for their families, based on data from 115 individuals.

Up to 40% of children experience chronic pain that affects their physical, psychosocial, and educational functioning, said Jessica Campanile, BA, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Although interdisciplinary pediatric pain rehabilitation programs have shown positive outcomes, very few use only nonpharmacologic treatments, said Ms. Campanile. In addition, few studies have explored the effects of a hospital-based program on the patients and their families.

Ms. Campanile and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of participants in an outpatient pain rehabilitation program at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia between April 2016 and December 2019. Patients were evaluated by a pediatric rheumatologist, psychologist, and physical and occupational therapists.

Patients engaged in 2-3 hours of physical therapy (PT) and 2-3 hours of occupational therapy (OT) in a 1:1 ratio at least 5 days a week. Physical activities included stepping into and out of a tub, carrying laundry, and desensitizing to allodynia as needed. Participants also received individual and group cognitive-behavior therapy interventions from psychologists, and psychological support during PT and OT sessions if needed. Parents/caregivers were invited to separate individual and group therapy sessions as part of the program. The median age at admission to the program was 15 years, and 79% of the participants were female. Patients participated the program for a median of 17 days, and 87% were outpatients who came to the hospital for the program.

Pain was assessed based on the 0-10 verbal pain intensity scale, energy was assessed on a scale of 0-100, and functional disability was assessed on a scale of 0-60, with higher scores indicating more pain, more energy, and more self-perceived disability, respectively.

Overall, scores on measures of pain, disability, allodynia, and energy improved significantly from baseline to discharge from the program. Verbal pain intensity scores decreased on average from 7 to 5, disability scores decreased from 26 to 9, the proportion of patients reporting allodynia decreased from 86% to 61%, and the energy level score increased from 70 to 77. The trend continued at the first follow-up visit, conducted 2-3 months after discharge from the program. Notably, pain intensity further decreased from a median of 5 at program completion to a median of 2 at the first follow-up, Ms. Campanile said. Improvements in allodynia also were sustained at the first follow-up.

Quality of life measures related to physical, emotional, social, and cognitive function also improved significantly from baseline to completion of the program.

In addition, scores on a quality of life family impact survey improved significantly; in particular, parent health-related quality of life scores (Parent HRQoL) improved from 60 at baseline to 71 at the end of the program on a scale of 0 to 100. The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short duration and use of a convenience sample from a retrospective cohort, with data limited to electronic health records, Ms. Campanile said. The study also was not powered to examine differential treatments based on psychiatric conditions, and any psychiatric conditions were based on self-reports.

However, the results support the value of a nonpharmacologic interdisciplinary program as “a robust treatment for youth with chronic idiopathic pain, for both patients and the family unit,” she said.

“This study also supports the need for and benefit of additional counseling for patients and their caregivers prior to and during enrollment in a pain rehabilitation program,” she concluded.
 

Study supports effectiveness of drug-free pain management

“The management of pain in any age group can be challenging, especially with current concerns for opioid dependence and abuse,” Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Chronic pain affects daily life for all populations, but for children, adolescents, and their families, it can have a long-lasting impact on growth and development, psychosocial and physical well-being,” Dr. Haut said. “Determining and testing nonpharmacologic alternative methods of pain control are extremely important.”

Given the debilitating effects of chronic pain, and the potential side effects and dependence that have been associated with use of pharmacologic modes of pain control, unique and creative solutions have begun to emerge and need further attention and study, she said.

However, “despite published research supporting the use of alternative and complementary approaches to pain control in children and adolescents, nonpharmacologic, collaborative, interprofessional approaches to pain control have not been widely shared in the literature,” she said.

“Barriers to this type of program include first and foremost a potential lack of financial and workforce-related resources,” Dr. Haut said. “Patient and family attendance at frequent health visits, daily or even every other day, may also hinder success, but opportunities for telehealth and family training to learn physical and occupational skills within this type of program may be beginning solutions.”

Additional research should be conducted at multiple children’s hospitals, with a larger number of children and adolescents at varying ages, with pain related to different diagnoses, and with the inclusion of collaborative methodology, said Dr. Haut. “The current study had some limitations, including the small sample size, predominantly female sex, and a short participation time frame utilizing retrospective review. Completing prospective research over a longer time frame can also yield generalizable results applicable to varied populations.”

The study received no outside funding. Ms. Campanile had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

WASHINGTON – A nonpharmacologic, interdisciplinary program significantly improved chronic pain in children and the quality of life for their families, based on data from 115 individuals.

Up to 40% of children experience chronic pain that affects their physical, psychosocial, and educational functioning, said Jessica Campanile, BA, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Although interdisciplinary pediatric pain rehabilitation programs have shown positive outcomes, very few use only nonpharmacologic treatments, said Ms. Campanile. In addition, few studies have explored the effects of a hospital-based program on the patients and their families.

Ms. Campanile and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of participants in an outpatient pain rehabilitation program at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia between April 2016 and December 2019. Patients were evaluated by a pediatric rheumatologist, psychologist, and physical and occupational therapists.

Patients engaged in 2-3 hours of physical therapy (PT) and 2-3 hours of occupational therapy (OT) in a 1:1 ratio at least 5 days a week. Physical activities included stepping into and out of a tub, carrying laundry, and desensitizing to allodynia as needed. Participants also received individual and group cognitive-behavior therapy interventions from psychologists, and psychological support during PT and OT sessions if needed. Parents/caregivers were invited to separate individual and group therapy sessions as part of the program. The median age at admission to the program was 15 years, and 79% of the participants were female. Patients participated the program for a median of 17 days, and 87% were outpatients who came to the hospital for the program.

Pain was assessed based on the 0-10 verbal pain intensity scale, energy was assessed on a scale of 0-100, and functional disability was assessed on a scale of 0-60, with higher scores indicating more pain, more energy, and more self-perceived disability, respectively.

Overall, scores on measures of pain, disability, allodynia, and energy improved significantly from baseline to discharge from the program. Verbal pain intensity scores decreased on average from 7 to 5, disability scores decreased from 26 to 9, the proportion of patients reporting allodynia decreased from 86% to 61%, and the energy level score increased from 70 to 77. The trend continued at the first follow-up visit, conducted 2-3 months after discharge from the program. Notably, pain intensity further decreased from a median of 5 at program completion to a median of 2 at the first follow-up, Ms. Campanile said. Improvements in allodynia also were sustained at the first follow-up.

Quality of life measures related to physical, emotional, social, and cognitive function also improved significantly from baseline to completion of the program.

In addition, scores on a quality of life family impact survey improved significantly; in particular, parent health-related quality of life scores (Parent HRQoL) improved from 60 at baseline to 71 at the end of the program on a scale of 0 to 100. The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short duration and use of a convenience sample from a retrospective cohort, with data limited to electronic health records, Ms. Campanile said. The study also was not powered to examine differential treatments based on psychiatric conditions, and any psychiatric conditions were based on self-reports.

However, the results support the value of a nonpharmacologic interdisciplinary program as “a robust treatment for youth with chronic idiopathic pain, for both patients and the family unit,” she said.

“This study also supports the need for and benefit of additional counseling for patients and their caregivers prior to and during enrollment in a pain rehabilitation program,” she concluded.
 

Study supports effectiveness of drug-free pain management

“The management of pain in any age group can be challenging, especially with current concerns for opioid dependence and abuse,” Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Chronic pain affects daily life for all populations, but for children, adolescents, and their families, it can have a long-lasting impact on growth and development, psychosocial and physical well-being,” Dr. Haut said. “Determining and testing nonpharmacologic alternative methods of pain control are extremely important.”

Given the debilitating effects of chronic pain, and the potential side effects and dependence that have been associated with use of pharmacologic modes of pain control, unique and creative solutions have begun to emerge and need further attention and study, she said.

However, “despite published research supporting the use of alternative and complementary approaches to pain control in children and adolescents, nonpharmacologic, collaborative, interprofessional approaches to pain control have not been widely shared in the literature,” she said.

“Barriers to this type of program include first and foremost a potential lack of financial and workforce-related resources,” Dr. Haut said. “Patient and family attendance at frequent health visits, daily or even every other day, may also hinder success, but opportunities for telehealth and family training to learn physical and occupational skills within this type of program may be beginning solutions.”

Additional research should be conducted at multiple children’s hospitals, with a larger number of children and adolescents at varying ages, with pain related to different diagnoses, and with the inclusion of collaborative methodology, said Dr. Haut. “The current study had some limitations, including the small sample size, predominantly female sex, and a short participation time frame utilizing retrospective review. Completing prospective research over a longer time frame can also yield generalizable results applicable to varied populations.”

The study received no outside funding. Ms. Campanile had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

WASHINGTON – A nonpharmacologic, interdisciplinary program significantly improved chronic pain in children and the quality of life for their families, based on data from 115 individuals.

Up to 40% of children experience chronic pain that affects their physical, psychosocial, and educational functioning, said Jessica Campanile, BA, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

Although interdisciplinary pediatric pain rehabilitation programs have shown positive outcomes, very few use only nonpharmacologic treatments, said Ms. Campanile. In addition, few studies have explored the effects of a hospital-based program on the patients and their families.

Ms. Campanile and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of participants in an outpatient pain rehabilitation program at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia between April 2016 and December 2019. Patients were evaluated by a pediatric rheumatologist, psychologist, and physical and occupational therapists.

Patients engaged in 2-3 hours of physical therapy (PT) and 2-3 hours of occupational therapy (OT) in a 1:1 ratio at least 5 days a week. Physical activities included stepping into and out of a tub, carrying laundry, and desensitizing to allodynia as needed. Participants also received individual and group cognitive-behavior therapy interventions from psychologists, and psychological support during PT and OT sessions if needed. Parents/caregivers were invited to separate individual and group therapy sessions as part of the program. The median age at admission to the program was 15 years, and 79% of the participants were female. Patients participated the program for a median of 17 days, and 87% were outpatients who came to the hospital for the program.

Pain was assessed based on the 0-10 verbal pain intensity scale, energy was assessed on a scale of 0-100, and functional disability was assessed on a scale of 0-60, with higher scores indicating more pain, more energy, and more self-perceived disability, respectively.

Overall, scores on measures of pain, disability, allodynia, and energy improved significantly from baseline to discharge from the program. Verbal pain intensity scores decreased on average from 7 to 5, disability scores decreased from 26 to 9, the proportion of patients reporting allodynia decreased from 86% to 61%, and the energy level score increased from 70 to 77. The trend continued at the first follow-up visit, conducted 2-3 months after discharge from the program. Notably, pain intensity further decreased from a median of 5 at program completion to a median of 2 at the first follow-up, Ms. Campanile said. Improvements in allodynia also were sustained at the first follow-up.

Quality of life measures related to physical, emotional, social, and cognitive function also improved significantly from baseline to completion of the program.

In addition, scores on a quality of life family impact survey improved significantly; in particular, parent health-related quality of life scores (Parent HRQoL) improved from 60 at baseline to 71 at the end of the program on a scale of 0 to 100. The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short duration and use of a convenience sample from a retrospective cohort, with data limited to electronic health records, Ms. Campanile said. The study also was not powered to examine differential treatments based on psychiatric conditions, and any psychiatric conditions were based on self-reports.

However, the results support the value of a nonpharmacologic interdisciplinary program as “a robust treatment for youth with chronic idiopathic pain, for both patients and the family unit,” she said.

“This study also supports the need for and benefit of additional counseling for patients and their caregivers prior to and during enrollment in a pain rehabilitation program,” she concluded.
 

Study supports effectiveness of drug-free pain management

“The management of pain in any age group can be challenging, especially with current concerns for opioid dependence and abuse,” Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Chronic pain affects daily life for all populations, but for children, adolescents, and their families, it can have a long-lasting impact on growth and development, psychosocial and physical well-being,” Dr. Haut said. “Determining and testing nonpharmacologic alternative methods of pain control are extremely important.”

Given the debilitating effects of chronic pain, and the potential side effects and dependence that have been associated with use of pharmacologic modes of pain control, unique and creative solutions have begun to emerge and need further attention and study, she said.

However, “despite published research supporting the use of alternative and complementary approaches to pain control in children and adolescents, nonpharmacologic, collaborative, interprofessional approaches to pain control have not been widely shared in the literature,” she said.

“Barriers to this type of program include first and foremost a potential lack of financial and workforce-related resources,” Dr. Haut said. “Patient and family attendance at frequent health visits, daily or even every other day, may also hinder success, but opportunities for telehealth and family training to learn physical and occupational skills within this type of program may be beginning solutions.”

Additional research should be conducted at multiple children’s hospitals, with a larger number of children and adolescents at varying ages, with pain related to different diagnoses, and with the inclusion of collaborative methodology, said Dr. Haut. “The current study had some limitations, including the small sample size, predominantly female sex, and a short participation time frame utilizing retrospective review. Completing prospective research over a longer time frame can also yield generalizable results applicable to varied populations.”

The study received no outside funding. Ms. Campanile had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Canadian family physicians’ increased use of virtual care during the first years of the pandemic was not associated with increased emergency department use among patients, a new analysis of data from Ontario suggests.

In a cross-sectional study that included almost 14,000 family physicians and almost 13 million patients in Ontario, an adjusted analysis indicated that patients with physicians who provided more than 20% of care virtually had lower rates of ED visits, compared with patients whose physicians provided the least virtual care.

“I was surprised to see that ED visit volumes in fall 2021 were below prepandemic levels,” study author Tara Kiran, MD, who practices family medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital of the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“At that time, there was a lot in the news about how our EDs were overcrowded and an assumption that this related to higher visit volumes. But our data [suggest] there were other factors at play, including strains in staffing in the ED, hospital inpatient units, and in long-term care.” Dr. Kiran is also the Fidani chair in improvement and innovation and vice-chair of quality and innovation at the department of family and community medicine of the University of Toronto.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Embrace of telehealth

The investigators analyzed administrative data from Ontario for 13,820 family physicians (mean age, 50 years; 51.5% men) and 12,951,063 patients (mean age, 42.6 years; 51.8% women) under their care.

The family physicians had at least one primary care visit claim between Feb. 1 and Oct. 31, 2021. The researchers categorized the physicians by the percentage of total visits they delivered virtually (via telephone or video) during the study period, as follows: 0% (100% in person), greater than 0%-20%, greater than 20%-40%, greater than 40%-60%, greater than 60%-80%, greater than 80% to less than 100%, or 100%.

The percentage of virtual primary care visits peaked at 82% in the first 2 weeks of the pandemic and decreased to 49% by October 2021. ED visit rates decreased at the start of the pandemic and remained lower than in 2019 throughout the study period.

Most physicians provided between 40% and 80% of care virtually. A greater percentage of those who provided more than 80% of care virtually were aged 65 years or older, were women, and practiced in large cities.

Patient comorbidity and morbidity were similar across all categories of virtual care use. The mean number of ED visits was highest among patients whose physicians provided only in-person care (470.3 per 1,000 patients) and was lowest among those whose physicians provided greater than 0% to less than 100% of care virtually (242 per 1,000 patients).

After adjustment for patient characteristics, patients of physicians who provided more than 20% of care virtually had lower rates of ED visits, compared with patients of physicians who provided the least virtual care (for example, greater than 80% to less than 100% versus 0%-20% virtual visits in big cities; relative rate, 0.77). This pattern was consistent across all rurality of practice categories and after adjustment for 2019 ED visit rates.

The investigators observed a gradient in urban areas. Patients of physicians who provided the highest level of virtual care had the lowest ED visit rates.
 

Investigating virtual modalities

Some policymakers worried that inappropriate use of virtual care was leading to an increase in ED use. “Findings of this study refute this hypothesis,” the authors write. Increases in ED use seemed to coincide with decreases in COVID-19 cases, not with increases in virtual primary care visits.

Furthermore, at the population level, patients who were cared for by physicians who provided a high percentage of virtual care did not have a higher rate of ED visits, compared with those cared for by physicians who provided the lowest levels of virtual care.

During the pandemic, the switch to virtual care worked well for some of Dr. Kiran’s patients. It was more convenient, because they didn’t have to take time off work, travel to and from the clinic, find and pay for parking, or wait in the clinic before the appointment, she said.

But for others, “virtual care really didn’t work well,” she said. “This was particularly true for people who didn’t have a regular working phone, who didn’t have a private space to take calls, who weren’t fluent in English, and who were hard of hearing or had severe mental illness that resulted in paranoid thoughts.”

Clinicians also may have had different comfort levels and preferences regarding virtual visits, Dr. Kiran hypothesized. Some found it convenient and efficient, whereas others may have found it cumbersome and inefficient. “I personally find it harder to build relationships with patients when I use virtual care,” she said. “I experience more joy in work with in-person visits, but other clinicians may feel differently.”

Dr. Kiran and her colleagues are conducting a public engagement initiative called OurCare to understand public perspectives on the future of primary care. “As part of that work, we want to understand what virtual modalities are most important to the public and how the public thinks these should be integrated into primary care.”

Virtual care can support access, patient-centered care, and equity in primary care, Dr. Kiran added. “Ideally, it should be integrated into an existing relationship with a family physician and be a complement to in-person visits.”
 

The right dose?

In an accompanying editorial, Jesse M. Pines, MD, chief of clinical innovation at U.S. Acute Care Solutions, Canton, Ohio, writes, “There is no convincing mechanism consistent with the data for the observed outcome of lower ED use at higher telehealth use.”

Additional research is needed, he notes, to answer the “Goldilocks question” – that is, what amount of telehealth optimizes its benefits while minimizing potential problems?

“The right dose of telehealth needs to balance (1) concerns by payers and policymakers that it will increase cost and cause unintended consequences (for example, misdiagnosis or duplicative care) and (2) the desire of its proponents who want to allow clinicians to use it as they see fit, with few restrictions,” writes Dr. Pines.

“Future research would ideally use more robust research design,” he suggested. “For example, randomized trials could test different doses of telehealth, or mixed-methods studies could help elucidate how telehealth may be changing clinical management or care-seeking behavior.”
 

Equitable reimbursement needed

Priya Nori, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at Montefiore Health System and associate professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York, said, “I agree with their conclusions and am reassured about telehealth as a durable form of health care delivery.”

Large, population-level studies such as this one might persuade legislators to require equitable reimbursement for in-person and virtual visits “so providers have comparable incentives to provide both types of care,” she said. “Although only primary care was addressed in the study, I believe that virtual care is here to stay and can be applied to primary care, subspecialty care, and other services, like antimicrobial stewardship, infection prevention, et cetera. We need to embrace it.”

A similar study should be conducted in the United States, along with additional research “to ensure that visits done by telephone have similar outcomes as those done by video, as not all communities have adequate internet access or video conferencing technology,” said Dr. Nori.

The study was supported by ICES and grants from Ontario Health, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Health Systems Research Program of Ontario MOH. Dr. Kiran, Dr. Pines, and Dr. Nori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Canadian family physicians’ increased use of virtual care during the first years of the pandemic was not associated with increased emergency department use among patients, a new analysis of data from Ontario suggests.

In a cross-sectional study that included almost 14,000 family physicians and almost 13 million patients in Ontario, an adjusted analysis indicated that patients with physicians who provided more than 20% of care virtually had lower rates of ED visits, compared with patients whose physicians provided the least virtual care.

“I was surprised to see that ED visit volumes in fall 2021 were below prepandemic levels,” study author Tara Kiran, MD, who practices family medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital of the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“At that time, there was a lot in the news about how our EDs were overcrowded and an assumption that this related to higher visit volumes. But our data [suggest] there were other factors at play, including strains in staffing in the ED, hospital inpatient units, and in long-term care.” Dr. Kiran is also the Fidani chair in improvement and innovation and vice-chair of quality and innovation at the department of family and community medicine of the University of Toronto.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Embrace of telehealth

The investigators analyzed administrative data from Ontario for 13,820 family physicians (mean age, 50 years; 51.5% men) and 12,951,063 patients (mean age, 42.6 years; 51.8% women) under their care.

The family physicians had at least one primary care visit claim between Feb. 1 and Oct. 31, 2021. The researchers categorized the physicians by the percentage of total visits they delivered virtually (via telephone or video) during the study period, as follows: 0% (100% in person), greater than 0%-20%, greater than 20%-40%, greater than 40%-60%, greater than 60%-80%, greater than 80% to less than 100%, or 100%.

The percentage of virtual primary care visits peaked at 82% in the first 2 weeks of the pandemic and decreased to 49% by October 2021. ED visit rates decreased at the start of the pandemic and remained lower than in 2019 throughout the study period.

Most physicians provided between 40% and 80% of care virtually. A greater percentage of those who provided more than 80% of care virtually were aged 65 years or older, were women, and practiced in large cities.

Patient comorbidity and morbidity were similar across all categories of virtual care use. The mean number of ED visits was highest among patients whose physicians provided only in-person care (470.3 per 1,000 patients) and was lowest among those whose physicians provided greater than 0% to less than 100% of care virtually (242 per 1,000 patients).

After adjustment for patient characteristics, patients of physicians who provided more than 20% of care virtually had lower rates of ED visits, compared with patients of physicians who provided the least virtual care (for example, greater than 80% to less than 100% versus 0%-20% virtual visits in big cities; relative rate, 0.77). This pattern was consistent across all rurality of practice categories and after adjustment for 2019 ED visit rates.

The investigators observed a gradient in urban areas. Patients of physicians who provided the highest level of virtual care had the lowest ED visit rates.
 

Investigating virtual modalities

Some policymakers worried that inappropriate use of virtual care was leading to an increase in ED use. “Findings of this study refute this hypothesis,” the authors write. Increases in ED use seemed to coincide with decreases in COVID-19 cases, not with increases in virtual primary care visits.

Furthermore, at the population level, patients who were cared for by physicians who provided a high percentage of virtual care did not have a higher rate of ED visits, compared with those cared for by physicians who provided the lowest levels of virtual care.

During the pandemic, the switch to virtual care worked well for some of Dr. Kiran’s patients. It was more convenient, because they didn’t have to take time off work, travel to and from the clinic, find and pay for parking, or wait in the clinic before the appointment, she said.

But for others, “virtual care really didn’t work well,” she said. “This was particularly true for people who didn’t have a regular working phone, who didn’t have a private space to take calls, who weren’t fluent in English, and who were hard of hearing or had severe mental illness that resulted in paranoid thoughts.”

Clinicians also may have had different comfort levels and preferences regarding virtual visits, Dr. Kiran hypothesized. Some found it convenient and efficient, whereas others may have found it cumbersome and inefficient. “I personally find it harder to build relationships with patients when I use virtual care,” she said. “I experience more joy in work with in-person visits, but other clinicians may feel differently.”

Dr. Kiran and her colleagues are conducting a public engagement initiative called OurCare to understand public perspectives on the future of primary care. “As part of that work, we want to understand what virtual modalities are most important to the public and how the public thinks these should be integrated into primary care.”

Virtual care can support access, patient-centered care, and equity in primary care, Dr. Kiran added. “Ideally, it should be integrated into an existing relationship with a family physician and be a complement to in-person visits.”
 

The right dose?

In an accompanying editorial, Jesse M. Pines, MD, chief of clinical innovation at U.S. Acute Care Solutions, Canton, Ohio, writes, “There is no convincing mechanism consistent with the data for the observed outcome of lower ED use at higher telehealth use.”

Additional research is needed, he notes, to answer the “Goldilocks question” – that is, what amount of telehealth optimizes its benefits while minimizing potential problems?

“The right dose of telehealth needs to balance (1) concerns by payers and policymakers that it will increase cost and cause unintended consequences (for example, misdiagnosis or duplicative care) and (2) the desire of its proponents who want to allow clinicians to use it as they see fit, with few restrictions,” writes Dr. Pines.

“Future research would ideally use more robust research design,” he suggested. “For example, randomized trials could test different doses of telehealth, or mixed-methods studies could help elucidate how telehealth may be changing clinical management or care-seeking behavior.”
 

Equitable reimbursement needed

Priya Nori, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at Montefiore Health System and associate professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York, said, “I agree with their conclusions and am reassured about telehealth as a durable form of health care delivery.”

Large, population-level studies such as this one might persuade legislators to require equitable reimbursement for in-person and virtual visits “so providers have comparable incentives to provide both types of care,” she said. “Although only primary care was addressed in the study, I believe that virtual care is here to stay and can be applied to primary care, subspecialty care, and other services, like antimicrobial stewardship, infection prevention, et cetera. We need to embrace it.”

A similar study should be conducted in the United States, along with additional research “to ensure that visits done by telephone have similar outcomes as those done by video, as not all communities have adequate internet access or video conferencing technology,” said Dr. Nori.

The study was supported by ICES and grants from Ontario Health, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Health Systems Research Program of Ontario MOH. Dr. Kiran, Dr. Pines, and Dr. Nori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Canadian family physicians’ increased use of virtual care during the first years of the pandemic was not associated with increased emergency department use among patients, a new analysis of data from Ontario suggests.

In a cross-sectional study that included almost 14,000 family physicians and almost 13 million patients in Ontario, an adjusted analysis indicated that patients with physicians who provided more than 20% of care virtually had lower rates of ED visits, compared with patients whose physicians provided the least virtual care.

“I was surprised to see that ED visit volumes in fall 2021 were below prepandemic levels,” study author Tara Kiran, MD, who practices family medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital of the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“At that time, there was a lot in the news about how our EDs were overcrowded and an assumption that this related to higher visit volumes. But our data [suggest] there were other factors at play, including strains in staffing in the ED, hospital inpatient units, and in long-term care.” Dr. Kiran is also the Fidani chair in improvement and innovation and vice-chair of quality and innovation at the department of family and community medicine of the University of Toronto.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Embrace of telehealth

The investigators analyzed administrative data from Ontario for 13,820 family physicians (mean age, 50 years; 51.5% men) and 12,951,063 patients (mean age, 42.6 years; 51.8% women) under their care.

The family physicians had at least one primary care visit claim between Feb. 1 and Oct. 31, 2021. The researchers categorized the physicians by the percentage of total visits they delivered virtually (via telephone or video) during the study period, as follows: 0% (100% in person), greater than 0%-20%, greater than 20%-40%, greater than 40%-60%, greater than 60%-80%, greater than 80% to less than 100%, or 100%.

The percentage of virtual primary care visits peaked at 82% in the first 2 weeks of the pandemic and decreased to 49% by October 2021. ED visit rates decreased at the start of the pandemic and remained lower than in 2019 throughout the study period.

Most physicians provided between 40% and 80% of care virtually. A greater percentage of those who provided more than 80% of care virtually were aged 65 years or older, were women, and practiced in large cities.

Patient comorbidity and morbidity were similar across all categories of virtual care use. The mean number of ED visits was highest among patients whose physicians provided only in-person care (470.3 per 1,000 patients) and was lowest among those whose physicians provided greater than 0% to less than 100% of care virtually (242 per 1,000 patients).

After adjustment for patient characteristics, patients of physicians who provided more than 20% of care virtually had lower rates of ED visits, compared with patients of physicians who provided the least virtual care (for example, greater than 80% to less than 100% versus 0%-20% virtual visits in big cities; relative rate, 0.77). This pattern was consistent across all rurality of practice categories and after adjustment for 2019 ED visit rates.

The investigators observed a gradient in urban areas. Patients of physicians who provided the highest level of virtual care had the lowest ED visit rates.
 

Investigating virtual modalities

Some policymakers worried that inappropriate use of virtual care was leading to an increase in ED use. “Findings of this study refute this hypothesis,” the authors write. Increases in ED use seemed to coincide with decreases in COVID-19 cases, not with increases in virtual primary care visits.

Furthermore, at the population level, patients who were cared for by physicians who provided a high percentage of virtual care did not have a higher rate of ED visits, compared with those cared for by physicians who provided the lowest levels of virtual care.

During the pandemic, the switch to virtual care worked well for some of Dr. Kiran’s patients. It was more convenient, because they didn’t have to take time off work, travel to and from the clinic, find and pay for parking, or wait in the clinic before the appointment, she said.

But for others, “virtual care really didn’t work well,” she said. “This was particularly true for people who didn’t have a regular working phone, who didn’t have a private space to take calls, who weren’t fluent in English, and who were hard of hearing or had severe mental illness that resulted in paranoid thoughts.”

Clinicians also may have had different comfort levels and preferences regarding virtual visits, Dr. Kiran hypothesized. Some found it convenient and efficient, whereas others may have found it cumbersome and inefficient. “I personally find it harder to build relationships with patients when I use virtual care,” she said. “I experience more joy in work with in-person visits, but other clinicians may feel differently.”

Dr. Kiran and her colleagues are conducting a public engagement initiative called OurCare to understand public perspectives on the future of primary care. “As part of that work, we want to understand what virtual modalities are most important to the public and how the public thinks these should be integrated into primary care.”

Virtual care can support access, patient-centered care, and equity in primary care, Dr. Kiran added. “Ideally, it should be integrated into an existing relationship with a family physician and be a complement to in-person visits.”
 

The right dose?

In an accompanying editorial, Jesse M. Pines, MD, chief of clinical innovation at U.S. Acute Care Solutions, Canton, Ohio, writes, “There is no convincing mechanism consistent with the data for the observed outcome of lower ED use at higher telehealth use.”

Additional research is needed, he notes, to answer the “Goldilocks question” – that is, what amount of telehealth optimizes its benefits while minimizing potential problems?

“The right dose of telehealth needs to balance (1) concerns by payers and policymakers that it will increase cost and cause unintended consequences (for example, misdiagnosis or duplicative care) and (2) the desire of its proponents who want to allow clinicians to use it as they see fit, with few restrictions,” writes Dr. Pines.

“Future research would ideally use more robust research design,” he suggested. “For example, randomized trials could test different doses of telehealth, or mixed-methods studies could help elucidate how telehealth may be changing clinical management or care-seeking behavior.”
 

Equitable reimbursement needed

Priya Nori, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at Montefiore Health System and associate professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York, said, “I agree with their conclusions and am reassured about telehealth as a durable form of health care delivery.”

Large, population-level studies such as this one might persuade legislators to require equitable reimbursement for in-person and virtual visits “so providers have comparable incentives to provide both types of care,” she said. “Although only primary care was addressed in the study, I believe that virtual care is here to stay and can be applied to primary care, subspecialty care, and other services, like antimicrobial stewardship, infection prevention, et cetera. We need to embrace it.”

A similar study should be conducted in the United States, along with additional research “to ensure that visits done by telephone have similar outcomes as those done by video, as not all communities have adequate internet access or video conferencing technology,” said Dr. Nori.

The study was supported by ICES and grants from Ontario Health, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Health Systems Research Program of Ontario MOH. Dr. Kiran, Dr. Pines, and Dr. Nori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Improving access to preventive health care services, such as colorectal cancer screening, for the poor and uninsured has led to better health outcomes, shows a study presented on May 6 in Chicago at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, reported that states with expanded Medicaid coverage had significantly higher rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than states where officials refused federal support for Medicaid expansion.

Led by Megan R. McLeod, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of California, Los Angeles, researchers compared CRC screening rates in states that did not adopt Medicaid expansion in 2021 with screening rates in states that invested Medicaid expansion into 1,284 Federally Qualified Health Centers, which are nonprofit health centers or clinics that serve medically underserved areas and populations. In this study, 76% of these centers were in states that accepted Medicaid expansion. The median colorectal cancer screening rate was 42.1% in Medicaid expansion states, compared with 36.5% in nonexpansion states

“The impact of being uninsured on CRC screening participation was profound in nonexpansion states,” said Dr. McLeod, who will be a UCLA gastroenterology fellow this year.

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows Medicaid expansion, which increases access to health care services to previously uninsured or underinsured patients, can improve health outcomes and may reduce racial and economic disparities.

For example, a 2019 study based on electronic health record data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology showed that, after Medicaid expansion, racial differences in timely cancer treatment effectively disappeared. Before Medicaid expansion, Black patients were 4.8% less likely than White patients to receive timely cancer treatment, which is defined as treatment starting within 30 days of the diagnosis of an advanced or metastatic solid tumor. After Medicaid expansion, however, the difference between the racial groups dwindled to 0.8% and was no longer statistically significant.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York reported in 2020 at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases that, 1 year after Medicaid expansion began on Jan. 1, 2014, the rate of liver-related mortality began to decline in 18 states with expanded coverage, whereas the rate of liver-related deaths continued to climb in 14 states that did not expand Medicaid.

The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration funds Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) that serve nearly 29 million patients throughout the country, including a large proportion whose care is covered by Medicaid. Among patients cared for in these centers, one in three have incomes below the federal poverty line, and one in five are uninsured.

Screening rates compared

Dr. McLeod and colleagues sought to determine whether Medicaid expansion would have an effect on CRC screening rates at these centers. The final analysis included 6,940,879 patients (between 50 and 74 years), of whom 1.7% were unhoused and 17.6% were uninsured.

Medicaid expansion status appeared to have a direct impact on whether screenings were even offered to patients. Centers in rural areas and those with a high proportion of uninsured patients were found to have significantly higher odds for doing fewer CRC screenings. In Medicaid expansion states, CRC screening rates were significantly lower for patients who were male, Black, Hispanic, had low income, were unhoused, or were uninsured.

In a Q&A that followed the presentation, Steven Itzkowitz, MD, director of the GI fellowship program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, suggested the type of CRC test patients are offered is directly related to Medicaid expansion status.

“In New York, before Cologuard (a colon and rectal cancer screening test) was covered by Medicaid, it wasn’t used very much, but once it got paid for by Medicaid, rates went up,” he said.

The study was internally supported. Dr. McLeod reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Itzkowitz has been a consultant for Exact Sciences, the maker of Cologuard.

DDW is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – Improving access to preventive health care services, such as colorectal cancer screening, for the poor and uninsured has led to better health outcomes, shows a study presented on May 6 in Chicago at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, reported that states with expanded Medicaid coverage had significantly higher rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than states where officials refused federal support for Medicaid expansion.

Led by Megan R. McLeod, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of California, Los Angeles, researchers compared CRC screening rates in states that did not adopt Medicaid expansion in 2021 with screening rates in states that invested Medicaid expansion into 1,284 Federally Qualified Health Centers, which are nonprofit health centers or clinics that serve medically underserved areas and populations. In this study, 76% of these centers were in states that accepted Medicaid expansion. The median colorectal cancer screening rate was 42.1% in Medicaid expansion states, compared with 36.5% in nonexpansion states

“The impact of being uninsured on CRC screening participation was profound in nonexpansion states,” said Dr. McLeod, who will be a UCLA gastroenterology fellow this year.

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows Medicaid expansion, which increases access to health care services to previously uninsured or underinsured patients, can improve health outcomes and may reduce racial and economic disparities.

For example, a 2019 study based on electronic health record data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology showed that, after Medicaid expansion, racial differences in timely cancer treatment effectively disappeared. Before Medicaid expansion, Black patients were 4.8% less likely than White patients to receive timely cancer treatment, which is defined as treatment starting within 30 days of the diagnosis of an advanced or metastatic solid tumor. After Medicaid expansion, however, the difference between the racial groups dwindled to 0.8% and was no longer statistically significant.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York reported in 2020 at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases that, 1 year after Medicaid expansion began on Jan. 1, 2014, the rate of liver-related mortality began to decline in 18 states with expanded coverage, whereas the rate of liver-related deaths continued to climb in 14 states that did not expand Medicaid.

The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration funds Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) that serve nearly 29 million patients throughout the country, including a large proportion whose care is covered by Medicaid. Among patients cared for in these centers, one in three have incomes below the federal poverty line, and one in five are uninsured.

Screening rates compared

Dr. McLeod and colleagues sought to determine whether Medicaid expansion would have an effect on CRC screening rates at these centers. The final analysis included 6,940,879 patients (between 50 and 74 years), of whom 1.7% were unhoused and 17.6% were uninsured.

Medicaid expansion status appeared to have a direct impact on whether screenings were even offered to patients. Centers in rural areas and those with a high proportion of uninsured patients were found to have significantly higher odds for doing fewer CRC screenings. In Medicaid expansion states, CRC screening rates were significantly lower for patients who were male, Black, Hispanic, had low income, were unhoused, or were uninsured.

In a Q&A that followed the presentation, Steven Itzkowitz, MD, director of the GI fellowship program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, suggested the type of CRC test patients are offered is directly related to Medicaid expansion status.

“In New York, before Cologuard (a colon and rectal cancer screening test) was covered by Medicaid, it wasn’t used very much, but once it got paid for by Medicaid, rates went up,” he said.

The study was internally supported. Dr. McLeod reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Itzkowitz has been a consultant for Exact Sciences, the maker of Cologuard.

DDW is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – Improving access to preventive health care services, such as colorectal cancer screening, for the poor and uninsured has led to better health outcomes, shows a study presented on May 6 in Chicago at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, reported that states with expanded Medicaid coverage had significantly higher rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than states where officials refused federal support for Medicaid expansion.

Led by Megan R. McLeod, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of California, Los Angeles, researchers compared CRC screening rates in states that did not adopt Medicaid expansion in 2021 with screening rates in states that invested Medicaid expansion into 1,284 Federally Qualified Health Centers, which are nonprofit health centers or clinics that serve medically underserved areas and populations. In this study, 76% of these centers were in states that accepted Medicaid expansion. The median colorectal cancer screening rate was 42.1% in Medicaid expansion states, compared with 36.5% in nonexpansion states

“The impact of being uninsured on CRC screening participation was profound in nonexpansion states,” said Dr. McLeod, who will be a UCLA gastroenterology fellow this year.

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows Medicaid expansion, which increases access to health care services to previously uninsured or underinsured patients, can improve health outcomes and may reduce racial and economic disparities.

For example, a 2019 study based on electronic health record data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology showed that, after Medicaid expansion, racial differences in timely cancer treatment effectively disappeared. Before Medicaid expansion, Black patients were 4.8% less likely than White patients to receive timely cancer treatment, which is defined as treatment starting within 30 days of the diagnosis of an advanced or metastatic solid tumor. After Medicaid expansion, however, the difference between the racial groups dwindled to 0.8% and was no longer statistically significant.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York reported in 2020 at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases that, 1 year after Medicaid expansion began on Jan. 1, 2014, the rate of liver-related mortality began to decline in 18 states with expanded coverage, whereas the rate of liver-related deaths continued to climb in 14 states that did not expand Medicaid.

The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration funds Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) that serve nearly 29 million patients throughout the country, including a large proportion whose care is covered by Medicaid. Among patients cared for in these centers, one in three have incomes below the federal poverty line, and one in five are uninsured.

Screening rates compared

Dr. McLeod and colleagues sought to determine whether Medicaid expansion would have an effect on CRC screening rates at these centers. The final analysis included 6,940,879 patients (between 50 and 74 years), of whom 1.7% were unhoused and 17.6% were uninsured.

Medicaid expansion status appeared to have a direct impact on whether screenings were even offered to patients. Centers in rural areas and those with a high proportion of uninsured patients were found to have significantly higher odds for doing fewer CRC screenings. In Medicaid expansion states, CRC screening rates were significantly lower for patients who were male, Black, Hispanic, had low income, were unhoused, or were uninsured.

In a Q&A that followed the presentation, Steven Itzkowitz, MD, director of the GI fellowship program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, suggested the type of CRC test patients are offered is directly related to Medicaid expansion status.

“In New York, before Cologuard (a colon and rectal cancer screening test) was covered by Medicaid, it wasn’t used very much, but once it got paid for by Medicaid, rates went up,” he said.

The study was internally supported. Dr. McLeod reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Itzkowitz has been a consultant for Exact Sciences, the maker of Cologuard.

DDW is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

A health system serving three Midwest states must pay millions to the parents of a now 10-year-old boy whose meningitis was misdiagnosed at birth, according to a report in the Star Tribune, among other news outlets.

The story of the jury verdict begins in 2013, when the boy, Johnny Galligan, was just 8 days old.

Alarmed by the newborn’s crying, lack of appetite, and fever, his parents, Alina and Steve Galligan, brought him to Essentia-Health-Ashland Clinic, located in Memorial Medical Center, Ashland, Wisc. There, the baby was seen by Andrew D. Snider, MD, a family physician. Dr. Snider noted the baby’s extreme fussiness and irritability and was concerned that he was being overfed. Without ordering additional tests, the family physician sent the baby home but arranged for the Galligans to be visited by a county nurse the following day.

Her visit raised concerns, as court documents make clear. She contacted Dr. Snider’s office and explained that the baby needed to be seen immediately. After writing a script for reflux and constipation, Dr. Snider arranged for the baby to be taken to his office later that day.

Events proceeded rapidly from this point.

Following an x-ray, Johnny appeared lethargic and in respiratory distress. He was then taken down the hall to Memorial’s emergency department, where doctors suspected a critical bowel obstruction. Arrangements were made for him to be transported by helicopter to Essentia Health, Duluth, Minn. There, doctors saw that Johnny was acidotic and in respiratory failure. Once again, he was rerouted, this time to Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis, where physicians finally arrived at a definitive diagnosis: meningitis.

In 2020, the Galligans filed a medical malpractice claim against several parties, including Dr. Snider, Duluth Clinic (doing business as Essentia Health and Essentia Health–Ashland Clinic), and Memorial Hospital. In their suit, Johnny’s parents alleged that the collective failure to diagnose their son’s severe infection led directly to his permanent brain damage.

But a Bayfield County, Wisconsin, jury didn’t quite see things that way. After deliberating, it dismissed the claim against Dr. Snider and the other named defendants and found the staff of Duluth Clinic to be solely responsible for injuries to Johnny Galligan.

Duluth must pay $19 million to the Galligan family, of which the largest amount ($7,500,00) is to be directed to Johnny’s “future medical expenses and care needs.”

These expenses and costs are likely to be significant. Currently, at 10 years of age, Johnny can’t walk and is confined to a wheelchair. He has serious neurologic problems and is almost completely deaf and blind.

“He’s doing fairly well, which I attribute to his family providing care for him,” says the attorney who represented the Galligans. “They care for him 24/7. They take him swimming and on four-wheeler rides. He’s not bedridden. He has the best possible quality of life he could have, in my opinion.”

In a statement following the verdict, Essentia Health said that, while it felt “compassion for the family,” it stood by the care it had provided in 2013: “We are exploring our options regarding next steps and remain committed to delivering high-quality care to the patients and communities we are privileged to serve.”
 

ED physician found not liable for embolism, jury finds

A Missouri doctor accused of incorrectly treating a woman’s embolism has been found not liable for her death, reports a story in Missouri Lawyers Media.

The woman went to her local hospital’s ED complaining of pain and swelling in her leg. At the ED, an emergency physician examined her and discovered an extensive, visible thrombosis. No other symptoms were noted.

In the past, such a finding would have prompted immediate hospital admission. But the standard of care has evolved. Now, many doctors first prescribe enoxaparin sodium (Lovenox), an anticoagulant used to treat deep-vein thrombosis. This was the option chosen by the Missouri emergency physician to treat his patient. After administering a first dose of the drug, he wrote a script for additional doses; consulted with his patient’s primary care physician; and arranged for the patient to be seen by him, the ED physician, the following day.

At the drugstore, though, the woman became ill, and an emergency medical services crew was alerted. Despite its quick response, the woman died en route to the hospital. No autopsy was later performed, and it was generally presumed that she had died of a pulmonary embolism.

Following the woman’s death, her family sued the emergency physician, alleging that his failure to admit the woman to the hospital most likely delayed treatment that could have saved her life.

The defense pushed back, arguing that the ED physician had followed the standard of care. “Even if she [had] come into the ER with full-blown [pulmonary embolism],” says the attorney representing the emergency physician, “the first thing you do is give Lovenox. It is just one of those rare circumstances where you can do everything right, but the patient can still die.”

The trial jury agreed. After deliberating for more than an hour, it found that the emergency physician was not responsible for the patient’s death.

At press time, there was no word on whether the plaintiffs planned to appeal.

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

A health system serving three Midwest states must pay millions to the parents of a now 10-year-old boy whose meningitis was misdiagnosed at birth, according to a report in the Star Tribune, among other news outlets.

The story of the jury verdict begins in 2013, when the boy, Johnny Galligan, was just 8 days old.

Alarmed by the newborn’s crying, lack of appetite, and fever, his parents, Alina and Steve Galligan, brought him to Essentia-Health-Ashland Clinic, located in Memorial Medical Center, Ashland, Wisc. There, the baby was seen by Andrew D. Snider, MD, a family physician. Dr. Snider noted the baby’s extreme fussiness and irritability and was concerned that he was being overfed. Without ordering additional tests, the family physician sent the baby home but arranged for the Galligans to be visited by a county nurse the following day.

Her visit raised concerns, as court documents make clear. She contacted Dr. Snider’s office and explained that the baby needed to be seen immediately. After writing a script for reflux and constipation, Dr. Snider arranged for the baby to be taken to his office later that day.

Events proceeded rapidly from this point.

Following an x-ray, Johnny appeared lethargic and in respiratory distress. He was then taken down the hall to Memorial’s emergency department, where doctors suspected a critical bowel obstruction. Arrangements were made for him to be transported by helicopter to Essentia Health, Duluth, Minn. There, doctors saw that Johnny was acidotic and in respiratory failure. Once again, he was rerouted, this time to Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis, where physicians finally arrived at a definitive diagnosis: meningitis.

In 2020, the Galligans filed a medical malpractice claim against several parties, including Dr. Snider, Duluth Clinic (doing business as Essentia Health and Essentia Health–Ashland Clinic), and Memorial Hospital. In their suit, Johnny’s parents alleged that the collective failure to diagnose their son’s severe infection led directly to his permanent brain damage.

But a Bayfield County, Wisconsin, jury didn’t quite see things that way. After deliberating, it dismissed the claim against Dr. Snider and the other named defendants and found the staff of Duluth Clinic to be solely responsible for injuries to Johnny Galligan.

Duluth must pay $19 million to the Galligan family, of which the largest amount ($7,500,00) is to be directed to Johnny’s “future medical expenses and care needs.”

These expenses and costs are likely to be significant. Currently, at 10 years of age, Johnny can’t walk and is confined to a wheelchair. He has serious neurologic problems and is almost completely deaf and blind.

“He’s doing fairly well, which I attribute to his family providing care for him,” says the attorney who represented the Galligans. “They care for him 24/7. They take him swimming and on four-wheeler rides. He’s not bedridden. He has the best possible quality of life he could have, in my opinion.”

In a statement following the verdict, Essentia Health said that, while it felt “compassion for the family,” it stood by the care it had provided in 2013: “We are exploring our options regarding next steps and remain committed to delivering high-quality care to the patients and communities we are privileged to serve.”
 

ED physician found not liable for embolism, jury finds

A Missouri doctor accused of incorrectly treating a woman’s embolism has been found not liable for her death, reports a story in Missouri Lawyers Media.

The woman went to her local hospital’s ED complaining of pain and swelling in her leg. At the ED, an emergency physician examined her and discovered an extensive, visible thrombosis. No other symptoms were noted.

In the past, such a finding would have prompted immediate hospital admission. But the standard of care has evolved. Now, many doctors first prescribe enoxaparin sodium (Lovenox), an anticoagulant used to treat deep-vein thrombosis. This was the option chosen by the Missouri emergency physician to treat his patient. After administering a first dose of the drug, he wrote a script for additional doses; consulted with his patient’s primary care physician; and arranged for the patient to be seen by him, the ED physician, the following day.

At the drugstore, though, the woman became ill, and an emergency medical services crew was alerted. Despite its quick response, the woman died en route to the hospital. No autopsy was later performed, and it was generally presumed that she had died of a pulmonary embolism.

Following the woman’s death, her family sued the emergency physician, alleging that his failure to admit the woman to the hospital most likely delayed treatment that could have saved her life.

The defense pushed back, arguing that the ED physician had followed the standard of care. “Even if she [had] come into the ER with full-blown [pulmonary embolism],” says the attorney representing the emergency physician, “the first thing you do is give Lovenox. It is just one of those rare circumstances where you can do everything right, but the patient can still die.”

The trial jury agreed. After deliberating for more than an hour, it found that the emergency physician was not responsible for the patient’s death.

At press time, there was no word on whether the plaintiffs planned to appeal.

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

A health system serving three Midwest states must pay millions to the parents of a now 10-year-old boy whose meningitis was misdiagnosed at birth, according to a report in the Star Tribune, among other news outlets.

The story of the jury verdict begins in 2013, when the boy, Johnny Galligan, was just 8 days old.

Alarmed by the newborn’s crying, lack of appetite, and fever, his parents, Alina and Steve Galligan, brought him to Essentia-Health-Ashland Clinic, located in Memorial Medical Center, Ashland, Wisc. There, the baby was seen by Andrew D. Snider, MD, a family physician. Dr. Snider noted the baby’s extreme fussiness and irritability and was concerned that he was being overfed. Without ordering additional tests, the family physician sent the baby home but arranged for the Galligans to be visited by a county nurse the following day.

Her visit raised concerns, as court documents make clear. She contacted Dr. Snider’s office and explained that the baby needed to be seen immediately. After writing a script for reflux and constipation, Dr. Snider arranged for the baby to be taken to his office later that day.

Events proceeded rapidly from this point.

Following an x-ray, Johnny appeared lethargic and in respiratory distress. He was then taken down the hall to Memorial’s emergency department, where doctors suspected a critical bowel obstruction. Arrangements were made for him to be transported by helicopter to Essentia Health, Duluth, Minn. There, doctors saw that Johnny was acidotic and in respiratory failure. Once again, he was rerouted, this time to Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis, where physicians finally arrived at a definitive diagnosis: meningitis.

In 2020, the Galligans filed a medical malpractice claim against several parties, including Dr. Snider, Duluth Clinic (doing business as Essentia Health and Essentia Health–Ashland Clinic), and Memorial Hospital. In their suit, Johnny’s parents alleged that the collective failure to diagnose their son’s severe infection led directly to his permanent brain damage.

But a Bayfield County, Wisconsin, jury didn’t quite see things that way. After deliberating, it dismissed the claim against Dr. Snider and the other named defendants and found the staff of Duluth Clinic to be solely responsible for injuries to Johnny Galligan.

Duluth must pay $19 million to the Galligan family, of which the largest amount ($7,500,00) is to be directed to Johnny’s “future medical expenses and care needs.”

These expenses and costs are likely to be significant. Currently, at 10 years of age, Johnny can’t walk and is confined to a wheelchair. He has serious neurologic problems and is almost completely deaf and blind.

“He’s doing fairly well, which I attribute to his family providing care for him,” says the attorney who represented the Galligans. “They care for him 24/7. They take him swimming and on four-wheeler rides. He’s not bedridden. He has the best possible quality of life he could have, in my opinion.”

In a statement following the verdict, Essentia Health said that, while it felt “compassion for the family,” it stood by the care it had provided in 2013: “We are exploring our options regarding next steps and remain committed to delivering high-quality care to the patients and communities we are privileged to serve.”
 

ED physician found not liable for embolism, jury finds

A Missouri doctor accused of incorrectly treating a woman’s embolism has been found not liable for her death, reports a story in Missouri Lawyers Media.

The woman went to her local hospital’s ED complaining of pain and swelling in her leg. At the ED, an emergency physician examined her and discovered an extensive, visible thrombosis. No other symptoms were noted.

In the past, such a finding would have prompted immediate hospital admission. But the standard of care has evolved. Now, many doctors first prescribe enoxaparin sodium (Lovenox), an anticoagulant used to treat deep-vein thrombosis. This was the option chosen by the Missouri emergency physician to treat his patient. After administering a first dose of the drug, he wrote a script for additional doses; consulted with his patient’s primary care physician; and arranged for the patient to be seen by him, the ED physician, the following day.

At the drugstore, though, the woman became ill, and an emergency medical services crew was alerted. Despite its quick response, the woman died en route to the hospital. No autopsy was later performed, and it was generally presumed that she had died of a pulmonary embolism.

Following the woman’s death, her family sued the emergency physician, alleging that his failure to admit the woman to the hospital most likely delayed treatment that could have saved her life.

The defense pushed back, arguing that the ED physician had followed the standard of care. “Even if she [had] come into the ER with full-blown [pulmonary embolism],” says the attorney representing the emergency physician, “the first thing you do is give Lovenox. It is just one of those rare circumstances where you can do everything right, but the patient can still die.”

The trial jury agreed. After deliberating for more than an hour, it found that the emergency physician was not responsible for the patient’s death.

At press time, there was no word on whether the plaintiffs planned to appeal.

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

Using artificial intelligence to analyze large amounts of information from social media platforms generated some novel insights into public perceptions about statins, results of a new study show.

The study, which used AI to analyze discussions about statins on the social media platform Reddit, corroborated previously documented reasons for statin hesitancy, including adverse effect profiles and general disenfranchisement with health care.

But it also found novel points of discourse, including linking statins to COVID-19 outcomes and the role of cholesterol, statins, and the ketogenic diet.

“We used AI to tell us what is being discussed about statins on social media and to quantify the information in topics that people think are important,” senior study author Fatima Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, said in an interview.

“Some of the themes were surprising to us. While we expected discussion on side effects, we were surprised to see so much discussion refuting the idea that increased levels of LDL were detrimental. There were also a large amount of posts on statin use being correlated to COVID outcomes. Our findings show how widespread this misinformation is,” she said.

“As a preventative cardiologist, I spend a lot of my time trying to get patients to take statins, but patients often rely on social media for information, and this can contain a lot of misinformation. People tend to be more honest on online forums than they are in the doctor’s office, so they are probably asking the questions and having discussions on subjects they really care about. So, understanding what is being discussed on social media is very valuable information for us as clinicians.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers analyzed all statin-related discussions on Reddit that were dated between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 12, 2022. Statin- and cholesterol-focused communities were identified to create a list of statin-related discussions. An AI pipeline was developed to cluster these discussions into specific topics and overarching thematic groups.

A total of 10,233 unique statin-related discussions and 5,188 unique authors were identified. A total of 100 discussion topics were identified and classified into six overarching thematic groups: (1) ketogenic diets, diabetes, supplements, and statins; (2) statin adverse effects; (3) statin hesitancy; (4) clinical trial appraisals; (5) pharmaceutical industry bias and statins; and (6) red yeast rice and statins.

Several examples of statin-related misinformation were identified, including distrust of the hypothesis that LDL-C has a causal association with heart disease. Discussions included quotes such as, “I think LDL is pretty much irrelevant. Your HDL and triglycerides are far more important.”

Other topics suggested that certain natural supplements would be an acceptable alternative to statins. Quotes included: “Red yeast rice is a statin basically, by the way,” and “statins are basically mycotoxins and deplete you of fat-soluble nutrients, like coQ10, vit D, K, A and E, and in all likelihood through these depletions worsen cardiovascular health.”

The researchers also looked at temporal trends and found that these sorts of discussions have increased over time.

One of the common themes identified was using the ketogenic diet phenomenon as an argument against increased cholesterol levels being bad for health.

Dr. Rodriguez elaborated: “People think the ketogenic diet is healthy as they lose weight on it. And as it can be associated with a small increase in LDL cholesterol, there was a lot of opinion that this meant increasing LDL was a good thing.”

The researchers also conducted a sentiment analysis, which designated topics as positive, negative, or neutral with regard to statins.  

“We found that almost no topic was positive. Everything was either neutral or negative. This is pretty consistent with what we are seeing around hesitancy in clinical practice, but you would think that maybe a few people may have a positive view on statins,” Dr. Rodriguez commented.

“One of the problems with statins and lowering cholesterol is that it takes a long time to see a benefit, but this misinformation will result in some people not taking their medication,” she added.

Dr. Rodriguez noted that in this study AI is augmenting, not replacing, what clinicians and researchers do. “But it is a valuable tool to scan a large volume of information, and we have shown here it can generate new insights that we may not have thought of. It’s important to know what’s out there so we can try and combat it.” 

She pointed out that patients don’t read the medical literature showing the benefits of statins but rather rely on social media for their information. 

“We need to understand all sorts of patient engagement and use the same tools to combat this misinformation. We have a responsibility to try and stop dangerous and false information from being propagated,” she commented.

“These drugs are clearly not dangerous when used in line with clinical guidelines, and they have been proven to have multiple benefits again and again, but we don’t see those kinds of discussions in the community at all. We as clinicians need to use social media and AI to give out the right information. This could start to combat all the misinformation out there.”

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

Using artificial intelligence to analyze large amounts of information from social media platforms generated some novel insights into public perceptions about statins, results of a new study show.

The study, which used AI to analyze discussions about statins on the social media platform Reddit, corroborated previously documented reasons for statin hesitancy, including adverse effect profiles and general disenfranchisement with health care.

But it also found novel points of discourse, including linking statins to COVID-19 outcomes and the role of cholesterol, statins, and the ketogenic diet.

“We used AI to tell us what is being discussed about statins on social media and to quantify the information in topics that people think are important,” senior study author Fatima Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, said in an interview.

“Some of the themes were surprising to us. While we expected discussion on side effects, we were surprised to see so much discussion refuting the idea that increased levels of LDL were detrimental. There were also a large amount of posts on statin use being correlated to COVID outcomes. Our findings show how widespread this misinformation is,” she said.

“As a preventative cardiologist, I spend a lot of my time trying to get patients to take statins, but patients often rely on social media for information, and this can contain a lot of misinformation. People tend to be more honest on online forums than they are in the doctor’s office, so they are probably asking the questions and having discussions on subjects they really care about. So, understanding what is being discussed on social media is very valuable information for us as clinicians.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers analyzed all statin-related discussions on Reddit that were dated between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 12, 2022. Statin- and cholesterol-focused communities were identified to create a list of statin-related discussions. An AI pipeline was developed to cluster these discussions into specific topics and overarching thematic groups.

A total of 10,233 unique statin-related discussions and 5,188 unique authors were identified. A total of 100 discussion topics were identified and classified into six overarching thematic groups: (1) ketogenic diets, diabetes, supplements, and statins; (2) statin adverse effects; (3) statin hesitancy; (4) clinical trial appraisals; (5) pharmaceutical industry bias and statins; and (6) red yeast rice and statins.

Several examples of statin-related misinformation were identified, including distrust of the hypothesis that LDL-C has a causal association with heart disease. Discussions included quotes such as, “I think LDL is pretty much irrelevant. Your HDL and triglycerides are far more important.”

Other topics suggested that certain natural supplements would be an acceptable alternative to statins. Quotes included: “Red yeast rice is a statin basically, by the way,” and “statins are basically mycotoxins and deplete you of fat-soluble nutrients, like coQ10, vit D, K, A and E, and in all likelihood through these depletions worsen cardiovascular health.”

The researchers also looked at temporal trends and found that these sorts of discussions have increased over time.

One of the common themes identified was using the ketogenic diet phenomenon as an argument against increased cholesterol levels being bad for health.

Dr. Rodriguez elaborated: “People think the ketogenic diet is healthy as they lose weight on it. And as it can be associated with a small increase in LDL cholesterol, there was a lot of opinion that this meant increasing LDL was a good thing.”

The researchers also conducted a sentiment analysis, which designated topics as positive, negative, or neutral with regard to statins.  

“We found that almost no topic was positive. Everything was either neutral or negative. This is pretty consistent with what we are seeing around hesitancy in clinical practice, but you would think that maybe a few people may have a positive view on statins,” Dr. Rodriguez commented.

“One of the problems with statins and lowering cholesterol is that it takes a long time to see a benefit, but this misinformation will result in some people not taking their medication,” she added.

Dr. Rodriguez noted that in this study AI is augmenting, not replacing, what clinicians and researchers do. “But it is a valuable tool to scan a large volume of information, and we have shown here it can generate new insights that we may not have thought of. It’s important to know what’s out there so we can try and combat it.” 

She pointed out that patients don’t read the medical literature showing the benefits of statins but rather rely on social media for their information. 

“We need to understand all sorts of patient engagement and use the same tools to combat this misinformation. We have a responsibility to try and stop dangerous and false information from being propagated,” she commented.

“These drugs are clearly not dangerous when used in line with clinical guidelines, and they have been proven to have multiple benefits again and again, but we don’t see those kinds of discussions in the community at all. We as clinicians need to use social media and AI to give out the right information. This could start to combat all the misinformation out there.”

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

Using artificial intelligence to analyze large amounts of information from social media platforms generated some novel insights into public perceptions about statins, results of a new study show.

The study, which used AI to analyze discussions about statins on the social media platform Reddit, corroborated previously documented reasons for statin hesitancy, including adverse effect profiles and general disenfranchisement with health care.

But it also found novel points of discourse, including linking statins to COVID-19 outcomes and the role of cholesterol, statins, and the ketogenic diet.

“We used AI to tell us what is being discussed about statins on social media and to quantify the information in topics that people think are important,” senior study author Fatima Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, said in an interview.

“Some of the themes were surprising to us. While we expected discussion on side effects, we were surprised to see so much discussion refuting the idea that increased levels of LDL were detrimental. There were also a large amount of posts on statin use being correlated to COVID outcomes. Our findings show how widespread this misinformation is,” she said.

“As a preventative cardiologist, I spend a lot of my time trying to get patients to take statins, but patients often rely on social media for information, and this can contain a lot of misinformation. People tend to be more honest on online forums than they are in the doctor’s office, so they are probably asking the questions and having discussions on subjects they really care about. So, understanding what is being discussed on social media is very valuable information for us as clinicians.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers analyzed all statin-related discussions on Reddit that were dated between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 12, 2022. Statin- and cholesterol-focused communities were identified to create a list of statin-related discussions. An AI pipeline was developed to cluster these discussions into specific topics and overarching thematic groups.

A total of 10,233 unique statin-related discussions and 5,188 unique authors were identified. A total of 100 discussion topics were identified and classified into six overarching thematic groups: (1) ketogenic diets, diabetes, supplements, and statins; (2) statin adverse effects; (3) statin hesitancy; (4) clinical trial appraisals; (5) pharmaceutical industry bias and statins; and (6) red yeast rice and statins.

Several examples of statin-related misinformation were identified, including distrust of the hypothesis that LDL-C has a causal association with heart disease. Discussions included quotes such as, “I think LDL is pretty much irrelevant. Your HDL and triglycerides are far more important.”

Other topics suggested that certain natural supplements would be an acceptable alternative to statins. Quotes included: “Red yeast rice is a statin basically, by the way,” and “statins are basically mycotoxins and deplete you of fat-soluble nutrients, like coQ10, vit D, K, A and E, and in all likelihood through these depletions worsen cardiovascular health.”

The researchers also looked at temporal trends and found that these sorts of discussions have increased over time.

One of the common themes identified was using the ketogenic diet phenomenon as an argument against increased cholesterol levels being bad for health.

Dr. Rodriguez elaborated: “People think the ketogenic diet is healthy as they lose weight on it. And as it can be associated with a small increase in LDL cholesterol, there was a lot of opinion that this meant increasing LDL was a good thing.”

The researchers also conducted a sentiment analysis, which designated topics as positive, negative, or neutral with regard to statins.  

“We found that almost no topic was positive. Everything was either neutral or negative. This is pretty consistent with what we are seeing around hesitancy in clinical practice, but you would think that maybe a few people may have a positive view on statins,” Dr. Rodriguez commented.

“One of the problems with statins and lowering cholesterol is that it takes a long time to see a benefit, but this misinformation will result in some people not taking their medication,” she added.

Dr. Rodriguez noted that in this study AI is augmenting, not replacing, what clinicians and researchers do. “But it is a valuable tool to scan a large volume of information, and we have shown here it can generate new insights that we may not have thought of. It’s important to know what’s out there so we can try and combat it.” 

She pointed out that patients don’t read the medical literature showing the benefits of statins but rather rely on social media for their information. 

“We need to understand all sorts of patient engagement and use the same tools to combat this misinformation. We have a responsibility to try and stop dangerous and false information from being propagated,” she commented.

“These drugs are clearly not dangerous when used in line with clinical guidelines, and they have been proven to have multiple benefits again and again, but we don’t see those kinds of discussions in the community at all. We as clinicians need to use social media and AI to give out the right information. This could start to combat all the misinformation out there.”

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

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The U.S. federal government wrote duplicate checks to private doctors who treated veterans, costing taxpayers up to $128 million in extra payments over 5 years, a new report by a federal watchdog revealed in April.
 

Private doctors were paid twice in nearly 300,000 cases from 2017 to 2021 involving veterans who were eligible for Veterans Health Administration and Medicare benefits, according to the report by the Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General.

The doctors were paid by Medicare for medical services that the VHA had authorized and already paid for, the OIG reported after it conducted a 5-year audit.

Duplicate Medicare payments have doubled from $22 million in 2019 when the Veterans Community Care Program was implemented to $45 million in 2021, according to the OIG report. The program allows veterans to seek care from private doctors when the VHA can’t provide the care they need.

Roughly 1.9 million veterans every year receive government-paid health care from private doctors.

The OIG said it decided to audit Medicare’s claims because “duplicate payments were a long-standing issue.”

The problem dates back to a 1979 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) report that found Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs VHA made duplicate payments of more than $72,000 for certain medical services provided to veterans, the OIG reported.

The HHS OIG’s audit examined $19.2 billion in Medicare payments for 36 million claims for individuals who enrolled in Medicare and were eligible for VA services. About 90% of those claims were for doctor evaluations and visits, according to the OIG report.

The OIG found “these duplicate payments occurred because CMS did not implement controls to address duplicate payments for services provided to individuals with Medicare and VHA benefits.”

Specifically, the OIG found that the CMS and the VHA were not sharing enrollment, claims, and payment data with each other, as required by federal law.

If CMS had access to that information, the agency could have compared the VHA claims data with existing Medicare claims data to identify duplicate claims, the OIG claimed.

The OIG recommended that CMS take the following four steps to fix the problem, which CMS has agreed to do, according to the report:

• Integrate VHA enrollment, claims, and payment data into the CMS centralized claims data system so it can identify potential fraud, waste, and abuse under the Medicare program.
• Issue guidance to medical professionals on not billing Medicare for a medical service that was authorized by the VHA.
• Establish a comprehensive data-sharing agreement with the VHA.
• Establish an internal process (such as system edits) to address duplicate payments.

“CMS previously informed [the OIG] that establishing a long-term solution to address duplicate payments will take time,” the OIG reported.

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

The U.S. federal government wrote duplicate checks to private doctors who treated veterans, costing taxpayers up to $128 million in extra payments over 5 years, a new report by a federal watchdog revealed in April.
 

Private doctors were paid twice in nearly 300,000 cases from 2017 to 2021 involving veterans who were eligible for Veterans Health Administration and Medicare benefits, according to the report by the Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General.

The doctors were paid by Medicare for medical services that the VHA had authorized and already paid for, the OIG reported after it conducted a 5-year audit.

Duplicate Medicare payments have doubled from $22 million in 2019 when the Veterans Community Care Program was implemented to $45 million in 2021, according to the OIG report. The program allows veterans to seek care from private doctors when the VHA can’t provide the care they need.

Roughly 1.9 million veterans every year receive government-paid health care from private doctors.

The OIG said it decided to audit Medicare’s claims because “duplicate payments were a long-standing issue.”

The problem dates back to a 1979 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) report that found Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs VHA made duplicate payments of more than $72,000 for certain medical services provided to veterans, the OIG reported.

The HHS OIG’s audit examined $19.2 billion in Medicare payments for 36 million claims for individuals who enrolled in Medicare and were eligible for VA services. About 90% of those claims were for doctor evaluations and visits, according to the OIG report.

The OIG found “these duplicate payments occurred because CMS did not implement controls to address duplicate payments for services provided to individuals with Medicare and VHA benefits.”

Specifically, the OIG found that the CMS and the VHA were not sharing enrollment, claims, and payment data with each other, as required by federal law.

If CMS had access to that information, the agency could have compared the VHA claims data with existing Medicare claims data to identify duplicate claims, the OIG claimed.

The OIG recommended that CMS take the following four steps to fix the problem, which CMS has agreed to do, according to the report:

• Integrate VHA enrollment, claims, and payment data into the CMS centralized claims data system so it can identify potential fraud, waste, and abuse under the Medicare program.
• Issue guidance to medical professionals on not billing Medicare for a medical service that was authorized by the VHA.
• Establish a comprehensive data-sharing agreement with the VHA.
• Establish an internal process (such as system edits) to address duplicate payments.

“CMS previously informed [the OIG] that establishing a long-term solution to address duplicate payments will take time,” the OIG reported.

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

The U.S. federal government wrote duplicate checks to private doctors who treated veterans, costing taxpayers up to $128 million in extra payments over 5 years, a new report by a federal watchdog revealed in April.
 

Private doctors were paid twice in nearly 300,000 cases from 2017 to 2021 involving veterans who were eligible for Veterans Health Administration and Medicare benefits, according to the report by the Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General.

The doctors were paid by Medicare for medical services that the VHA had authorized and already paid for, the OIG reported after it conducted a 5-year audit.

Duplicate Medicare payments have doubled from $22 million in 2019 when the Veterans Community Care Program was implemented to $45 million in 2021, according to the OIG report. The program allows veterans to seek care from private doctors when the VHA can’t provide the care they need.

Roughly 1.9 million veterans every year receive government-paid health care from private doctors.

The OIG said it decided to audit Medicare’s claims because “duplicate payments were a long-standing issue.”

The problem dates back to a 1979 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) report that found Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs VHA made duplicate payments of more than $72,000 for certain medical services provided to veterans, the OIG reported.

The HHS OIG’s audit examined $19.2 billion in Medicare payments for 36 million claims for individuals who enrolled in Medicare and were eligible for VA services. About 90% of those claims were for doctor evaluations and visits, according to the OIG report.

The OIG found “these duplicate payments occurred because CMS did not implement controls to address duplicate payments for services provided to individuals with Medicare and VHA benefits.”

Specifically, the OIG found that the CMS and the VHA were not sharing enrollment, claims, and payment data with each other, as required by federal law.

If CMS had access to that information, the agency could have compared the VHA claims data with existing Medicare claims data to identify duplicate claims, the OIG claimed.

The OIG recommended that CMS take the following four steps to fix the problem, which CMS has agreed to do, according to the report:

• Integrate VHA enrollment, claims, and payment data into the CMS centralized claims data system so it can identify potential fraud, waste, and abuse under the Medicare program.
• Issue guidance to medical professionals on not billing Medicare for a medical service that was authorized by the VHA.
• Establish a comprehensive data-sharing agreement with the VHA.
• Establish an internal process (such as system edits) to address duplicate payments.

“CMS previously informed [the OIG] that establishing a long-term solution to address duplicate payments will take time,” the OIG reported.

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

Tens of millions of Americans use menstrual products, and while manufacturers contend they are safe, most disclose little about the chemicals they contain. Now, amid calls for more disclosure and research into the health effects of these products, some states require more transparency.

The manufacture and sale of period and related products is a big business, with revenue expected to top $4.5 billion in the United States this year. On average, a person uses up to 17,000 tampons or pads in their lifetime, and they might also use rubber or silicone cups, or absorbent period underwear.

The FDA regulates and classifies menstrual products as medical devices, meaning they are not subject to the same labeling laws as other consumer items. But companies can voluntarily disclose what’s in their products.

Now, some states are stepping into the breach. In 2021, New York became the first state to enact a menstrual product disclosure law requiring companies to list all intentionally added ingredients on packaging. California’s governor signed a similar law that took effect this year, but it gives manufacturers trade secret protections, so not all ingredients are necessarily disclosed. At least six other states have introduced legislation to address safety and disclosure of ingredients in these products.

Advocacy groups studying the effects of the New York law say the new labels have revealed commonly found ingredients in menstrual products that may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and allergens.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah, an assistant professor of environmental, reproductive, and women’s health at Harvard University, Boston, evaluates endocrine disruptors in personal care products and studies menstrual health. She said the health risk depends on the dose, duration, and sensitivity of a person to the ingredients and their mixtures.

Harmful chemicals could come from manufacturing processes, through materials and shipping, from equipment cleaners, from contact with contaminants, or from companies adding them intentionally, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit focused on eliminating toxic chemicals that affect women’s health.

Vaginal and vulvar tissues are capable of absorbing fluids at a higher rate than skin, which can lead to rapid chemical exposure. Ms. Scranton said scarcity of clinical studies and funding for vaginal health research limits understanding about the long-term effects of the ingredients and additives in period products.

“We think manufacturers should do better and be more careful with the ingredients they choose to use,” Ms. Scranton said. “The presence of toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products is unsettling. We know that chemicals can cause disease, and exposures do add up over time.”

Ms. Scranton’s organization advocates for labels to include the chemical name of the ingredient, the component in which the ingredient is used, and the function of the ingredient.

K. Malaika Walton, operations director for the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, a trade industry group, said in an email, “BAHP supports accurate and transparent information for users of period products and many of our member companies list ingredients on their packages and websites.”

In a written statement, Procter & Gamble, a major manufacturer of menstrual products, said that ingredients it uses go through rigorous safety evaluations and are continuously tested, and that all fragrance components are added at levels the industry considers safe.

Even though manufacturing of scented tampons for the U.S. market has mostly stopped, companies still use fragrances in other menstrual products. Laws protecting trade secrets keep details about fragrances in pads and tampons confidential so competitors can’t copy the formulas. The Children’s Environmental Health Network lists phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly called plasticizers, that are suspected hormone disruptors, as an ingredient found in fragrances.

Manufacturers follow regulatory guidance issued in 2005 by registering with the Food and Drug Administration and submitting a detailed risk assessment of their products’ components and design, and a safety profile, before being cleared to sell in the United States.

Pads and menstrual cups are considered exempt from regulatory guidance and do not require premarket review, according to FDA spokesperson Carly Kempler. While tampons do require review, the FDA “does not clear or approve individual materials that are used in the fabrication of medical devices.”

“There’s an understanding that the FDA is regulating these products, and they are; it’s just not very adequate,” said Laura Strausfeld, an attorney and a cofounder of Period Law, an organization working to advance state and federal period-equity policies that would stop taxation of products and make them freely available in places like schools and prisons. “The consumer is supposed to trust that when these products are put on shelves they’ve been vetted by the government. But it’s basically a rubber stamp.”

In a 2022 report, a congressional committee directed the FDA to update its guidance for menstrual products to recommend that labels disclose intentionally added ingredients, such as fragrances, and test for contaminants. The FDA is reviewing the directives outlined by the House Appropriations Committee and will update the 2005 guidance as soon as possible, Ms. Kempler said. “We will share additional details when we are able to.”

At least one period product company makes disclosure of its ingredients a selling point. Alex Friedman, cofounder of Lola, said a lack of knowledge is a problem, and more action and awareness are needed to keep people safe.

“The hardest part to swallow is why this is even up for debate. We should all know what’s in these products,” Ms. Friedman said.

New York’s law requires companies to disclose all intentionally added ingredients no matter how much is used, with no trade secret protections for fragrances. Though it applies only to products sold in that state, similar detailed labeling is appearing elsewhere, advocates said.

“We’re also seeing similar or identical disclosure on packaging in other states outside of New York, which is a testament to the power of the law,” said Jamie McConnell, deputy director of Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Manufacturers have 18 months from the passage of the New York law to comply, and some products on shelves in New York still list few ingredients other than “absorbent material,” “surfactant,” “ink,” and “adhesive.”

“We’re like, ‘OK, what is that exactly?’ ” Ms. McConnell said.

Her organization is calling for a federal law at least as strong as New York’s. Previous federal legislation failed to advance, including the most recent, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, introduced in 2022.

BAHP, the trade group, supported the federal legislation and the California law. Ms. McConnell said she opposed both bills because they didn’t require companies to list all fragrance ingredients.

“I think what it boiled down to at the federal level was the support of corporate interests over public health,” she said.
 

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

Tens of millions of Americans use menstrual products, and while manufacturers contend they are safe, most disclose little about the chemicals they contain. Now, amid calls for more disclosure and research into the health effects of these products, some states require more transparency.

The manufacture and sale of period and related products is a big business, with revenue expected to top $4.5 billion in the United States this year. On average, a person uses up to 17,000 tampons or pads in their lifetime, and they might also use rubber or silicone cups, or absorbent period underwear.

The FDA regulates and classifies menstrual products as medical devices, meaning they are not subject to the same labeling laws as other consumer items. But companies can voluntarily disclose what’s in their products.

Now, some states are stepping into the breach. In 2021, New York became the first state to enact a menstrual product disclosure law requiring companies to list all intentionally added ingredients on packaging. California’s governor signed a similar law that took effect this year, but it gives manufacturers trade secret protections, so not all ingredients are necessarily disclosed. At least six other states have introduced legislation to address safety and disclosure of ingredients in these products.

Advocacy groups studying the effects of the New York law say the new labels have revealed commonly found ingredients in menstrual products that may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and allergens.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah, an assistant professor of environmental, reproductive, and women’s health at Harvard University, Boston, evaluates endocrine disruptors in personal care products and studies menstrual health. She said the health risk depends on the dose, duration, and sensitivity of a person to the ingredients and their mixtures.

Harmful chemicals could come from manufacturing processes, through materials and shipping, from equipment cleaners, from contact with contaminants, or from companies adding them intentionally, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit focused on eliminating toxic chemicals that affect women’s health.

Vaginal and vulvar tissues are capable of absorbing fluids at a higher rate than skin, which can lead to rapid chemical exposure. Ms. Scranton said scarcity of clinical studies and funding for vaginal health research limits understanding about the long-term effects of the ingredients and additives in period products.

“We think manufacturers should do better and be more careful with the ingredients they choose to use,” Ms. Scranton said. “The presence of toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products is unsettling. We know that chemicals can cause disease, and exposures do add up over time.”

Ms. Scranton’s organization advocates for labels to include the chemical name of the ingredient, the component in which the ingredient is used, and the function of the ingredient.

K. Malaika Walton, operations director for the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, a trade industry group, said in an email, “BAHP supports accurate and transparent information for users of period products and many of our member companies list ingredients on their packages and websites.”

In a written statement, Procter & Gamble, a major manufacturer of menstrual products, said that ingredients it uses go through rigorous safety evaluations and are continuously tested, and that all fragrance components are added at levels the industry considers safe.

Even though manufacturing of scented tampons for the U.S. market has mostly stopped, companies still use fragrances in other menstrual products. Laws protecting trade secrets keep details about fragrances in pads and tampons confidential so competitors can’t copy the formulas. The Children’s Environmental Health Network lists phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly called plasticizers, that are suspected hormone disruptors, as an ingredient found in fragrances.

Manufacturers follow regulatory guidance issued in 2005 by registering with the Food and Drug Administration and submitting a detailed risk assessment of their products’ components and design, and a safety profile, before being cleared to sell in the United States.

Pads and menstrual cups are considered exempt from regulatory guidance and do not require premarket review, according to FDA spokesperson Carly Kempler. While tampons do require review, the FDA “does not clear or approve individual materials that are used in the fabrication of medical devices.”

“There’s an understanding that the FDA is regulating these products, and they are; it’s just not very adequate,” said Laura Strausfeld, an attorney and a cofounder of Period Law, an organization working to advance state and federal period-equity policies that would stop taxation of products and make them freely available in places like schools and prisons. “The consumer is supposed to trust that when these products are put on shelves they’ve been vetted by the government. But it’s basically a rubber stamp.”

In a 2022 report, a congressional committee directed the FDA to update its guidance for menstrual products to recommend that labels disclose intentionally added ingredients, such as fragrances, and test for contaminants. The FDA is reviewing the directives outlined by the House Appropriations Committee and will update the 2005 guidance as soon as possible, Ms. Kempler said. “We will share additional details when we are able to.”

At least one period product company makes disclosure of its ingredients a selling point. Alex Friedman, cofounder of Lola, said a lack of knowledge is a problem, and more action and awareness are needed to keep people safe.

“The hardest part to swallow is why this is even up for debate. We should all know what’s in these products,” Ms. Friedman said.

New York’s law requires companies to disclose all intentionally added ingredients no matter how much is used, with no trade secret protections for fragrances. Though it applies only to products sold in that state, similar detailed labeling is appearing elsewhere, advocates said.

“We’re also seeing similar or identical disclosure on packaging in other states outside of New York, which is a testament to the power of the law,” said Jamie McConnell, deputy director of Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Manufacturers have 18 months from the passage of the New York law to comply, and some products on shelves in New York still list few ingredients other than “absorbent material,” “surfactant,” “ink,” and “adhesive.”

“We’re like, ‘OK, what is that exactly?’ ” Ms. McConnell said.

Her organization is calling for a federal law at least as strong as New York’s. Previous federal legislation failed to advance, including the most recent, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, introduced in 2022.

BAHP, the trade group, supported the federal legislation and the California law. Ms. McConnell said she opposed both bills because they didn’t require companies to list all fragrance ingredients.

“I think what it boiled down to at the federal level was the support of corporate interests over public health,” she said.
 

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

Tens of millions of Americans use menstrual products, and while manufacturers contend they are safe, most disclose little about the chemicals they contain. Now, amid calls for more disclosure and research into the health effects of these products, some states require more transparency.

The manufacture and sale of period and related products is a big business, with revenue expected to top $4.5 billion in the United States this year. On average, a person uses up to 17,000 tampons or pads in their lifetime, and they might also use rubber or silicone cups, or absorbent period underwear.

The FDA regulates and classifies menstrual products as medical devices, meaning they are not subject to the same labeling laws as other consumer items. But companies can voluntarily disclose what’s in their products.

Now, some states are stepping into the breach. In 2021, New York became the first state to enact a menstrual product disclosure law requiring companies to list all intentionally added ingredients on packaging. California’s governor signed a similar law that took effect this year, but it gives manufacturers trade secret protections, so not all ingredients are necessarily disclosed. At least six other states have introduced legislation to address safety and disclosure of ingredients in these products.

Advocacy groups studying the effects of the New York law say the new labels have revealed commonly found ingredients in menstrual products that may contain carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and allergens.

Shruthi Mahalingaiah, an assistant professor of environmental, reproductive, and women’s health at Harvard University, Boston, evaluates endocrine disruptors in personal care products and studies menstrual health. She said the health risk depends on the dose, duration, and sensitivity of a person to the ingredients and their mixtures.

Harmful chemicals could come from manufacturing processes, through materials and shipping, from equipment cleaners, from contact with contaminants, or from companies adding them intentionally, said Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit focused on eliminating toxic chemicals that affect women’s health.

Vaginal and vulvar tissues are capable of absorbing fluids at a higher rate than skin, which can lead to rapid chemical exposure. Ms. Scranton said scarcity of clinical studies and funding for vaginal health research limits understanding about the long-term effects of the ingredients and additives in period products.

“We think manufacturers should do better and be more careful with the ingredients they choose to use,” Ms. Scranton said. “The presence of toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products is unsettling. We know that chemicals can cause disease, and exposures do add up over time.”

Ms. Scranton’s organization advocates for labels to include the chemical name of the ingredient, the component in which the ingredient is used, and the function of the ingredient.

K. Malaika Walton, operations director for the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, a trade industry group, said in an email, “BAHP supports accurate and transparent information for users of period products and many of our member companies list ingredients on their packages and websites.”

In a written statement, Procter & Gamble, a major manufacturer of menstrual products, said that ingredients it uses go through rigorous safety evaluations and are continuously tested, and that all fragrance components are added at levels the industry considers safe.

Even though manufacturing of scented tampons for the U.S. market has mostly stopped, companies still use fragrances in other menstrual products. Laws protecting trade secrets keep details about fragrances in pads and tampons confidential so competitors can’t copy the formulas. The Children’s Environmental Health Network lists phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly called plasticizers, that are suspected hormone disruptors, as an ingredient found in fragrances.

Manufacturers follow regulatory guidance issued in 2005 by registering with the Food and Drug Administration and submitting a detailed risk assessment of their products’ components and design, and a safety profile, before being cleared to sell in the United States.

Pads and menstrual cups are considered exempt from regulatory guidance and do not require premarket review, according to FDA spokesperson Carly Kempler. While tampons do require review, the FDA “does not clear or approve individual materials that are used in the fabrication of medical devices.”

“There’s an understanding that the FDA is regulating these products, and they are; it’s just not very adequate,” said Laura Strausfeld, an attorney and a cofounder of Period Law, an organization working to advance state and federal period-equity policies that would stop taxation of products and make them freely available in places like schools and prisons. “The consumer is supposed to trust that when these products are put on shelves they’ve been vetted by the government. But it’s basically a rubber stamp.”

In a 2022 report, a congressional committee directed the FDA to update its guidance for menstrual products to recommend that labels disclose intentionally added ingredients, such as fragrances, and test for contaminants. The FDA is reviewing the directives outlined by the House Appropriations Committee and will update the 2005 guidance as soon as possible, Ms. Kempler said. “We will share additional details when we are able to.”

At least one period product company makes disclosure of its ingredients a selling point. Alex Friedman, cofounder of Lola, said a lack of knowledge is a problem, and more action and awareness are needed to keep people safe.

“The hardest part to swallow is why this is even up for debate. We should all know what’s in these products,” Ms. Friedman said.

New York’s law requires companies to disclose all intentionally added ingredients no matter how much is used, with no trade secret protections for fragrances. Though it applies only to products sold in that state, similar detailed labeling is appearing elsewhere, advocates said.

“We’re also seeing similar or identical disclosure on packaging in other states outside of New York, which is a testament to the power of the law,” said Jamie McConnell, deputy director of Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Manufacturers have 18 months from the passage of the New York law to comply, and some products on shelves in New York still list few ingredients other than “absorbent material,” “surfactant,” “ink,” and “adhesive.”

“We’re like, ‘OK, what is that exactly?’ ” Ms. McConnell said.

Her organization is calling for a federal law at least as strong as New York’s. Previous federal legislation failed to advance, including the most recent, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, introduced in 2022.

BAHP, the trade group, supported the federal legislation and the California law. Ms. McConnell said she opposed both bills because they didn’t require companies to list all fragrance ingredients.

“I think what it boiled down to at the federal level was the support of corporate interests over public health,” she said.
 

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