Business of Medicine

Two types of electronically delivered letter strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination and a repeat reminder letter – increased flu shot uptake, compared with usual care alone, in a national study of seniors in Denmark.

And in a prespecified subanalysis focusing on older adults with cardiovascular disease, these two strategies were also effective in boosting vaccine uptake in those with or without CVD.

The findings are from the Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake (NUDGE-FLU) trial, which compared usual care alone with one of nine different electronic letter “behavioral nudge” strategies during the 2022-2023 flu season in people aged 65 years and older.  

Pix by Marti/Fotolia

Niklas Dyrby Johansen, MD, Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and Copenhagen University, presented the main study findings in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, and the article was simultaneously published in The Lancet

The subanalysis in patients with CVD was published online March 5 in Circulation.

“Despite modest effect sizes, the results may have important implications when translated to a population level,” Dr. Dyrby Johansen concluded during his presentation. Still, the authors write, “the low-touch (no person-to-person interaction), inexpensive, and highly scalable nature of these electronic letters might have important population-level public health implications.”  

They note that, among approximately 63 million Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, a 0.89–percentage point absolute increase in vaccination rate achieved through the most successful electronic letter in NUDGE-FLU, the one highlighting cardiovascular gain, would be expected to lead to 500,000 additional vaccinations and potentially prevent 7,849 illnesses, 4,395 medical visits, 714 hospitalizations, and 66 deaths each year.

Electronic letter systems similar to the one used in this trial are already in place in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Ireland, the researchers note.

In countries such as the United States, where implementing a nationwide government electronic letter system might not be feasible, nudges could be done via email, text message, or other systems, but whether this would be as effective remains to be seen.

Commenting on the findings, David Cho, MD, UCLA Health and chair of the ACC Health Care Innovation Council, commended the researchers on engaging patients with more than a million separate nudges sent out during one flu season, and randomly assigning participants to 10 different types of nudges, calling it “impressive.”

“I think the concept that the nudge is to plant an idea that leads to an action is pretty much the basis of a lot of these health care interventions, which seems like a small way to have a big impact at outcome,” Dr. Cho noted. “The behavioral science aspects of the nudges are also fascinating to me personally, and I think to a lot of the cardiologists in the audience – about how you actually get people to act. I think it’s been a lifelong question for people in general, how do you get people to follow through on an action?”

“So I found the fact that secondary gain from a cardiovascular health standpoint, but also the repeated nudges were sort of simple ways that you could have people take ownership and get their flu vaccination,” he said.

“This is ACC, this is a cardiovascular conference, but the influence of vaccine is not just a primary care problem, it is also directly affecting cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Cho concluded.

‘Small but important effect’

In an accompanying editorial (Lancet. 2023 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00453-1), Melissa Stockwell, MD, Columbia University, New York, writes, “The study by Johansen and colleagues highlights the small but still important effect of scalable, digital interventions across an entire at-risk population.”

A difference of 0.89% in the entire study population of over 960,000 adults age 65 years or older would be more than 8,500 additional adults protected, she notes. “That increase is important for a scalable intervention that has a low cost per letter.”

Moreover, “that the cardiovascular gain–framed messages worked best in those who had not been vaccinated in the previous season further highlights the potential impact on a more vaccine-hesitant population,” Dr. Stockwell notes. 

However, with the mandatory government electronic notification system in Denmark, “notifications are sent via regular email and SMS message, and recipients log in through a portal or smartphone app to view the letter.” Similar studies in the United States that included this extra step of needing to sign in online have not been effective in older populations.

Another limitation is that the intervention may have a different effect in populations for which there is a digital divide between people with or without Internet access of sufficient data on their mobile phones.

First-of-its kind, nationwide pragmatic trial

The NUDGE-FLU protocol was previously published in the American Heart Journal. NUDGE-FLU is a first-of-its kind nationwide, pragmatic, registry-based, cluster-randomized implementation trial of electronically delivered nudges to increase influenza vaccination uptake, the researchers note.

They identified 964,870 individuals who were 65 years or older (or would turn 65 by Jan. 15, 2023) who lived in one of 691,820 households in Denmark.

This excluded individuals who lived in a nursing home or were exempt from the government’s mandatory electronic letter system that is used for official communications.

Households were randomly assigned 9:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to receive usual care alone or to one of nine electronic letter strategies based on different behavioral science approaches to encourage influenza vaccination uptake:

• Standard electronic letter
• Standard electronic letter sent at randomization and again 14 days later (repeated letter)
• Depersonalized letter without the recipient’s name
• Gain-framing nudge (“Vaccinations help end pandemics, like COVID-19 and the flu. Protect yourself and your loved ones.”)
• Loss-framing nudge (“When too few people get vaccinated, pandemics from diseases like COVID-19 and the flu can spread and place you and your loved ones at risk.”)
• Collective-goal nudge (“78% of Danes 65 and above were vaccinated against influenza last year. Help us achieve an even higher goal this year.”)  
• Active choice or implementation-intention prompt (“We encourage you to record your appointment time here.”)
• Cardiovascular gain–framing nudge (“In addition to its protection against influenza infection, influenza vaccination also seems to protect against cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks and heart failure.”)
• Expert-authority statement (“I recommend everyone over the age of 65 years to get vaccinated against influenza – Tyra Grove Krause, Executive Vice President, Statens Serum Institut.”)

The electronic letters were sent out Sept. 16, 2022, and the primary endpoint was vaccine receipt on or before Jan. 1, 2023.

All individuals received an informative vaccination encouragement letter from the Danish Health Authority (usual care) delivered via the same electronic letter system during Sept. 17 through Sept. 21, 2022. 

The individuals had a mean age of 73.8 years, 51.5% were women, and 27.4% had chronic cardiovascular disease.

The analyses were done in one randomly selected individual per household.

Influenza vaccination rates were significantly higher in the cardiovascular gain–framing nudge group vs. usual care (81.00% vs. 80.12%; difference, 0.89 percentage points; P < .0001) and in the repeat-letter group vs. usual care (80.85% vs 80.12%; difference, 0.73 percentage points; P = .0006).

These two strategies also improved vaccination rates across major subgroups.

The cardiovascular gain–framed letter was particularly effective among participants who had not been vaccinated for influenza in the previous season.

The seven other letter strategies did not increase flu shot uptake.

Subanalysis in CVD

In the prespecified subanalysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial of patients aged 65 and older that focused on patients with CVD, Daniel Modin, MB, and colleagues report that 83.1% of patients with CVD vs. 79.2% of patients without CVD received influenza vaccination within the requested time (P < .0001).

The two nudging strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination or a repeat letter – that were effective in boosting flu shot rates in the main analysis were also effective in all major CVD subgroups (ischemic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic CVD, embolic or thrombotic disease, and congenital heart disease).

Despite strong guideline endorsement, “influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Morin and colleagues write, possibly because of “insufficient knowledge among patients and providers of potential clinical benefits, concerns about vaccine safety, and other forms of vaccine hesitancy.”

Their findings suggest that “select digital behaviorally informed nudges delivered in advance of vaccine availability might be utilized to increase influenza vaccinate uptake in individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

NUDGE-HF was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Johansen and Dr. Modin have no disclosures. The disclosures of the other authors are listed with the articles. Dr. Stockwell has no disclosures.

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

Two types of electronically delivered letter strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination and a repeat reminder letter – increased flu shot uptake, compared with usual care alone, in a national study of seniors in Denmark.

And in a prespecified subanalysis focusing on older adults with cardiovascular disease, these two strategies were also effective in boosting vaccine uptake in those with or without CVD.

The findings are from the Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake (NUDGE-FLU) trial, which compared usual care alone with one of nine different electronic letter “behavioral nudge” strategies during the 2022-2023 flu season in people aged 65 years and older.  

Pix by Marti/Fotolia

Niklas Dyrby Johansen, MD, Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and Copenhagen University, presented the main study findings in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, and the article was simultaneously published in The Lancet

The subanalysis in patients with CVD was published online March 5 in Circulation.

“Despite modest effect sizes, the results may have important implications when translated to a population level,” Dr. Dyrby Johansen concluded during his presentation. Still, the authors write, “the low-touch (no person-to-person interaction), inexpensive, and highly scalable nature of these electronic letters might have important population-level public health implications.”  

They note that, among approximately 63 million Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, a 0.89–percentage point absolute increase in vaccination rate achieved through the most successful electronic letter in NUDGE-FLU, the one highlighting cardiovascular gain, would be expected to lead to 500,000 additional vaccinations and potentially prevent 7,849 illnesses, 4,395 medical visits, 714 hospitalizations, and 66 deaths each year.

Electronic letter systems similar to the one used in this trial are already in place in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Ireland, the researchers note.

In countries such as the United States, where implementing a nationwide government electronic letter system might not be feasible, nudges could be done via email, text message, or other systems, but whether this would be as effective remains to be seen.

Commenting on the findings, David Cho, MD, UCLA Health and chair of the ACC Health Care Innovation Council, commended the researchers on engaging patients with more than a million separate nudges sent out during one flu season, and randomly assigning participants to 10 different types of nudges, calling it “impressive.”

“I think the concept that the nudge is to plant an idea that leads to an action is pretty much the basis of a lot of these health care interventions, which seems like a small way to have a big impact at outcome,” Dr. Cho noted. “The behavioral science aspects of the nudges are also fascinating to me personally, and I think to a lot of the cardiologists in the audience – about how you actually get people to act. I think it’s been a lifelong question for people in general, how do you get people to follow through on an action?”

“So I found the fact that secondary gain from a cardiovascular health standpoint, but also the repeated nudges were sort of simple ways that you could have people take ownership and get their flu vaccination,” he said.

“This is ACC, this is a cardiovascular conference, but the influence of vaccine is not just a primary care problem, it is also directly affecting cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Cho concluded.

‘Small but important effect’

In an accompanying editorial (Lancet. 2023 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00453-1), Melissa Stockwell, MD, Columbia University, New York, writes, “The study by Johansen and colleagues highlights the small but still important effect of scalable, digital interventions across an entire at-risk population.”

A difference of 0.89% in the entire study population of over 960,000 adults age 65 years or older would be more than 8,500 additional adults protected, she notes. “That increase is important for a scalable intervention that has a low cost per letter.”

Moreover, “that the cardiovascular gain–framed messages worked best in those who had not been vaccinated in the previous season further highlights the potential impact on a more vaccine-hesitant population,” Dr. Stockwell notes. 

However, with the mandatory government electronic notification system in Denmark, “notifications are sent via regular email and SMS message, and recipients log in through a portal or smartphone app to view the letter.” Similar studies in the United States that included this extra step of needing to sign in online have not been effective in older populations.

Another limitation is that the intervention may have a different effect in populations for which there is a digital divide between people with or without Internet access of sufficient data on their mobile phones.

First-of-its kind, nationwide pragmatic trial

The NUDGE-FLU protocol was previously published in the American Heart Journal. NUDGE-FLU is a first-of-its kind nationwide, pragmatic, registry-based, cluster-randomized implementation trial of electronically delivered nudges to increase influenza vaccination uptake, the researchers note.

They identified 964,870 individuals who were 65 years or older (or would turn 65 by Jan. 15, 2023) who lived in one of 691,820 households in Denmark.

This excluded individuals who lived in a nursing home or were exempt from the government’s mandatory electronic letter system that is used for official communications.

Households were randomly assigned 9:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to receive usual care alone or to one of nine electronic letter strategies based on different behavioral science approaches to encourage influenza vaccination uptake:

• Standard electronic letter
• Standard electronic letter sent at randomization and again 14 days later (repeated letter)
• Depersonalized letter without the recipient’s name
• Gain-framing nudge (“Vaccinations help end pandemics, like COVID-19 and the flu. Protect yourself and your loved ones.”)
• Loss-framing nudge (“When too few people get vaccinated, pandemics from diseases like COVID-19 and the flu can spread and place you and your loved ones at risk.”)
• Collective-goal nudge (“78% of Danes 65 and above were vaccinated against influenza last year. Help us achieve an even higher goal this year.”)  
• Active choice or implementation-intention prompt (“We encourage you to record your appointment time here.”)
• Cardiovascular gain–framing nudge (“In addition to its protection against influenza infection, influenza vaccination also seems to protect against cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks and heart failure.”)
• Expert-authority statement (“I recommend everyone over the age of 65 years to get vaccinated against influenza – Tyra Grove Krause, Executive Vice President, Statens Serum Institut.”)

The electronic letters were sent out Sept. 16, 2022, and the primary endpoint was vaccine receipt on or before Jan. 1, 2023.

All individuals received an informative vaccination encouragement letter from the Danish Health Authority (usual care) delivered via the same electronic letter system during Sept. 17 through Sept. 21, 2022. 

The individuals had a mean age of 73.8 years, 51.5% were women, and 27.4% had chronic cardiovascular disease.

The analyses were done in one randomly selected individual per household.

Influenza vaccination rates were significantly higher in the cardiovascular gain–framing nudge group vs. usual care (81.00% vs. 80.12%; difference, 0.89 percentage points; P < .0001) and in the repeat-letter group vs. usual care (80.85% vs 80.12%; difference, 0.73 percentage points; P = .0006).

These two strategies also improved vaccination rates across major subgroups.

The cardiovascular gain–framed letter was particularly effective among participants who had not been vaccinated for influenza in the previous season.

The seven other letter strategies did not increase flu shot uptake.

Subanalysis in CVD

In the prespecified subanalysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial of patients aged 65 and older that focused on patients with CVD, Daniel Modin, MB, and colleagues report that 83.1% of patients with CVD vs. 79.2% of patients without CVD received influenza vaccination within the requested time (P < .0001).

The two nudging strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination or a repeat letter – that were effective in boosting flu shot rates in the main analysis were also effective in all major CVD subgroups (ischemic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic CVD, embolic or thrombotic disease, and congenital heart disease).

Despite strong guideline endorsement, “influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Morin and colleagues write, possibly because of “insufficient knowledge among patients and providers of potential clinical benefits, concerns about vaccine safety, and other forms of vaccine hesitancy.”

Their findings suggest that “select digital behaviorally informed nudges delivered in advance of vaccine availability might be utilized to increase influenza vaccinate uptake in individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

NUDGE-HF was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Johansen and Dr. Modin have no disclosures. The disclosures of the other authors are listed with the articles. Dr. Stockwell has no disclosures.

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

Two types of electronically delivered letter strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination and a repeat reminder letter – increased flu shot uptake, compared with usual care alone, in a national study of seniors in Denmark.

And in a prespecified subanalysis focusing on older adults with cardiovascular disease, these two strategies were also effective in boosting vaccine uptake in those with or without CVD.

The findings are from the Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake (NUDGE-FLU) trial, which compared usual care alone with one of nine different electronic letter “behavioral nudge” strategies during the 2022-2023 flu season in people aged 65 years and older.  

Pix by Marti/Fotolia

Niklas Dyrby Johansen, MD, Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and Copenhagen University, presented the main study findings in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, and the article was simultaneously published in The Lancet

The subanalysis in patients with CVD was published online March 5 in Circulation.

“Despite modest effect sizes, the results may have important implications when translated to a population level,” Dr. Dyrby Johansen concluded during his presentation. Still, the authors write, “the low-touch (no person-to-person interaction), inexpensive, and highly scalable nature of these electronic letters might have important population-level public health implications.”  

They note that, among approximately 63 million Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, a 0.89–percentage point absolute increase in vaccination rate achieved through the most successful electronic letter in NUDGE-FLU, the one highlighting cardiovascular gain, would be expected to lead to 500,000 additional vaccinations and potentially prevent 7,849 illnesses, 4,395 medical visits, 714 hospitalizations, and 66 deaths each year.

Electronic letter systems similar to the one used in this trial are already in place in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Ireland, the researchers note.

In countries such as the United States, where implementing a nationwide government electronic letter system might not be feasible, nudges could be done via email, text message, or other systems, but whether this would be as effective remains to be seen.

Commenting on the findings, David Cho, MD, UCLA Health and chair of the ACC Health Care Innovation Council, commended the researchers on engaging patients with more than a million separate nudges sent out during one flu season, and randomly assigning participants to 10 different types of nudges, calling it “impressive.”

“I think the concept that the nudge is to plant an idea that leads to an action is pretty much the basis of a lot of these health care interventions, which seems like a small way to have a big impact at outcome,” Dr. Cho noted. “The behavioral science aspects of the nudges are also fascinating to me personally, and I think to a lot of the cardiologists in the audience – about how you actually get people to act. I think it’s been a lifelong question for people in general, how do you get people to follow through on an action?”

“So I found the fact that secondary gain from a cardiovascular health standpoint, but also the repeated nudges were sort of simple ways that you could have people take ownership and get their flu vaccination,” he said.

“This is ACC, this is a cardiovascular conference, but the influence of vaccine is not just a primary care problem, it is also directly affecting cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Cho concluded.

‘Small but important effect’

In an accompanying editorial (Lancet. 2023 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00453-1), Melissa Stockwell, MD, Columbia University, New York, writes, “The study by Johansen and colleagues highlights the small but still important effect of scalable, digital interventions across an entire at-risk population.”

A difference of 0.89% in the entire study population of over 960,000 adults age 65 years or older would be more than 8,500 additional adults protected, she notes. “That increase is important for a scalable intervention that has a low cost per letter.”

Moreover, “that the cardiovascular gain–framed messages worked best in those who had not been vaccinated in the previous season further highlights the potential impact on a more vaccine-hesitant population,” Dr. Stockwell notes. 

However, with the mandatory government electronic notification system in Denmark, “notifications are sent via regular email and SMS message, and recipients log in through a portal or smartphone app to view the letter.” Similar studies in the United States that included this extra step of needing to sign in online have not been effective in older populations.

Another limitation is that the intervention may have a different effect in populations for which there is a digital divide between people with or without Internet access of sufficient data on their mobile phones.

First-of-its kind, nationwide pragmatic trial

The NUDGE-FLU protocol was previously published in the American Heart Journal. NUDGE-FLU is a first-of-its kind nationwide, pragmatic, registry-based, cluster-randomized implementation trial of electronically delivered nudges to increase influenza vaccination uptake, the researchers note.

They identified 964,870 individuals who were 65 years or older (or would turn 65 by Jan. 15, 2023) who lived in one of 691,820 households in Denmark.

This excluded individuals who lived in a nursing home or were exempt from the government’s mandatory electronic letter system that is used for official communications.

Households were randomly assigned 9:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to receive usual care alone or to one of nine electronic letter strategies based on different behavioral science approaches to encourage influenza vaccination uptake:

• Standard electronic letter
• Standard electronic letter sent at randomization and again 14 days later (repeated letter)
• Depersonalized letter without the recipient’s name
• Gain-framing nudge (“Vaccinations help end pandemics, like COVID-19 and the flu. Protect yourself and your loved ones.”)
• Loss-framing nudge (“When too few people get vaccinated, pandemics from diseases like COVID-19 and the flu can spread and place you and your loved ones at risk.”)
• Collective-goal nudge (“78% of Danes 65 and above were vaccinated against influenza last year. Help us achieve an even higher goal this year.”)  
• Active choice or implementation-intention prompt (“We encourage you to record your appointment time here.”)
• Cardiovascular gain–framing nudge (“In addition to its protection against influenza infection, influenza vaccination also seems to protect against cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks and heart failure.”)
• Expert-authority statement (“I recommend everyone over the age of 65 years to get vaccinated against influenza – Tyra Grove Krause, Executive Vice President, Statens Serum Institut.”)

The electronic letters were sent out Sept. 16, 2022, and the primary endpoint was vaccine receipt on or before Jan. 1, 2023.

All individuals received an informative vaccination encouragement letter from the Danish Health Authority (usual care) delivered via the same electronic letter system during Sept. 17 through Sept. 21, 2022. 

The individuals had a mean age of 73.8 years, 51.5% were women, and 27.4% had chronic cardiovascular disease.

The analyses were done in one randomly selected individual per household.

Influenza vaccination rates were significantly higher in the cardiovascular gain–framing nudge group vs. usual care (81.00% vs. 80.12%; difference, 0.89 percentage points; P < .0001) and in the repeat-letter group vs. usual care (80.85% vs 80.12%; difference, 0.73 percentage points; P = .0006).

These two strategies also improved vaccination rates across major subgroups.

The cardiovascular gain–framed letter was particularly effective among participants who had not been vaccinated for influenza in the previous season.

The seven other letter strategies did not increase flu shot uptake.

Subanalysis in CVD

In the prespecified subanalysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial of patients aged 65 and older that focused on patients with CVD, Daniel Modin, MB, and colleagues report that 83.1% of patients with CVD vs. 79.2% of patients without CVD received influenza vaccination within the requested time (P < .0001).

The two nudging strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination or a repeat letter – that were effective in boosting flu shot rates in the main analysis were also effective in all major CVD subgroups (ischemic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic CVD, embolic or thrombotic disease, and congenital heart disease).

Despite strong guideline endorsement, “influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Morin and colleagues write, possibly because of “insufficient knowledge among patients and providers of potential clinical benefits, concerns about vaccine safety, and other forms of vaccine hesitancy.”

Their findings suggest that “select digital behaviorally informed nudges delivered in advance of vaccine availability might be utilized to increase influenza vaccinate uptake in individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

NUDGE-HF was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Johansen and Dr. Modin have no disclosures. The disclosures of the other authors are listed with the articles. Dr. Stockwell has no disclosures.

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

NEW ORLEANS – EHR-embedded alerts that a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a great candidate for treatment with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) more than doubled prescribing of this “pillar” class for HFrEF, compared with control practices that used usual care and no alerts.

That’s according to results of BETTER CARE-HF, a single-center, randomized trial with more than 2,000 patients and involving 180 cardiologists.

“EHR-embedded tools cans be a rapid, low-cost, and high-impact method to increase prescription of life-saving therapies across large populations,” said Amrita Mukhopadhyay, MD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Her study targeted underprescribing of an MRA – spironolactone or eplerenone (Inspra) – because of its “vastly underprescribed” status in U.S. practice, where roughly two-thirds of patients with HFrEF do not receive an MRA despite clear recommendations from several medical groups that it is an essential part of treatment for most patients with HFrEF. Dr. Mukhopadhyay estimated that more comprehensive prescribing of MRAs to U.S. patients with HFrEF could prevent more than 20,000 deaths annually.

She also explained that the EHR-embedded alert was carefully devised, through interviews with cardiologists and pilot testing, to optimize the nudge so that it was less intrusive but effective for capturing attention and initiating action.

‘Clinically relevant, impressive results’

“This is a really important study, because despite overwhelming evidence for more than a decade favoring MRA use for patients with HFrEF there is an incredibly large treatment gap. MRAs can reduce all-cause death in people with HFrEF by 25%-30%, as well as reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, at a cost of less than $50 a year,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. The study showed “very clinically relevant, impressive results” for individualized, patient-specific alerts to prescribe an MRA and order the laboratory tests, particularly for serum potassium levels, needed to safely start the treatment, Dr. Fonarow said in an interview.

The BETTER CARE-HF study ran at more than 60 practices in the New York City region operated by the NYU Langone Health system, which sponsored the study. The trial randomized 180 cardiologists from these practices in a cluster format to one of three study arms: Sixty cardiologists received the EHR-embedded alerts for their relevant patients (755 patients) when the patient was in the physician’s office; another 60 cardiologists received a less tailored, monthly message that flagged all patients with HFrEF in a cardiologist’s practice who remained untreated candidates for MRA intervention (812 patients); and a third arm of 60 cardiologists and their HFrEF patients served as controls where the clinicians received no alert or message (644 patients).

The study included 2,211 patients with HFrEF and not on MRA treatment at baseline who were all identified as good candidates for starting treatment with the class, with no contraindications, no preexisting hyperkalemia, and no advanced-stage renal dysfunction.

The study’s primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each subgroup who received a new prescription for an MRA. This occurred in 29.6% of the patients whose physicians received an alert, in 15.6% of the patients whose physicians received a monthly message, and in 11.7% of patients in the control practices. Statistical analyses showed that the alerts led to a significant 2.53-fold increase in MRA prescribing, while the messages linked with a significant 67% increase in prescribing, compared with the control practices, reported Dr. Mukhopadhyay, a health services researcher at NYU Langone Health in New York. Simultaneously with her report, the results also appeared in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings also showed that the alert and message had no significant impact on the prescribing of any other medication classes for HFrEF, compared with the controls. And the alert intervention had minimal adverse effects. While patients in the alert arm showed a significant, 45% relative increase in the incidence of hyperkalemia episodes, compared with control patients (because of a 4.5% absolute increase in hyperkalemia events), the rate of “significant” hyperkalemia with a value of at least 5.5 mmol/L, occurred in 5.0% of patients in the alert group and 5.1% of patients in the control arm.

Potassium testing poses another barrier

Even though the alerts substantially improved MRA prescribing, 70% of patients deemed MRA eligible in the alert subgroup still failed to receive a prescription. One additional barrier specific to MRA prescribing is the need it triggers for serial laboratory testing to monitor serum potassium levels. “Potassium testing generates additional work outside the index visit, which along with the risk for hyperkalemia exists as a barrier,” commented Lee R. Goldberg, MD, a heart failure specialist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “This may be the next aspect to focus on to improve MRA uptake,” he said as a designated discussant for the report.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“It’s not enough to just prompt medication treatment. We also need to prompt appropriate laboratory testing,” noted Dr. Fonarow.

He also said that the approach tested by Dr. Mukhopadhyay could now be expanded to outpatient cardiologists. “The onus is on everyone involved in caring for patients with HFrEF failure to explain why maximum effort is not being made to deploy” all of the guideline-directed medical therapies for the disorder.

EHR alerts “are one way to bridge the prescribing gap, but we need multiple approaches so that all eligible patients receive guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Fonarow said.

BETTER CARE-HF received no commercial funding, and Dr. Mukhopadhyay had no disclosures. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Cytokinetics, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Goldberg has received personal fees from Abbott, VisCardia, and Zoll/Respircardia.

NEW ORLEANS – EHR-embedded alerts that a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a great candidate for treatment with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) more than doubled prescribing of this “pillar” class for HFrEF, compared with control practices that used usual care and no alerts.

That’s according to results of BETTER CARE-HF, a single-center, randomized trial with more than 2,000 patients and involving 180 cardiologists.

“EHR-embedded tools cans be a rapid, low-cost, and high-impact method to increase prescription of life-saving therapies across large populations,” said Amrita Mukhopadhyay, MD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Her study targeted underprescribing of an MRA – spironolactone or eplerenone (Inspra) – because of its “vastly underprescribed” status in U.S. practice, where roughly two-thirds of patients with HFrEF do not receive an MRA despite clear recommendations from several medical groups that it is an essential part of treatment for most patients with HFrEF. Dr. Mukhopadhyay estimated that more comprehensive prescribing of MRAs to U.S. patients with HFrEF could prevent more than 20,000 deaths annually.

She also explained that the EHR-embedded alert was carefully devised, through interviews with cardiologists and pilot testing, to optimize the nudge so that it was less intrusive but effective for capturing attention and initiating action.

‘Clinically relevant, impressive results’

“This is a really important study, because despite overwhelming evidence for more than a decade favoring MRA use for patients with HFrEF there is an incredibly large treatment gap. MRAs can reduce all-cause death in people with HFrEF by 25%-30%, as well as reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, at a cost of less than $50 a year,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. The study showed “very clinically relevant, impressive results” for individualized, patient-specific alerts to prescribe an MRA and order the laboratory tests, particularly for serum potassium levels, needed to safely start the treatment, Dr. Fonarow said in an interview.

The BETTER CARE-HF study ran at more than 60 practices in the New York City region operated by the NYU Langone Health system, which sponsored the study. The trial randomized 180 cardiologists from these practices in a cluster format to one of three study arms: Sixty cardiologists received the EHR-embedded alerts for their relevant patients (755 patients) when the patient was in the physician’s office; another 60 cardiologists received a less tailored, monthly message that flagged all patients with HFrEF in a cardiologist’s practice who remained untreated candidates for MRA intervention (812 patients); and a third arm of 60 cardiologists and their HFrEF patients served as controls where the clinicians received no alert or message (644 patients).

The study included 2,211 patients with HFrEF and not on MRA treatment at baseline who were all identified as good candidates for starting treatment with the class, with no contraindications, no preexisting hyperkalemia, and no advanced-stage renal dysfunction.

The study’s primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each subgroup who received a new prescription for an MRA. This occurred in 29.6% of the patients whose physicians received an alert, in 15.6% of the patients whose physicians received a monthly message, and in 11.7% of patients in the control practices. Statistical analyses showed that the alerts led to a significant 2.53-fold increase in MRA prescribing, while the messages linked with a significant 67% increase in prescribing, compared with the control practices, reported Dr. Mukhopadhyay, a health services researcher at NYU Langone Health in New York. Simultaneously with her report, the results also appeared in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings also showed that the alert and message had no significant impact on the prescribing of any other medication classes for HFrEF, compared with the controls. And the alert intervention had minimal adverse effects. While patients in the alert arm showed a significant, 45% relative increase in the incidence of hyperkalemia episodes, compared with control patients (because of a 4.5% absolute increase in hyperkalemia events), the rate of “significant” hyperkalemia with a value of at least 5.5 mmol/L, occurred in 5.0% of patients in the alert group and 5.1% of patients in the control arm.

Potassium testing poses another barrier

Even though the alerts substantially improved MRA prescribing, 70% of patients deemed MRA eligible in the alert subgroup still failed to receive a prescription. One additional barrier specific to MRA prescribing is the need it triggers for serial laboratory testing to monitor serum potassium levels. “Potassium testing generates additional work outside the index visit, which along with the risk for hyperkalemia exists as a barrier,” commented Lee R. Goldberg, MD, a heart failure specialist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “This may be the next aspect to focus on to improve MRA uptake,” he said as a designated discussant for the report.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“It’s not enough to just prompt medication treatment. We also need to prompt appropriate laboratory testing,” noted Dr. Fonarow.

He also said that the approach tested by Dr. Mukhopadhyay could now be expanded to outpatient cardiologists. “The onus is on everyone involved in caring for patients with HFrEF failure to explain why maximum effort is not being made to deploy” all of the guideline-directed medical therapies for the disorder.

EHR alerts “are one way to bridge the prescribing gap, but we need multiple approaches so that all eligible patients receive guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Fonarow said.

BETTER CARE-HF received no commercial funding, and Dr. Mukhopadhyay had no disclosures. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Cytokinetics, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Goldberg has received personal fees from Abbott, VisCardia, and Zoll/Respircardia.

NEW ORLEANS – EHR-embedded alerts that a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a great candidate for treatment with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) more than doubled prescribing of this “pillar” class for HFrEF, compared with control practices that used usual care and no alerts.

That’s according to results of BETTER CARE-HF, a single-center, randomized trial with more than 2,000 patients and involving 180 cardiologists.

“EHR-embedded tools cans be a rapid, low-cost, and high-impact method to increase prescription of life-saving therapies across large populations,” said Amrita Mukhopadhyay, MD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Her study targeted underprescribing of an MRA – spironolactone or eplerenone (Inspra) – because of its “vastly underprescribed” status in U.S. practice, where roughly two-thirds of patients with HFrEF do not receive an MRA despite clear recommendations from several medical groups that it is an essential part of treatment for most patients with HFrEF. Dr. Mukhopadhyay estimated that more comprehensive prescribing of MRAs to U.S. patients with HFrEF could prevent more than 20,000 deaths annually.

She also explained that the EHR-embedded alert was carefully devised, through interviews with cardiologists and pilot testing, to optimize the nudge so that it was less intrusive but effective for capturing attention and initiating action.

‘Clinically relevant, impressive results’

“This is a really important study, because despite overwhelming evidence for more than a decade favoring MRA use for patients with HFrEF there is an incredibly large treatment gap. MRAs can reduce all-cause death in people with HFrEF by 25%-30%, as well as reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, at a cost of less than $50 a year,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. The study showed “very clinically relevant, impressive results” for individualized, patient-specific alerts to prescribe an MRA and order the laboratory tests, particularly for serum potassium levels, needed to safely start the treatment, Dr. Fonarow said in an interview.

The BETTER CARE-HF study ran at more than 60 practices in the New York City region operated by the NYU Langone Health system, which sponsored the study. The trial randomized 180 cardiologists from these practices in a cluster format to one of three study arms: Sixty cardiologists received the EHR-embedded alerts for their relevant patients (755 patients) when the patient was in the physician’s office; another 60 cardiologists received a less tailored, monthly message that flagged all patients with HFrEF in a cardiologist’s practice who remained untreated candidates for MRA intervention (812 patients); and a third arm of 60 cardiologists and their HFrEF patients served as controls where the clinicians received no alert or message (644 patients).

The study included 2,211 patients with HFrEF and not on MRA treatment at baseline who were all identified as good candidates for starting treatment with the class, with no contraindications, no preexisting hyperkalemia, and no advanced-stage renal dysfunction.

The study’s primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each subgroup who received a new prescription for an MRA. This occurred in 29.6% of the patients whose physicians received an alert, in 15.6% of the patients whose physicians received a monthly message, and in 11.7% of patients in the control practices. Statistical analyses showed that the alerts led to a significant 2.53-fold increase in MRA prescribing, while the messages linked with a significant 67% increase in prescribing, compared with the control practices, reported Dr. Mukhopadhyay, a health services researcher at NYU Langone Health in New York. Simultaneously with her report, the results also appeared in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings also showed that the alert and message had no significant impact on the prescribing of any other medication classes for HFrEF, compared with the controls. And the alert intervention had minimal adverse effects. While patients in the alert arm showed a significant, 45% relative increase in the incidence of hyperkalemia episodes, compared with control patients (because of a 4.5% absolute increase in hyperkalemia events), the rate of “significant” hyperkalemia with a value of at least 5.5 mmol/L, occurred in 5.0% of patients in the alert group and 5.1% of patients in the control arm.

Potassium testing poses another barrier

Even though the alerts substantially improved MRA prescribing, 70% of patients deemed MRA eligible in the alert subgroup still failed to receive a prescription. One additional barrier specific to MRA prescribing is the need it triggers for serial laboratory testing to monitor serum potassium levels. “Potassium testing generates additional work outside the index visit, which along with the risk for hyperkalemia exists as a barrier,” commented Lee R. Goldberg, MD, a heart failure specialist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “This may be the next aspect to focus on to improve MRA uptake,” he said as a designated discussant for the report.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“It’s not enough to just prompt medication treatment. We also need to prompt appropriate laboratory testing,” noted Dr. Fonarow.

He also said that the approach tested by Dr. Mukhopadhyay could now be expanded to outpatient cardiologists. “The onus is on everyone involved in caring for patients with HFrEF failure to explain why maximum effort is not being made to deploy” all of the guideline-directed medical therapies for the disorder.

EHR alerts “are one way to bridge the prescribing gap, but we need multiple approaches so that all eligible patients receive guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Fonarow said.

BETTER CARE-HF received no commercial funding, and Dr. Mukhopadhyay had no disclosures. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Cytokinetics, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Goldberg has received personal fees from Abbott, VisCardia, and Zoll/Respircardia.

Physician interactions with nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are only going to increase in frequency. – The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts a 40% increase in the NP workforce by 2031, coupled with a 28% rise in PAs.

In recent reports on the quality of the relationships involving these health care professions, survey respondents mostly gave positive accounts of collaboration, using words such as like “comradery,” “teamwork,” “congenial,” and “cohesion.” But all was not perfect. Where and how could these important health care provider relationships improve?
 

PAs: “Competition and collaboration’ with RNs

In a Medscape survey of more than 770 PAs about their working relationships with other health care professionals; 83% of them supported the idea of PAs and NPs practicing more independently from physicians, but sometimes it’s not easy to stay in their individual lanes.

One PA respondent complained that NPs get “more opportunities and preference,” another pointed to PA-NP “turf issues,” and a third griped about NPs’ “strong unions,” which have stoked more fighting about practice abilities and available settings.

Robert Blumm, MA, PA-C, a retired surgical and emergency medicine PA who regards himself as an advocate for both PAs and NPs, describes their interaction as a “mixture of competition and collaboration.”

On one hand, the two groups typically “cooperate and do an excellent job, incurring patient errors similar to or less than physician colleagues or senior residents.” On the other hand, Mr. Blumm conceded, there is some jealousy among PAs over NPs’ advantage in staffing and hiring decisions, “since they don’t need [direct physician] supervision ... and there are limits on how many PAs can be supervised by one physician.”

Most PA-NP interactions are collaborative, although many people emphasize the relatively few conflicts, said Jennifer Orozco, DMSc, PA-C, president and chair of the American Academy of PAs.

“We see that a lot in this country,” she said. “People try to drive a wedge, but it’s often a misnomer that there’s a lot of arguing and infighting.”
 

NPs: Different backgrounds, same goal

The Medscape survey also included information from 750 NPs on working relationships; 93% of them favored nurses and PAs working more independently from doctors.

April Kapu, DNP, ARPN, has worked closely with PAs for more than 20 years. “In my experience ... they complement one another as health team members, although the education and training are somewhat different,” said Ms. Kapu, , president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

Some respondents noted the different educational trajectories for NPs and PAs. “Doctors and PAs are taught using the same model, but NPs are taught under the nursing model,” wrote a family medicine PA.

In emergency departments where Mr. Blumm has worked, ICU NPs have an edge over PAs in terms of preparation, organization, and the tabulation of formulas. On the other hand, some of Mr. Blumm’s fellow PAs were also emergency medicine technicians or respiratory therapists, who had “2 years of classroom training, on par with that of medical students.”

Must these differences in training and education foment conflict between NPs and PAs? “We all bring something different to the table,” said Ms. Kapu, who also is associate dean for clinical and community partnerships at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It is important to respect each person’s entry point, education, and training.”
 

Differing personalities and environments

Numerous PA respondents said that individual personalities and work environments are more likely to trigger issues with NPs than are differences in training.

“It depends on the team and situation and who the people are, not the letters behind their names,” an emergency medicine PA wrote. A surgical PA noted that “group dynamics and work culture differ from place to place,” while a third PA agreed that “it’s personality dependent, not title dependent.”

No single formula will resolve areas of NP-PA conflict, Ms. Orozco said. “What works in Chicago might not work in rural Colorado or Texas or California, but we do have to come together. The overall focus should be on greater flexibility for PAs and NPs. Patients will fare better.”
 

Joint research, publishing could help

About a decade ago, Mr. Blumm joined with another PA and an NP to form the American College of Clinicians, the first joint PA-NP national professional organization. Although it disbanded after 6 years, owing to low membership, he hopes a similar collaboration will take off in the future.

“I also recommend that PAs and NPs publish articles together, with research as an excellent place to start,” he added. “PAs and NPs should stand together and be a source of healing for all our patients. Regardless of our titles, our responsibility is to bring healing together.”

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

Physician interactions with nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are only going to increase in frequency. – The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts a 40% increase in the NP workforce by 2031, coupled with a 28% rise in PAs.

In recent reports on the quality of the relationships involving these health care professions, survey respondents mostly gave positive accounts of collaboration, using words such as like “comradery,” “teamwork,” “congenial,” and “cohesion.” But all was not perfect. Where and how could these important health care provider relationships improve?
 

PAs: “Competition and collaboration’ with RNs

In a Medscape survey of more than 770 PAs about their working relationships with other health care professionals; 83% of them supported the idea of PAs and NPs practicing more independently from physicians, but sometimes it’s not easy to stay in their individual lanes.

One PA respondent complained that NPs get “more opportunities and preference,” another pointed to PA-NP “turf issues,” and a third griped about NPs’ “strong unions,” which have stoked more fighting about practice abilities and available settings.

Robert Blumm, MA, PA-C, a retired surgical and emergency medicine PA who regards himself as an advocate for both PAs and NPs, describes their interaction as a “mixture of competition and collaboration.”

On one hand, the two groups typically “cooperate and do an excellent job, incurring patient errors similar to or less than physician colleagues or senior residents.” On the other hand, Mr. Blumm conceded, there is some jealousy among PAs over NPs’ advantage in staffing and hiring decisions, “since they don’t need [direct physician] supervision ... and there are limits on how many PAs can be supervised by one physician.”

Most PA-NP interactions are collaborative, although many people emphasize the relatively few conflicts, said Jennifer Orozco, DMSc, PA-C, president and chair of the American Academy of PAs.

“We see that a lot in this country,” she said. “People try to drive a wedge, but it’s often a misnomer that there’s a lot of arguing and infighting.”
 

NPs: Different backgrounds, same goal

The Medscape survey also included information from 750 NPs on working relationships; 93% of them favored nurses and PAs working more independently from doctors.

April Kapu, DNP, ARPN, has worked closely with PAs for more than 20 years. “In my experience ... they complement one another as health team members, although the education and training are somewhat different,” said Ms. Kapu, , president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

Some respondents noted the different educational trajectories for NPs and PAs. “Doctors and PAs are taught using the same model, but NPs are taught under the nursing model,” wrote a family medicine PA.

In emergency departments where Mr. Blumm has worked, ICU NPs have an edge over PAs in terms of preparation, organization, and the tabulation of formulas. On the other hand, some of Mr. Blumm’s fellow PAs were also emergency medicine technicians or respiratory therapists, who had “2 years of classroom training, on par with that of medical students.”

Must these differences in training and education foment conflict between NPs and PAs? “We all bring something different to the table,” said Ms. Kapu, who also is associate dean for clinical and community partnerships at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It is important to respect each person’s entry point, education, and training.”
 

Differing personalities and environments

Numerous PA respondents said that individual personalities and work environments are more likely to trigger issues with NPs than are differences in training.

“It depends on the team and situation and who the people are, not the letters behind their names,” an emergency medicine PA wrote. A surgical PA noted that “group dynamics and work culture differ from place to place,” while a third PA agreed that “it’s personality dependent, not title dependent.”

No single formula will resolve areas of NP-PA conflict, Ms. Orozco said. “What works in Chicago might not work in rural Colorado or Texas or California, but we do have to come together. The overall focus should be on greater flexibility for PAs and NPs. Patients will fare better.”
 

Joint research, publishing could help

About a decade ago, Mr. Blumm joined with another PA and an NP to form the American College of Clinicians, the first joint PA-NP national professional organization. Although it disbanded after 6 years, owing to low membership, he hopes a similar collaboration will take off in the future.

“I also recommend that PAs and NPs publish articles together, with research as an excellent place to start,” he added. “PAs and NPs should stand together and be a source of healing for all our patients. Regardless of our titles, our responsibility is to bring healing together.”

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

Physician interactions with nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are only going to increase in frequency. – The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts a 40% increase in the NP workforce by 2031, coupled with a 28% rise in PAs.

In recent reports on the quality of the relationships involving these health care professions, survey respondents mostly gave positive accounts of collaboration, using words such as like “comradery,” “teamwork,” “congenial,” and “cohesion.” But all was not perfect. Where and how could these important health care provider relationships improve?
 

PAs: “Competition and collaboration’ with RNs

In a Medscape survey of more than 770 PAs about their working relationships with other health care professionals; 83% of them supported the idea of PAs and NPs practicing more independently from physicians, but sometimes it’s not easy to stay in their individual lanes.

One PA respondent complained that NPs get “more opportunities and preference,” another pointed to PA-NP “turf issues,” and a third griped about NPs’ “strong unions,” which have stoked more fighting about practice abilities and available settings.

Robert Blumm, MA, PA-C, a retired surgical and emergency medicine PA who regards himself as an advocate for both PAs and NPs, describes their interaction as a “mixture of competition and collaboration.”

On one hand, the two groups typically “cooperate and do an excellent job, incurring patient errors similar to or less than physician colleagues or senior residents.” On the other hand, Mr. Blumm conceded, there is some jealousy among PAs over NPs’ advantage in staffing and hiring decisions, “since they don’t need [direct physician] supervision ... and there are limits on how many PAs can be supervised by one physician.”

Most PA-NP interactions are collaborative, although many people emphasize the relatively few conflicts, said Jennifer Orozco, DMSc, PA-C, president and chair of the American Academy of PAs.

“We see that a lot in this country,” she said. “People try to drive a wedge, but it’s often a misnomer that there’s a lot of arguing and infighting.”
 

NPs: Different backgrounds, same goal

The Medscape survey also included information from 750 NPs on working relationships; 93% of them favored nurses and PAs working more independently from doctors.

April Kapu, DNP, ARPN, has worked closely with PAs for more than 20 years. “In my experience ... they complement one another as health team members, although the education and training are somewhat different,” said Ms. Kapu, , president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

Some respondents noted the different educational trajectories for NPs and PAs. “Doctors and PAs are taught using the same model, but NPs are taught under the nursing model,” wrote a family medicine PA.

In emergency departments where Mr. Blumm has worked, ICU NPs have an edge over PAs in terms of preparation, organization, and the tabulation of formulas. On the other hand, some of Mr. Blumm’s fellow PAs were also emergency medicine technicians or respiratory therapists, who had “2 years of classroom training, on par with that of medical students.”

Must these differences in training and education foment conflict between NPs and PAs? “We all bring something different to the table,” said Ms. Kapu, who also is associate dean for clinical and community partnerships at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It is important to respect each person’s entry point, education, and training.”
 

Differing personalities and environments

Numerous PA respondents said that individual personalities and work environments are more likely to trigger issues with NPs than are differences in training.

“It depends on the team and situation and who the people are, not the letters behind their names,” an emergency medicine PA wrote. A surgical PA noted that “group dynamics and work culture differ from place to place,” while a third PA agreed that “it’s personality dependent, not title dependent.”

No single formula will resolve areas of NP-PA conflict, Ms. Orozco said. “What works in Chicago might not work in rural Colorado or Texas or California, but we do have to come together. The overall focus should be on greater flexibility for PAs and NPs. Patients will fare better.”
 

Joint research, publishing could help

About a decade ago, Mr. Blumm joined with another PA and an NP to form the American College of Clinicians, the first joint PA-NP national professional organization. Although it disbanded after 6 years, owing to low membership, he hopes a similar collaboration will take off in the future.

“I also recommend that PAs and NPs publish articles together, with research as an excellent place to start,” he added. “PAs and NPs should stand together and be a source of healing for all our patients. Regardless of our titles, our responsibility is to bring healing together.”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

Compassion is borne out of a sense of empathy – the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Studies on empathy show it to be crucial to quality health care and not just for patients.

In one study on empathy ratings among doctors, 87% of the public believe that compassion, or a clear and obvious desire to relieve suffering, is the most critical factor when choosing a doctor. In fact, it eclipses travel time, wait time, and cost on the list of sought-after physician features.

Wendie Trubow, MD, an ob.gyn. in Newton, Mass., with over 25 years of experience in the medical field, says empathy has absolutely helped her be a better physician.

“Patients consistently mention how grateful they are that someone has listened to them and validated them,” she says. “When patients feel heard and validated, they are more likely to communicate openly, and this raises the potential of being able to create treatment plans that they will actually participate in. Ultimately, it enriches patient care.”

Mohammadreza Hojat, PhD, research professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Asano-Gonnella Center for Research in Medical Education and Health Care at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, says that empirical research he and colleagues have done on empathy in health profession education and patient care over the past 20 years shows that empathic engagement in patient care is reciprocally beneficial for both clinicians and patients.

For example, Dr. Hojat notes that in one study, diabetic patients treated by empathic physicians (measured by the Jefferson Scale of Empathy) had more control over their disease when measured with laboratory test results such as hemoglobin A1c and LDL-C. In another, patients with diabetes treated by more empathic physicians had significantly lower rates of acute metabolic complications that required hospitalization.

For physicians, empathic relationships with your patients lead to fewer disputes, higher reimbursements, greater patient satisfaction, fewer malpractice lawsuits, and a more rewarding experience treating patients.
 

Different types of empathy

The importance of empathy in doctoring is evident, but Dr. Hojat says it’s crucial to differentiate between clinical empathy and emotional empathy. One can enhance care, while the other, when overused, may lead to physician burnout.

In fact, he says, clinical empathy and emotional empathy have different consequences in a medical setting.

“The relationship between clinical empathy and clinical outcomes is linear, meaning that more empathic engagement leads to more positive clinical outcomes,” says Dr. Hojat. “However, the relationship between emotional empathy and clinical outcomes is curvilinear, or an inverted U shape, similar to the association between anxiety and performance, meaning that limited emotional empathy or limited sympathetic engagement could be helpful, but its overabundance can hamper clinical relationships and objective clinical decision-making.”

The takeaway is that when physicians don’t regulate their emotional empathy, it becomes an obstacle to clinical empathy, ultimately detrimental to health care outcomes.
 

When burnout hinders empathy

Of course, the reverse is also true – burnout can make it harder for physicians to muster up empathy of any kind toward their patients. At least 53% of physicians show one or more symptoms of burnout, such as exhaustion, questioning the point of the work, cynicism, sarcasm, and the need to “vent” about patients or the job, according to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

Venting about patients can also be called “compassion fatigue,” which is a sign that your ability to empathize with patients is compromised. You can still practice medicine, but you’re not operating anywhere close to your optimum abilities.

“Generally, physicians who are burned out struggle with empathy since it’s exactly what they’re missing for themselves, and [they] often find it difficult to generate,” says Dr. Trubow.
 

How to manage burnout and boost your empathy

Burnout can happen for various reasons – pressure to cycle through scores of patients, too many bureaucratic tasks, less autonomy, frustration with electronic health record requirements, and too many work hours, according to the Medscape report.

A report in Family Practice Management finds there are two main goals for physicians to tackle when trying to reduce burnout symptoms: Lower your stress levels and improve your ability to recharge your energy accounts.

“For physicians experiencing burnout [and thus, a lack of empathy], the best approach to this situation is to first take a break and evaluate whether there are any structures to put in place to improve the situation; this can often improve a provider’s empathy,” says Dr. Trubow.

For example, physicians can look at ways to alleviate burnout by investing in leadership development, finding flexible work arrangements, reducing technological burdens, and limiting nonclinical activities.

Other strategies that can build up your reserves include connecting with colleagues, gaining a greater sense of control over your work, and having opportunities to grow and excel in your field. This requires not only a personal approach by physicians, but a buy-in at an institutional level as well.

In Medscape’s report, where 65% of physicians say burnout affects their relationships, physicians’ coping methods include exercise, time with family and friends, time alone, sleep, music, and meditation.

“Clinical empathy must be placed in the realm of ‘evidence-based’ medicine,” says Dr. Hojat. “Given our research findings that clinical empathy tends to erode as students progress through medical school, it is important that assessment and enhancement of clinical empathy be integrated into formal educational curriculum of medical schools and postgraduate training programs for professional development of physicians–in-training and –in-practice.”

“Burnout also leads to a large swath of physicians who aren’t as empathetic toward their patients as they could be.”

–Danielle Ofri,  “What Doctors Feel: How Emotions Affect the Practice of Medicine”.

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

Compassion is borne out of a sense of empathy – the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Studies on empathy show it to be crucial to quality health care and not just for patients.

In one study on empathy ratings among doctors, 87% of the public believe that compassion, or a clear and obvious desire to relieve suffering, is the most critical factor when choosing a doctor. In fact, it eclipses travel time, wait time, and cost on the list of sought-after physician features.

Wendie Trubow, MD, an ob.gyn. in Newton, Mass., with over 25 years of experience in the medical field, says empathy has absolutely helped her be a better physician.

“Patients consistently mention how grateful they are that someone has listened to them and validated them,” she says. “When patients feel heard and validated, they are more likely to communicate openly, and this raises the potential of being able to create treatment plans that they will actually participate in. Ultimately, it enriches patient care.”

Mohammadreza Hojat, PhD, research professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Asano-Gonnella Center for Research in Medical Education and Health Care at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, says that empirical research he and colleagues have done on empathy in health profession education and patient care over the past 20 years shows that empathic engagement in patient care is reciprocally beneficial for both clinicians and patients.

For example, Dr. Hojat notes that in one study, diabetic patients treated by empathic physicians (measured by the Jefferson Scale of Empathy) had more control over their disease when measured with laboratory test results such as hemoglobin A1c and LDL-C. In another, patients with diabetes treated by more empathic physicians had significantly lower rates of acute metabolic complications that required hospitalization.

For physicians, empathic relationships with your patients lead to fewer disputes, higher reimbursements, greater patient satisfaction, fewer malpractice lawsuits, and a more rewarding experience treating patients.
 

Different types of empathy

The importance of empathy in doctoring is evident, but Dr. Hojat says it’s crucial to differentiate between clinical empathy and emotional empathy. One can enhance care, while the other, when overused, may lead to physician burnout.

In fact, he says, clinical empathy and emotional empathy have different consequences in a medical setting.

“The relationship between clinical empathy and clinical outcomes is linear, meaning that more empathic engagement leads to more positive clinical outcomes,” says Dr. Hojat. “However, the relationship between emotional empathy and clinical outcomes is curvilinear, or an inverted U shape, similar to the association between anxiety and performance, meaning that limited emotional empathy or limited sympathetic engagement could be helpful, but its overabundance can hamper clinical relationships and objective clinical decision-making.”

The takeaway is that when physicians don’t regulate their emotional empathy, it becomes an obstacle to clinical empathy, ultimately detrimental to health care outcomes.
 

When burnout hinders empathy

Of course, the reverse is also true – burnout can make it harder for physicians to muster up empathy of any kind toward their patients. At least 53% of physicians show one or more symptoms of burnout, such as exhaustion, questioning the point of the work, cynicism, sarcasm, and the need to “vent” about patients or the job, according to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

Venting about patients can also be called “compassion fatigue,” which is a sign that your ability to empathize with patients is compromised. You can still practice medicine, but you’re not operating anywhere close to your optimum abilities.

“Generally, physicians who are burned out struggle with empathy since it’s exactly what they’re missing for themselves, and [they] often find it difficult to generate,” says Dr. Trubow.
 

How to manage burnout and boost your empathy

Burnout can happen for various reasons – pressure to cycle through scores of patients, too many bureaucratic tasks, less autonomy, frustration with electronic health record requirements, and too many work hours, according to the Medscape report.

A report in Family Practice Management finds there are two main goals for physicians to tackle when trying to reduce burnout symptoms: Lower your stress levels and improve your ability to recharge your energy accounts.

“For physicians experiencing burnout [and thus, a lack of empathy], the best approach to this situation is to first take a break and evaluate whether there are any structures to put in place to improve the situation; this can often improve a provider’s empathy,” says Dr. Trubow.

For example, physicians can look at ways to alleviate burnout by investing in leadership development, finding flexible work arrangements, reducing technological burdens, and limiting nonclinical activities.

Other strategies that can build up your reserves include connecting with colleagues, gaining a greater sense of control over your work, and having opportunities to grow and excel in your field. This requires not only a personal approach by physicians, but a buy-in at an institutional level as well.

In Medscape’s report, where 65% of physicians say burnout affects their relationships, physicians’ coping methods include exercise, time with family and friends, time alone, sleep, music, and meditation.

“Clinical empathy must be placed in the realm of ‘evidence-based’ medicine,” says Dr. Hojat. “Given our research findings that clinical empathy tends to erode as students progress through medical school, it is important that assessment and enhancement of clinical empathy be integrated into formal educational curriculum of medical schools and postgraduate training programs for professional development of physicians–in-training and –in-practice.”

“Burnout also leads to a large swath of physicians who aren’t as empathetic toward their patients as they could be.”

–Danielle Ofri,  “What Doctors Feel: How Emotions Affect the Practice of Medicine”.

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

Compassion is borne out of a sense of empathy – the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Studies on empathy show it to be crucial to quality health care and not just for patients.

In one study on empathy ratings among doctors, 87% of the public believe that compassion, or a clear and obvious desire to relieve suffering, is the most critical factor when choosing a doctor. In fact, it eclipses travel time, wait time, and cost on the list of sought-after physician features.

Wendie Trubow, MD, an ob.gyn. in Newton, Mass., with over 25 years of experience in the medical field, says empathy has absolutely helped her be a better physician.

“Patients consistently mention how grateful they are that someone has listened to them and validated them,” she says. “When patients feel heard and validated, they are more likely to communicate openly, and this raises the potential of being able to create treatment plans that they will actually participate in. Ultimately, it enriches patient care.”

Mohammadreza Hojat, PhD, research professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Asano-Gonnella Center for Research in Medical Education and Health Care at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, says that empirical research he and colleagues have done on empathy in health profession education and patient care over the past 20 years shows that empathic engagement in patient care is reciprocally beneficial for both clinicians and patients.

For example, Dr. Hojat notes that in one study, diabetic patients treated by empathic physicians (measured by the Jefferson Scale of Empathy) had more control over their disease when measured with laboratory test results such as hemoglobin A1c and LDL-C. In another, patients with diabetes treated by more empathic physicians had significantly lower rates of acute metabolic complications that required hospitalization.

For physicians, empathic relationships with your patients lead to fewer disputes, higher reimbursements, greater patient satisfaction, fewer malpractice lawsuits, and a more rewarding experience treating patients.
 

Different types of empathy

The importance of empathy in doctoring is evident, but Dr. Hojat says it’s crucial to differentiate between clinical empathy and emotional empathy. One can enhance care, while the other, when overused, may lead to physician burnout.

In fact, he says, clinical empathy and emotional empathy have different consequences in a medical setting.

“The relationship between clinical empathy and clinical outcomes is linear, meaning that more empathic engagement leads to more positive clinical outcomes,” says Dr. Hojat. “However, the relationship between emotional empathy and clinical outcomes is curvilinear, or an inverted U shape, similar to the association between anxiety and performance, meaning that limited emotional empathy or limited sympathetic engagement could be helpful, but its overabundance can hamper clinical relationships and objective clinical decision-making.”

The takeaway is that when physicians don’t regulate their emotional empathy, it becomes an obstacle to clinical empathy, ultimately detrimental to health care outcomes.
 

When burnout hinders empathy

Of course, the reverse is also true – burnout can make it harder for physicians to muster up empathy of any kind toward their patients. At least 53% of physicians show one or more symptoms of burnout, such as exhaustion, questioning the point of the work, cynicism, sarcasm, and the need to “vent” about patients or the job, according to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

Venting about patients can also be called “compassion fatigue,” which is a sign that your ability to empathize with patients is compromised. You can still practice medicine, but you’re not operating anywhere close to your optimum abilities.

“Generally, physicians who are burned out struggle with empathy since it’s exactly what they’re missing for themselves, and [they] often find it difficult to generate,” says Dr. Trubow.
 

How to manage burnout and boost your empathy

Burnout can happen for various reasons – pressure to cycle through scores of patients, too many bureaucratic tasks, less autonomy, frustration with electronic health record requirements, and too many work hours, according to the Medscape report.

A report in Family Practice Management finds there are two main goals for physicians to tackle when trying to reduce burnout symptoms: Lower your stress levels and improve your ability to recharge your energy accounts.

“For physicians experiencing burnout [and thus, a lack of empathy], the best approach to this situation is to first take a break and evaluate whether there are any structures to put in place to improve the situation; this can often improve a provider’s empathy,” says Dr. Trubow.

For example, physicians can look at ways to alleviate burnout by investing in leadership development, finding flexible work arrangements, reducing technological burdens, and limiting nonclinical activities.

Other strategies that can build up your reserves include connecting with colleagues, gaining a greater sense of control over your work, and having opportunities to grow and excel in your field. This requires not only a personal approach by physicians, but a buy-in at an institutional level as well.

In Medscape’s report, where 65% of physicians say burnout affects their relationships, physicians’ coping methods include exercise, time with family and friends, time alone, sleep, music, and meditation.

“Clinical empathy must be placed in the realm of ‘evidence-based’ medicine,” says Dr. Hojat. “Given our research findings that clinical empathy tends to erode as students progress through medical school, it is important that assessment and enhancement of clinical empathy be integrated into formal educational curriculum of medical schools and postgraduate training programs for professional development of physicians–in-training and –in-practice.”

“Burnout also leads to a large swath of physicians who aren’t as empathetic toward their patients as they could be.”

–Danielle Ofri,  “What Doctors Feel: How Emotions Affect the Practice of Medicine”.

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

From heartburn to hemorrhoids and everything in between, gastrointestinal troubles affect 60 million to 70 million Americans. Part of what makes them so frustrating – besides the frequent flights to the bathroom – are the invasive and uncomfortable tests one must endure for diagnosis, such as endoscopy (feeding a flexible tube into a person’s digestive tract) or x-rays that can involve higher radiation exposure.

But a revolutionary new option promising greater comfort and convenience could become available within the next few years.

A group of researchers has developed a small pill-like device that, once swallowed, can provide precise real-time data as it moves through your system. The technology is described in Nature Electronics, along with the results of in vitro and animal testing of how well it works.

“You can think of this like a GPS that you can see on your phone as your Lyft or Uber driver is moving around,” says study author Azita Emami, PhD, a professor of electrical engineering and medical engineering at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. “You can see the driver coming through the streets, and you can track it in real time, but imagine you can do that with much higher precision for a much smaller device inside the body.”

It’s not the first option for GI testing that can be swallowed. A “capsule endoscopy” camera can take pictures of the digestive tract. And a “wireless motility capsule” uses sensors to measure pH, temperature, and pressure. But these technologies may not work for the entire time it takes to pass through the gut, usually about 1-3 days. And while they gather information, you can’t track their location in the GI tract in real time. Your doctor can learn a lot from this level of detail.

“If a patient has motility problems in their GI tract, it can actually tell the [doctor] where the motility problem is happening, where the slowdown is happening, which is much more informative,” says Dr. Emami. Such slowdowns are common in notoriously frustrating GI issues like irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS, and inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD.

To develop this technology, the research team drew inspiration from magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI. Magnetic fields transmit data from the Bluetooth-enabled device to a smartphone. An external component, a magnetic field generator that looks like a flat mat, powers the device and is small enough to be carried in a backpack – or placed under a bed, attached to a jacket, or mounted to a toilet seat. The part that can be swallowed has tiny chips embedded in a capsulelike package.

Before this technology can go to market, more testing is needed, including clinical trials in humans, says Dr. Emami. That will likely take a few years.

The team also aims to make the device even smaller (it now measures about 1 cm wide and 2 cm long) and less expensive, and they want it to do more things, such as sending medicines to the GI tract. Those innovations could take a few more years.

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

From heartburn to hemorrhoids and everything in between, gastrointestinal troubles affect 60 million to 70 million Americans. Part of what makes them so frustrating – besides the frequent flights to the bathroom – are the invasive and uncomfortable tests one must endure for diagnosis, such as endoscopy (feeding a flexible tube into a person’s digestive tract) or x-rays that can involve higher radiation exposure.

But a revolutionary new option promising greater comfort and convenience could become available within the next few years.

A group of researchers has developed a small pill-like device that, once swallowed, can provide precise real-time data as it moves through your system. The technology is described in Nature Electronics, along with the results of in vitro and animal testing of how well it works.

“You can think of this like a GPS that you can see on your phone as your Lyft or Uber driver is moving around,” says study author Azita Emami, PhD, a professor of electrical engineering and medical engineering at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. “You can see the driver coming through the streets, and you can track it in real time, but imagine you can do that with much higher precision for a much smaller device inside the body.”

It’s not the first option for GI testing that can be swallowed. A “capsule endoscopy” camera can take pictures of the digestive tract. And a “wireless motility capsule” uses sensors to measure pH, temperature, and pressure. But these technologies may not work for the entire time it takes to pass through the gut, usually about 1-3 days. And while they gather information, you can’t track their location in the GI tract in real time. Your doctor can learn a lot from this level of detail.

“If a patient has motility problems in their GI tract, it can actually tell the [doctor] where the motility problem is happening, where the slowdown is happening, which is much more informative,” says Dr. Emami. Such slowdowns are common in notoriously frustrating GI issues like irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS, and inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD.

To develop this technology, the research team drew inspiration from magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI. Magnetic fields transmit data from the Bluetooth-enabled device to a smartphone. An external component, a magnetic field generator that looks like a flat mat, powers the device and is small enough to be carried in a backpack – or placed under a bed, attached to a jacket, or mounted to a toilet seat. The part that can be swallowed has tiny chips embedded in a capsulelike package.

Before this technology can go to market, more testing is needed, including clinical trials in humans, says Dr. Emami. That will likely take a few years.

The team also aims to make the device even smaller (it now measures about 1 cm wide and 2 cm long) and less expensive, and they want it to do more things, such as sending medicines to the GI tract. Those innovations could take a few more years.

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

From heartburn to hemorrhoids and everything in between, gastrointestinal troubles affect 60 million to 70 million Americans. Part of what makes them so frustrating – besides the frequent flights to the bathroom – are the invasive and uncomfortable tests one must endure for diagnosis, such as endoscopy (feeding a flexible tube into a person’s digestive tract) or x-rays that can involve higher radiation exposure.

But a revolutionary new option promising greater comfort and convenience could become available within the next few years.

A group of researchers has developed a small pill-like device that, once swallowed, can provide precise real-time data as it moves through your system. The technology is described in Nature Electronics, along with the results of in vitro and animal testing of how well it works.

“You can think of this like a GPS that you can see on your phone as your Lyft or Uber driver is moving around,” says study author Azita Emami, PhD, a professor of electrical engineering and medical engineering at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. “You can see the driver coming through the streets, and you can track it in real time, but imagine you can do that with much higher precision for a much smaller device inside the body.”

It’s not the first option for GI testing that can be swallowed. A “capsule endoscopy” camera can take pictures of the digestive tract. And a “wireless motility capsule” uses sensors to measure pH, temperature, and pressure. But these technologies may not work for the entire time it takes to pass through the gut, usually about 1-3 days. And while they gather information, you can’t track their location in the GI tract in real time. Your doctor can learn a lot from this level of detail.

“If a patient has motility problems in their GI tract, it can actually tell the [doctor] where the motility problem is happening, where the slowdown is happening, which is much more informative,” says Dr. Emami. Such slowdowns are common in notoriously frustrating GI issues like irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS, and inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD.

To develop this technology, the research team drew inspiration from magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI. Magnetic fields transmit data from the Bluetooth-enabled device to a smartphone. An external component, a magnetic field generator that looks like a flat mat, powers the device and is small enough to be carried in a backpack – or placed under a bed, attached to a jacket, or mounted to a toilet seat. The part that can be swallowed has tiny chips embedded in a capsulelike package.

Before this technology can go to market, more testing is needed, including clinical trials in humans, says Dr. Emami. That will likely take a few years.

The team also aims to make the device even smaller (it now measures about 1 cm wide and 2 cm long) and less expensive, and they want it to do more things, such as sending medicines to the GI tract. Those innovations could take a few more years.

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

Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.

“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.

iStock/ThinkStock

The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.

Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.

Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”

On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”

#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.

Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.

“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.

“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”

And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.

“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”

Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.

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

Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.

“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.

iStock/ThinkStock

The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.

Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.

Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”

On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”

#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.

Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.

“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.

“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”

And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.

“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”

Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.

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

Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.

“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.

iStock/ThinkStock

The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.

Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.

Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”

On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”

#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.

Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.

“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.

“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”

And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.

“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”

Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has declined to approve omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for treatment of adults with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), citing a lack of evidence on efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Last December, a panel of FDA advisers recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil for chronic HFrEF, as reported by this news organization.

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF. The drug had a PDUFA date of February 28.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

In a complete response letter, the FDA said GALACTIC-HF is “not sufficiently persuasive to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for reducing the risk of heart failure events and cardiovascular death” in adults with HFrEF, Cytokinetics shared in a news release.

Further, the FDA said results from an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil are required to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for the treatment of HFrEF, with benefits that outweigh the risks, Cytokinetics said.

The company said it will request a meeting with the FDA to gain a better understanding of what may be required to support potential approval of omecamtiv mecarbil. However, the company also said it has “no plans” to conduct an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil.

Instead, the company said its focus remains on the development of aficamten, the next-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, currently the subject of SEQUOIA-HCM, a phase 3 clinical trial in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has declined to approve omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for treatment of adults with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), citing a lack of evidence on efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Last December, a panel of FDA advisers recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil for chronic HFrEF, as reported by this news organization.

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF. The drug had a PDUFA date of February 28.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

In a complete response letter, the FDA said GALACTIC-HF is “not sufficiently persuasive to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for reducing the risk of heart failure events and cardiovascular death” in adults with HFrEF, Cytokinetics shared in a news release.

Further, the FDA said results from an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil are required to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for the treatment of HFrEF, with benefits that outweigh the risks, Cytokinetics said.

The company said it will request a meeting with the FDA to gain a better understanding of what may be required to support potential approval of omecamtiv mecarbil. However, the company also said it has “no plans” to conduct an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil.

Instead, the company said its focus remains on the development of aficamten, the next-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, currently the subject of SEQUOIA-HCM, a phase 3 clinical trial in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has declined to approve omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for treatment of adults with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), citing a lack of evidence on efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Last December, a panel of FDA advisers recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil for chronic HFrEF, as reported by this news organization.

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF. The drug had a PDUFA date of February 28.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

In a complete response letter, the FDA said GALACTIC-HF is “not sufficiently persuasive to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for reducing the risk of heart failure events and cardiovascular death” in adults with HFrEF, Cytokinetics shared in a news release.

Further, the FDA said results from an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil are required to establish substantial evidence of effectiveness for the treatment of HFrEF, with benefits that outweigh the risks, Cytokinetics said.

The company said it will request a meeting with the FDA to gain a better understanding of what may be required to support potential approval of omecamtiv mecarbil. However, the company also said it has “no plans” to conduct an additional clinical trial of omecamtiv mecarbil.

Instead, the company said its focus remains on the development of aficamten, the next-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, currently the subject of SEQUOIA-HCM, a phase 3 clinical trial in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

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

Three patients were waiting in a queue for their telemedicine visit. Four others were in exam rooms, waiting for their appointments. Another patient was on the phone, requesting a prescription renewal.

On a sunny Wednesday afternoon in February, David Ahdoot, MD, FACOG, an ob.gyn. in Burbank, Calif., about 10 miles north of downtown Los Angeles, knows he’ll be working late.

“Normally, we would be closed on Wednesday afternoon,” he said. That time would ordinarily be used to schedule surgeries, make dictation, and perform other tasks. But those were the old days, before the COVID-19 pandemic, before the ob.gyn. shortage got even worse, and before many of the other obstacles that make his practice more burdensome worsened.

Those Wednesday afternoon tasks must be done another time. “There are too many patients to see in the office,” said Dr. Ahdoot, who’s also an assistant clinical professor at UCLA. Because of the shortage of primary care physicians, he has taken on new patients, although he said he would like to focus on his existing ones.

Many of those existing patients have been coming to Dr. Ahdoot for years. “I love my job,” he said, and it shows.

His patient reviews online include the usual grumblings about waiting time and being rushed, but many, especially those from new parents, praise him as caring, compassionate, exceptional – the kind of doctor women trust to deliver their first baby and their next ones, then guide them through menopause and other issues.

The shortage of ob.gyns. in California, as elsewhere, is real, as Dr. Ahdoot’s day-to-day attests. The implications are in evidence well beyond his higher patient loads. Lately, Dr. Ahdoot said, the calls from headhunters seeking to fill positions for locum tenens have increased from twice a month to three times a day. Despite his love for his practice, he admits he thinks about stepping away. He is 56, 8 years short of the average retirement age for ob.gyns. nationally, according to a 2018 report.
 

Projected shortages

The shortage of primary care doctors, including ob.gyns., is nationwide. Dr. Ahdoot is one of many faces behind the statistics. According to a 2021 update from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the number of ob.gyns. nationwide is expected to decrease 7% between 2018 and 2030, from 50,850 to 47,490. Meanwhile, demand is headed in the other direction – it is projected to rise 4%, from 50,850 to 52,660 ob.gyns. needed. The need for nurse-midwives, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants who provide women’s health care is also expected to exceed the supply in coming years.

Some areas are harder hit. The Northeast is expected to have enough maternal health care providers to meet the current average level of care nationally but the West, Midwest, and South will not, according to HHS.

California will likely need an additional 4,700 primary care clinicians by 2025, according to projections by the HealthForce Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Solutions in sight?

Efforts are increasing to make it easier or more appealing for ob.gyns. to practice, or remain in practice, in California. Some existing programs have received funding, while new initiatives to improve the situation are launching.

Some of these efforts and programs will be viewed as a model by some other states, said Janet Coffman, PhD, associate professor at UC San Francisco and a health policy expert who is familiar with new programs and established ones.

“I would say that California offers an example of a multifaceted approach to addressing the shortage of reproductive health providers in general and abortion providers in particular.”

The state has not sat idly in the face of dire predictions of shortfalls in the number of ob.gyns. Over the past decade, Dr. Coffman said, the legislature has “substantially” boosted funding for grants to support ob.gyn. residency programs through CalMedForce and the Song-Brown Healthcare Workforce Training Program. The result: an 18% increase in the number of residents entering the field over the past decade.

“These programs have also substantially increased funding for family medicine residency programs, which are important because family physicians are trained to provide preventive reproductive health services and manage low-risk deliveries,” she added. “Funding for midwifery, nurse midwifery, and nurse practitioner education has been more modest, which I find disappointing because they are qualified to provide many reproductive health services and are more likely to care for underserved populations.”

Other new programs and legislation are focused on expanding the scope of practice for nonphysician health care providers who care for women. Many of these measures are meant to ensure continued access to abortion services not just for California residents, who are guaranteed that right in the state constitution, but for the influx of women expected from states that limited or prohibited abortion after the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Gavin Newsom, the state’s Democratic governor, has promoted California as a safe haven for women seeking abortions. In September, Gov. Newsom’s reelection campaign rented billboards in six states that have restrictive abortion laws with messages directing women to a website informing them “abortion is legal and protected in California.” The website includes a search function for women looking for providers – representing a further potential strain on the already stressed pool of clinicians. Each year, an estimated 8,000 to 16,100 more people are expected to travel to California for abortions, according to projections made in 2022 by the UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy.

The questions are, will the efforts be enough to stall or reverse the shortage, and will the efforts to expand other health care providers’ scope of practice be met with cooperation or resistance by MDs?
 

Just launched: California reproductive health service corps

Brand new, as of January 2023, is the California Reproductive Health Service Corps, created by a bill Gov. Newsom signed into law last September. The program operates within the Department of Health Care Access and Information. Rajeena Victoria Bisla, a spokesperson for assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), who authored the bill, said: “The Corps will be responsible for recruiting, training, and retaining a diverse workforce of health care professionals who will be part of reproductive health care teams assigned to work in underserved areas.”

The teams will include MDs as well as licensed midwives, nurses, physician’s assistants, doulas, and medical assistants. They will provide abortion care, contraception, perinatal care, gynecology services, and gender-affirming care, among other needs, Ms. Bisla said.

The California Medical Association’s philanthropic arm, Physicians for a Healthy California (PHC), has two programs that aim to grow and diversify the physician workforce and invest in the state’s underserved areas, according to Lupe Alonzo-Diaz, CEO and president of PHC.

CalMedForce gives annual grants to fund new residency positions at graduate medical education (GME) programs throughout the state. The goal, Ms. Alonzo-Diaz said, is to expand the physician training pool. Funds were generated by Proposition 56, which was passed in 2016. The legislation generates tax on tobacco products. To date, GME programs have received more than $112 million to retain and expand primary care GME programs.

A second program, CalHealthCares, also funded by Proposition 56, offers a loan repayment program of up to $300,000 for physicians who meet certain criteria. “We are incentivizing young physicians and dentists to practice in Medi-Cal communities,” Ms. Alonzo-Diaz said, referring to the state’s Medicaid program. Clinicians must have graduated within the past 5 years (since Jan. 1, 2018) or will be graduating from a residency or fellowship program no later than June 30, 2023. Dentists applying for the practice support grant must have graduated from dental school or residency program within the past 15 years (since Jan. 1, 2008).

In exchange for the loan repayment, the health care providers are asked to commit to 5 years of service in the underserved community. So far, about 800 providers are part of the program, she said. According to Ms. Alonzo-Diaz, the average educational debt for health care providers in California is $315,000 to $350,000. That is as much as $100,000 above the national average.

What else is needed? Shannan Velayas, a spokesperson for the California Medical Association, said the state should invest in the Medi-Cal system to improve “meaningful access” to health care services and to expand loan repayment and residency programs like CalHealthCares and CalMedForce.

“Workforce shortages are not a reason to sacrifice quality of care or compromise patient safety but do warrant additional investment to increase access to medical providers working within their scope of practice,” Ms. Velayas said.
 

Widening scopes

Efforts are also underway to expand the scope of practice for nurse-practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants. Triggering these efforts has been the fallout and expected consequences of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, removing the federal right to abortion care.

Effective January 2023, trained and qualified nurse-practitioners and certified nurse-midwives in California can perform first-trimester abortions without a doctor’s supervision. Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), now president pro tempore of the California State Senate, authored the bill, SB1375. The measure builds on a 2013 law she spearheaded that allowed certain advanced-practice providers to perform first-trimester abortions with physician supervision.

On Feb. 13, Ms. Atkins introduced SB385, which gives physician assistants the same ability to become qualified in abortion care.

Ms. Atkins expressed confidence that teamwork would prevail in the efforts to have enough providers in the state. “One of the biggest lessons I learned working at a women’s health clinic [prior to her assuming her legislative positions] is that providers put their patients above all else, whether they are doctors, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, or physician assistants,” she said. “Everyone is on the same team when it comes to breaking down barriers and ensuring all Californians get the care they need without delay.”

Will other states follow suit? “This is pure speculation, but I believe states in which the political leadership supports abortion rights may see the California Reproductive Service Corps and the changes to scope-of-practice laws that allow specially trained CNMs, NPs, and PAs to provide abortions as a model for preserving access to abortion in their states,” Dr. Coffman said.

However, she said, “other states are less likely to view CalMedForce and CalHealthCares as models, because other states have had similar programs for many years, and some have historically invested larger shares of state budget resources into these programs, especially some rural states.”
 

Reports from the trenches

Laurie Love, DNP, RN, is a family nurse practitioner in Valencia and a clinical instructor and lecturer at the UCLA School of Nursing. When a patient becomes pregnant, she refers her to one of four local ob.gyns.

The working relationships she has with them, she said, “are extremely collaborative. There is no animosity or lack of respect because I don’t have an MD behind my name.”

One of those doctors is Dr. Ahdoot, who said he welcomes the expansion of scope of practice for non-MD health care providers. Some of his colleagues, he said, have tried to fight it, but many have come to the point of welcoming the help. “The consensus is you can’t practice without a nurse practitioner anymore,” Dr. Ahdoot told this news organization.

Expanding the scope of practice for other clinicians helps everyone, including patients, he said. He thinks about how the shortage affects them. “For patients, there is frustration,” he said. He said he often hears women saying they can’t schedule a pap smear for 3 months, or they can’t get a return call from their doctor.

Nalo Hamilton, PhD, an ob.gyn. nurse practitioner and associate professor at UCLA, said the physicians she interacts with support the expanded scope of practice. “Many are confused about details, about what it means and how it will impact them,” she said. “Those who understand it, yes, they agree with it. Doctors will simply have more health care providers who are able to do independent practice.” And she makes another point clear: “We won’t replace ob.gyns.”

None of the persons quoted in this story have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

Three patients were waiting in a queue for their telemedicine visit. Four others were in exam rooms, waiting for their appointments. Another patient was on the phone, requesting a prescription renewal.

On a sunny Wednesday afternoon in February, David Ahdoot, MD, FACOG, an ob.gyn. in Burbank, Calif., about 10 miles north of downtown Los Angeles, knows he’ll be working late.

“Normally, we would be closed on Wednesday afternoon,” he said. That time would ordinarily be used to schedule surgeries, make dictation, and perform other tasks. But those were the old days, before the COVID-19 pandemic, before the ob.gyn. shortage got even worse, and before many of the other obstacles that make his practice more burdensome worsened.

Those Wednesday afternoon tasks must be done another time. “There are too many patients to see in the office,” said Dr. Ahdoot, who’s also an assistant clinical professor at UCLA. Because of the shortage of primary care physicians, he has taken on new patients, although he said he would like to focus on his existing ones.

Many of those existing patients have been coming to Dr. Ahdoot for years. “I love my job,” he said, and it shows.

His patient reviews online include the usual grumblings about waiting time and being rushed, but many, especially those from new parents, praise him as caring, compassionate, exceptional – the kind of doctor women trust to deliver their first baby and their next ones, then guide them through menopause and other issues.

The shortage of ob.gyns. in California, as elsewhere, is real, as Dr. Ahdoot’s day-to-day attests. The implications are in evidence well beyond his higher patient loads. Lately, Dr. Ahdoot said, the calls from headhunters seeking to fill positions for locum tenens have increased from twice a month to three times a day. Despite his love for his practice, he admits he thinks about stepping away. He is 56, 8 years short of the average retirement age for ob.gyns. nationally, according to a 2018 report.
 

Projected shortages

The shortage of primary care doctors, including ob.gyns., is nationwide. Dr. Ahdoot is one of many faces behind the statistics. According to a 2021 update from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the number of ob.gyns. nationwide is expected to decrease 7% between 2018 and 2030, from 50,850 to 47,490. Meanwhile, demand is headed in the other direction – it is projected to rise 4%, from 50,850 to 52,660 ob.gyns. needed. The need for nurse-midwives, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants who provide women’s health care is also expected to exceed the supply in coming years.

Some areas are harder hit. The Northeast is expected to have enough maternal health care providers to meet the current average level of care nationally but the West, Midwest, and South will not, according to HHS.

California will likely need an additional 4,700 primary care clinicians by 2025, according to projections by the HealthForce Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Solutions in sight?

Efforts are increasing to make it easier or more appealing for ob.gyns. to practice, or remain in practice, in California. Some existing programs have received funding, while new initiatives to improve the situation are launching.

Some of these efforts and programs will be viewed as a model by some other states, said Janet Coffman, PhD, associate professor at UC San Francisco and a health policy expert who is familiar with new programs and established ones.

“I would say that California offers an example of a multifaceted approach to addressing the shortage of reproductive health providers in general and abortion providers in particular.”

The state has not sat idly in the face of dire predictions of shortfalls in the number of ob.gyns. Over the past decade, Dr. Coffman said, the legislature has “substantially” boosted funding for grants to support ob.gyn. residency programs through CalMedForce and the Song-Brown Healthcare Workforce Training Program. The result: an 18% increase in the number of residents entering the field over the past decade.

“These programs have also substantially increased funding for family medicine residency programs, which are important because family physicians are trained to provide preventive reproductive health services and manage low-risk deliveries,” she added. “Funding for midwifery, nurse midwifery, and nurse practitioner education has been more modest, which I find disappointing because they are qualified to provide many reproductive health services and are more likely to care for underserved populations.”

Other new programs and legislation are focused on expanding the scope of practice for nonphysician health care providers who care for women. Many of these measures are meant to ensure continued access to abortion services not just for California residents, who are guaranteed that right in the state constitution, but for the influx of women expected from states that limited or prohibited abortion after the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Gavin Newsom, the state’s Democratic governor, has promoted California as a safe haven for women seeking abortions. In September, Gov. Newsom’s reelection campaign rented billboards in six states that have restrictive abortion laws with messages directing women to a website informing them “abortion is legal and protected in California.” The website includes a search function for women looking for providers – representing a further potential strain on the already stressed pool of clinicians. Each year, an estimated 8,000 to 16,100 more people are expected to travel to California for abortions, according to projections made in 2022 by the UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy.

The questions are, will the efforts be enough to stall or reverse the shortage, and will the efforts to expand other health care providers’ scope of practice be met with cooperation or resistance by MDs?
 

Just launched: California reproductive health service corps

Brand new, as of January 2023, is the California Reproductive Health Service Corps, created by a bill Gov. Newsom signed into law last September. The program operates within the Department of Health Care Access and Information. Rajeena Victoria Bisla, a spokesperson for assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), who authored the bill, said: “The Corps will be responsible for recruiting, training, and retaining a diverse workforce of health care professionals who will be part of reproductive health care teams assigned to work in underserved areas.”

The teams will include MDs as well as licensed midwives, nurses, physician’s assistants, doulas, and medical assistants. They will provide abortion care, contraception, perinatal care, gynecology services, and gender-affirming care, among other needs, Ms. Bisla said.

The California Medical Association’s philanthropic arm, Physicians for a Healthy California (PHC), has two programs that aim to grow and diversify the physician workforce and invest in the state’s underserved areas, according to Lupe Alonzo-Diaz, CEO and president of PHC.

CalMedForce gives annual grants to fund new residency positions at graduate medical education (GME) programs throughout the state. The goal, Ms. Alonzo-Diaz said, is to expand the physician training pool. Funds were generated by Proposition 56, which was passed in 2016. The legislation generates tax on tobacco products. To date, GME programs have received more than $112 million to retain and expand primary care GME programs.

A second program, CalHealthCares, also funded by Proposition 56, offers a loan repayment program of up to $300,000 for physicians who meet certain criteria. “We are incentivizing young physicians and dentists to practice in Medi-Cal communities,” Ms. Alonzo-Diaz said, referring to the state’s Medicaid program. Clinicians must have graduated within the past 5 years (since Jan. 1, 2018) or will be graduating from a residency or fellowship program no later than June 30, 2023. Dentists applying for the practice support grant must have graduated from dental school or residency program within the past 15 years (since Jan. 1, 2008).

In exchange for the loan repayment, the health care providers are asked to commit to 5 years of service in the underserved community. So far, about 800 providers are part of the program, she said. According to Ms. Alonzo-Diaz, the average educational debt for health care providers in California is $315,000 to $350,000. That is as much as $100,000 above the national average.

What else is needed? Shannan Velayas, a spokesperson for the California Medical Association, said the state should invest in the Medi-Cal system to improve “meaningful access” to health care services and to expand loan repayment and residency programs like CalHealthCares and CalMedForce.

“Workforce shortages are not a reason to sacrifice quality of care or compromise patient safety but do warrant additional investment to increase access to medical providers working within their scope of practice,” Ms. Velayas said.
 

Widening scopes

Efforts are also underway to expand the scope of practice for nurse-practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants. Triggering these efforts has been the fallout and expected consequences of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, removing the federal right to abortion care.

Effective January 2023, trained and qualified nurse-practitioners and certified nurse-midwives in California can perform first-trimester abortions without a doctor’s supervision. Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), now president pro tempore of the California State Senate, authored the bill, SB1375. The measure builds on a 2013 law she spearheaded that allowed certain advanced-practice providers to perform first-trimester abortions with physician supervision.

On Feb. 13, Ms. Atkins introduced SB385, which gives physician assistants the same ability to become qualified in abortion care.

Ms. Atkins expressed confidence that teamwork would prevail in the efforts to have enough providers in the state. “One of the biggest lessons I learned working at a women’s health clinic [prior to her assuming her legislative positions] is that providers put their patients above all else, whether they are doctors, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, or physician assistants,” she said. “Everyone is on the same team when it comes to breaking down barriers and ensuring all Californians get the care they need without delay.”

Will other states follow suit? “This is pure speculation, but I believe states in which the political leadership supports abortion rights may see the California Reproductive Service Corps and the changes to scope-of-practice laws that allow specially trained CNMs, NPs, and PAs to provide abortions as a model for preserving access to abortion in their states,” Dr. Coffman said.

However, she said, “other states are less likely to view CalMedForce and CalHealthCares as models, because other states have had similar programs for many years, and some have historically invested larger shares of state budget resources into these programs, especially some rural states.”
 

Reports from the trenches

Laurie Love, DNP, RN, is a family nurse practitioner in Valencia and a clinical instructor and lecturer at the UCLA School of Nursing. When a patient becomes pregnant, she refers her to one of four local ob.gyns.

The working relationships she has with them, she said, “are extremely collaborative. There is no animosity or lack of respect because I don’t have an MD behind my name.”

One of those doctors is Dr. Ahdoot, who said he welcomes the expansion of scope of practice for non-MD health care providers. Some of his colleagues, he said, have tried to fight it, but many have come to the point of welcoming the help. “The consensus is you can’t practice without a nurse practitioner anymore,” Dr. Ahdoot told this news organization.

Expanding the scope of practice for other clinicians helps everyone, including patients, he said. He thinks about how the shortage affects them. “For patients, there is frustration,” he said. He said he often hears women saying they can’t schedule a pap smear for 3 months, or they can’t get a return call from their doctor.

Nalo Hamilton, PhD, an ob.gyn. nurse practitioner and associate professor at UCLA, said the physicians she interacts with support the expanded scope of practice. “Many are confused about details, about what it means and how it will impact them,” she said. “Those who understand it, yes, they agree with it. Doctors will simply have more health care providers who are able to do independent practice.” And she makes another point clear: “We won’t replace ob.gyns.”

None of the persons quoted in this story have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

Three patients were waiting in a queue for their telemedicine visit. Four others were in exam rooms, waiting for their appointments. Another patient was on the phone, requesting a prescription renewal.

On a sunny Wednesday afternoon in February, David Ahdoot, MD, FACOG, an ob.gyn. in Burbank, Calif., about 10 miles north of downtown Los Angeles, knows he’ll be working late.

“Normally, we would be closed on Wednesday afternoon,” he said. That time would ordinarily be used to schedule surgeries, make dictation, and perform other tasks. But those were the old days, before the COVID-19 pandemic, before the ob.gyn. shortage got even worse, and before many of the other obstacles that make his practice more burdensome worsened.

Those Wednesday afternoon tasks must be done another time. “There are too many patients to see in the office,” said Dr. Ahdoot, who’s also an assistant clinical professor at UCLA. Because of the shortage of primary care physicians, he has taken on new patients, although he said he would like to focus on his existing ones.

Many of those existing patients have been coming to Dr. Ahdoot for years. “I love my job,” he said, and it shows.

His patient reviews online include the usual grumblings about waiting time and being rushed, but many, especially those from new parents, praise him as caring, compassionate, exceptional – the kind of doctor women trust to deliver their first baby and their next ones, then guide them through menopause and other issues.

The shortage of ob.gyns. in California, as elsewhere, is real, as Dr. Ahdoot’s day-to-day attests. The implications are in evidence well beyond his higher patient loads. Lately, Dr. Ahdoot said, the calls from headhunters seeking to fill positions for locum tenens have increased from twice a month to three times a day. Despite his love for his practice, he admits he thinks about stepping away. He is 56, 8 years short of the average retirement age for ob.gyns. nationally, according to a 2018 report.
 

Projected shortages

The shortage of primary care doctors, including ob.gyns., is nationwide. Dr. Ahdoot is one of many faces behind the statistics. According to a 2021 update from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the number of ob.gyns. nationwide is expected to decrease 7% between 2018 and 2030, from 50,850 to 47,490. Meanwhile, demand is headed in the other direction – it is projected to rise 4%, from 50,850 to 52,660 ob.gyns. needed. The need for nurse-midwives, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants who provide women’s health care is also expected to exceed the supply in coming years.

Some areas are harder hit. The Northeast is expected to have enough maternal health care providers to meet the current average level of care nationally but the West, Midwest, and South will not, according to HHS.

California will likely need an additional 4,700 primary care clinicians by 2025, according to projections by the HealthForce Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Solutions in sight?

Efforts are increasing to make it easier or more appealing for ob.gyns. to practice, or remain in practice, in California. Some existing programs have received funding, while new initiatives to improve the situation are launching.

Some of these efforts and programs will be viewed as a model by some other states, said Janet Coffman, PhD, associate professor at UC San Francisco and a health policy expert who is familiar with new programs and established ones.

“I would say that California offers an example of a multifaceted approach to addressing the shortage of reproductive health providers in general and abortion providers in particular.”

The state has not sat idly in the face of dire predictions of shortfalls in the number of ob.gyns. Over the past decade, Dr. Coffman said, the legislature has “substantially” boosted funding for grants to support ob.gyn. residency programs through CalMedForce and the Song-Brown Healthcare Workforce Training Program. The result: an 18% increase in the number of residents entering the field over the past decade.

“These programs have also substantially increased funding for family medicine residency programs, which are important because family physicians are trained to provide preventive reproductive health services and manage low-risk deliveries,” she added. “Funding for midwifery, nurse midwifery, and nurse practitioner education has been more modest, which I find disappointing because they are qualified to provide many reproductive health services and are more likely to care for underserved populations.”

Other new programs and legislation are focused on expanding the scope of practice for nonphysician health care providers who care for women. Many of these measures are meant to ensure continued access to abortion services not just for California residents, who are guaranteed that right in the state constitution, but for the influx of women expected from states that limited or prohibited abortion after the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Gavin Newsom, the state’s Democratic governor, has promoted California as a safe haven for women seeking abortions. In September, Gov. Newsom’s reelection campaign rented billboards in six states that have restrictive abortion laws with messages directing women to a website informing them “abortion is legal and protected in California.” The website includes a search function for women looking for providers – representing a further potential strain on the already stressed pool of clinicians. Each year, an estimated 8,000 to 16,100 more people are expected to travel to California for abortions, according to projections made in 2022 by the UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy.

The questions are, will the efforts be enough to stall or reverse the shortage, and will the efforts to expand other health care providers’ scope of practice be met with cooperation or resistance by MDs?
 

Just launched: California reproductive health service corps

Brand new, as of January 2023, is the California Reproductive Health Service Corps, created by a bill Gov. Newsom signed into law last September. The program operates within the Department of Health Care Access and Information. Rajeena Victoria Bisla, a spokesperson for assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), who authored the bill, said: “The Corps will be responsible for recruiting, training, and retaining a diverse workforce of health care professionals who will be part of reproductive health care teams assigned to work in underserved areas.”

The teams will include MDs as well as licensed midwives, nurses, physician’s assistants, doulas, and medical assistants. They will provide abortion care, contraception, perinatal care, gynecology services, and gender-affirming care, among other needs, Ms. Bisla said.

The California Medical Association’s philanthropic arm, Physicians for a Healthy California (PHC), has two programs that aim to grow and diversify the physician workforce and invest in the state’s underserved areas, according to Lupe Alonzo-Diaz, CEO and president of PHC.

CalMedForce gives annual grants to fund new residency positions at graduate medical education (GME) programs throughout the state. The goal, Ms. Alonzo-Diaz said, is to expand the physician training pool. Funds were generated by Proposition 56, which was passed in 2016. The legislation generates tax on tobacco products. To date, GME programs have received more than $112 million to retain and expand primary care GME programs.

A second program, CalHealthCares, also funded by Proposition 56, offers a loan repayment program of up to $300,000 for physicians who meet certain criteria. “We are incentivizing young physicians and dentists to practice in Medi-Cal communities,” Ms. Alonzo-Diaz said, referring to the state’s Medicaid program. Clinicians must have graduated within the past 5 years (since Jan. 1, 2018) or will be graduating from a residency or fellowship program no later than June 30, 2023. Dentists applying for the practice support grant must have graduated from dental school or residency program within the past 15 years (since Jan. 1, 2008).

In exchange for the loan repayment, the health care providers are asked to commit to 5 years of service in the underserved community. So far, about 800 providers are part of the program, she said. According to Ms. Alonzo-Diaz, the average educational debt for health care providers in California is $315,000 to $350,000. That is as much as $100,000 above the national average.

What else is needed? Shannan Velayas, a spokesperson for the California Medical Association, said the state should invest in the Medi-Cal system to improve “meaningful access” to health care services and to expand loan repayment and residency programs like CalHealthCares and CalMedForce.

“Workforce shortages are not a reason to sacrifice quality of care or compromise patient safety but do warrant additional investment to increase access to medical providers working within their scope of practice,” Ms. Velayas said.
 

Widening scopes

Efforts are also underway to expand the scope of practice for nurse-practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants. Triggering these efforts has been the fallout and expected consequences of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, removing the federal right to abortion care.

Effective January 2023, trained and qualified nurse-practitioners and certified nurse-midwives in California can perform first-trimester abortions without a doctor’s supervision. Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), now president pro tempore of the California State Senate, authored the bill, SB1375. The measure builds on a 2013 law she spearheaded that allowed certain advanced-practice providers to perform first-trimester abortions with physician supervision.

On Feb. 13, Ms. Atkins introduced SB385, which gives physician assistants the same ability to become qualified in abortion care.

Ms. Atkins expressed confidence that teamwork would prevail in the efforts to have enough providers in the state. “One of the biggest lessons I learned working at a women’s health clinic [prior to her assuming her legislative positions] is that providers put their patients above all else, whether they are doctors, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, or physician assistants,” she said. “Everyone is on the same team when it comes to breaking down barriers and ensuring all Californians get the care they need without delay.”

Will other states follow suit? “This is pure speculation, but I believe states in which the political leadership supports abortion rights may see the California Reproductive Service Corps and the changes to scope-of-practice laws that allow specially trained CNMs, NPs, and PAs to provide abortions as a model for preserving access to abortion in their states,” Dr. Coffman said.

However, she said, “other states are less likely to view CalMedForce and CalHealthCares as models, because other states have had similar programs for many years, and some have historically invested larger shares of state budget resources into these programs, especially some rural states.”
 

Reports from the trenches

Laurie Love, DNP, RN, is a family nurse practitioner in Valencia and a clinical instructor and lecturer at the UCLA School of Nursing. When a patient becomes pregnant, she refers her to one of four local ob.gyns.

The working relationships she has with them, she said, “are extremely collaborative. There is no animosity or lack of respect because I don’t have an MD behind my name.”

One of those doctors is Dr. Ahdoot, who said he welcomes the expansion of scope of practice for non-MD health care providers. Some of his colleagues, he said, have tried to fight it, but many have come to the point of welcoming the help. “The consensus is you can’t practice without a nurse practitioner anymore,” Dr. Ahdoot told this news organization.

Expanding the scope of practice for other clinicians helps everyone, including patients, he said. He thinks about how the shortage affects them. “For patients, there is frustration,” he said. He said he often hears women saying they can’t schedule a pap smear for 3 months, or they can’t get a return call from their doctor.

Nalo Hamilton, PhD, an ob.gyn. nurse practitioner and associate professor at UCLA, said the physicians she interacts with support the expanded scope of practice. “Many are confused about details, about what it means and how it will impact them,” she said. “Those who understand it, yes, they agree with it. Doctors will simply have more health care providers who are able to do independent practice.” And she makes another point clear: “We won’t replace ob.gyns.”

None of the persons quoted in this story have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

Pediatricians have long charted the vitals of children and adolescents – height, weight, blood pressure – to ensure that kids are healthy and developing as they should. This is the core of the profession. But today the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians also perform maternal depression screenings, childhood depression screenings, autism screenings, and suicide risk screenings once children become 12 years old in addition to other screenings. Specific screening tools might include the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (MCHAT) for autism screening, the PHQ2 and PHQ9 (part of the longer Patient Health Questionnaire) for depression screening, and the Suicide Behavior Questionnaire Revised (SBQ-R) for suicide screening.

The AAP’s list of recommended screenings – which are developed by various research groups and endorsed by AAP – includes approximately 30 screenings in all, which vary somewhat depending on age. Seven screenings are mental and behavioral health assessments that would, depending on the screening results, require other expertise to address.

“We all want to keep [children] healthy. We actually do want to do these screenings, because they can be very helpful,” said Herschel Lessin, MD, of the Children’s Medical Group in Hopewell Junction, N.Y. Dr. Lessin’s concern is that he may not have anywhere to refer children and their families if he conducts a screening that flags something concerning such as a deeply depressed teenager. Sometimes first appointments with mental health professionals are not available for months.

“Sure – they want us to screen for depression, they want us to screen for anxiety. OK, you get a positive. What do you do? Well, guess what – there are no resources for children and mental health in this country,” Dr. Lessin said.

In Dr. Lessin’s view, economic realities prevent pediatricians from performing detailed psychological screenings anyway – no matter how useful or evidence based they might be, even if mental health support was abundant. He estimates that his practice conducts 20-25 visits a day, around 20 minutes each, of which maybe a dozen are well-child visits, just to keep the doors open. If he thoroughly screened every child or adolescent in the manner recommended by the AAP, Dr. Lessin said, he could do a fraction of that volume and would have to close his doors as a result.

Beside the time burden, insurers reimburse developmental and psychological screenings at low rates, Dr. Lessin said, even with claims that accurately itemize every screening delivered.

“Insurance companies refuse to pay adequately for any of this stuff. They expect me to do it for free, or do it for pennies,” Dr. Lessin said. He said that the natural result of such an arrangement is that some pediatricians stop taking insurance and only work with families that can afford their rates, further entrenching unequal health care by catering to wealthy families who can afford to pay for longer visits. Other pediatricians just don’t do all of the recommended screenings.

“I don’t want it to sound like I’m whining about being paid. They don’t adequately resource what they expect us to do, which is to be society’s social worker,” Dr. Lessin said.
 

Practical advice for interpreting and prioritizing screenings

Other pediatricians called for screening developers to include guidance for pediatricians about how to counsel families when a screening turns up a concerning result.

“What can we do as pediatricians in that moment to help that family?” asked Karalyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire in Cheshire, Conn.

Sometimes the path forward is clear, as with an autism screening; in those cases, Dr. Kinsella said, Connecticut requires referral for a full autism evaluation from birth to age 3. But for other situations, such as an anxiety screening, it is less clear how to proceed.

Dr. Kinsella said that in her experience in-person appointments with a mental health professional, compared with telehealth, work best for her patients. This enables the teenager to find a good fit with a therapist, which can take time when first appointments are so elusive. Any support for pediatricians to bridge the gap until therapy is established is welcome.

“It would be great if it came along with some training – just a brief training – of some ways we can help families before they get into a therapist, or before it gets to the point that they need therapy,” Dr. Kinsella said.

Dr. Kinsella stressed that pediatricians need to use their own judgment when interpreting screening results. Sometimes the MCHAT will miss cases of autism, for example, or the PHQ9 will flag a teenager for depression who is actually just fidgety and having some trouble sleeping.

In her view, the existence of such screens – which might also include screenings for drug abuse, toxic stress, or food insecurity, along with autism, anxiety, and maternal or child depression – is a good development, despite their imperfections and the difficulties of getting help in a timely manner.

“Twenty years ago we really didn’t have any screens,” Dr. Kinsella said.

But it may be that there are now too many recommended screens in pediatrics, even if they all individually have value.

“In the adult world, screenings haven’t mushroomed as in pediatrics” said Dr. Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, who practices combined internal medicine and pediatrics at Neighborcare Health in Seattle. Recommended adult health screenings are largely driven by the work of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which requires a high level of evidence before a screening is recommended. The pediatrics screening world, in Dr. Joos’s view, is populated by a more diffuse set of actors and has therefore inevitably resulted in a profusion of recommended screenings.

Although its main focus is adults, Dr. Joos noted that the USPSTF has evaluated many of the pediatric screenings currently endorsed by AAP. Sometimes there is strong evidence for these screenings, such as universal screening for depression and anxiety in older children. But Dr. Joos noted that per the USPSTF, many of the screenings now recommended by AAP on asymptomatic children for autism, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or anemia don’t have strong evidence on a population level.

“In many cases, we have a good screen, but it just lacks the research,” Dr. Joos said. Nonetheless, every screening is recommended with “equal weight,” Dr. Joos said, calling for AAP to offer a more prioritized approach to screening rather than an “all comers” approach.

“If you don’t set priorities, you don’t have priorities,” Dr. Joos said, which leads to untenable expectations for what can be accomplished during short visits.
 

AAP responds

Susan Kressly, MD, who chairs AAP’s Section on Administration and Practice and is a consultant based in Sanibel, Fla., said that we know that using targeting screenings will miss a significant proportion of patients whom you could better assist and care for; for example, if you just go by your gut feeling about whether kids are using drugs or alcohol and just screen those kids. Every screening endorsed by AAP has some degree of evidence for use at a population level rather than case by case, Dr. Kressly noted.

This doesn’t mean that every single screening must be done at each and every recommended interval, she emphasized.

“The first priority is what’s important to the patient and the family. While we understand that screening is at a population health level, there should be some intelligent use and prioritization of these screening tools,” Dr. Kressly said. As examples, Dr. Kressly noted that there is no need to keep administering autism screenings in families whose children already receive autism services, or to ask a teenager questions about anxiety they had answered 6 weeks earlier.

The screenings should be seen as a tool for enhancing relationships with children and their families, not as a series of endless tasks, Dr. Kressly concluded.

Dr. Lessin’s priority is that pediatricians get more support – time, money, training, adequately resourced mental health care – to carry out their expanded role.

“Pediatricians are pretty nice. We want to do the right thing, but everything blocks us from doing it,” Dr. Lessin said.

Dr. Joos, Dr. Kinsella, and Dr. Lessin are on the MDedge Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Pediatricians have long charted the vitals of children and adolescents – height, weight, blood pressure – to ensure that kids are healthy and developing as they should. This is the core of the profession. But today the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians also perform maternal depression screenings, childhood depression screenings, autism screenings, and suicide risk screenings once children become 12 years old in addition to other screenings. Specific screening tools might include the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (MCHAT) for autism screening, the PHQ2 and PHQ9 (part of the longer Patient Health Questionnaire) for depression screening, and the Suicide Behavior Questionnaire Revised (SBQ-R) for suicide screening.

The AAP’s list of recommended screenings – which are developed by various research groups and endorsed by AAP – includes approximately 30 screenings in all, which vary somewhat depending on age. Seven screenings are mental and behavioral health assessments that would, depending on the screening results, require other expertise to address.

“We all want to keep [children] healthy. We actually do want to do these screenings, because they can be very helpful,” said Herschel Lessin, MD, of the Children’s Medical Group in Hopewell Junction, N.Y. Dr. Lessin’s concern is that he may not have anywhere to refer children and their families if he conducts a screening that flags something concerning such as a deeply depressed teenager. Sometimes first appointments with mental health professionals are not available for months.

“Sure – they want us to screen for depression, they want us to screen for anxiety. OK, you get a positive. What do you do? Well, guess what – there are no resources for children and mental health in this country,” Dr. Lessin said.

In Dr. Lessin’s view, economic realities prevent pediatricians from performing detailed psychological screenings anyway – no matter how useful or evidence based they might be, even if mental health support was abundant. He estimates that his practice conducts 20-25 visits a day, around 20 minutes each, of which maybe a dozen are well-child visits, just to keep the doors open. If he thoroughly screened every child or adolescent in the manner recommended by the AAP, Dr. Lessin said, he could do a fraction of that volume and would have to close his doors as a result.

Beside the time burden, insurers reimburse developmental and psychological screenings at low rates, Dr. Lessin said, even with claims that accurately itemize every screening delivered.

“Insurance companies refuse to pay adequately for any of this stuff. They expect me to do it for free, or do it for pennies,” Dr. Lessin said. He said that the natural result of such an arrangement is that some pediatricians stop taking insurance and only work with families that can afford their rates, further entrenching unequal health care by catering to wealthy families who can afford to pay for longer visits. Other pediatricians just don’t do all of the recommended screenings.

“I don’t want it to sound like I’m whining about being paid. They don’t adequately resource what they expect us to do, which is to be society’s social worker,” Dr. Lessin said.
 

Practical advice for interpreting and prioritizing screenings

Other pediatricians called for screening developers to include guidance for pediatricians about how to counsel families when a screening turns up a concerning result.

“What can we do as pediatricians in that moment to help that family?” asked Karalyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire in Cheshire, Conn.

Sometimes the path forward is clear, as with an autism screening; in those cases, Dr. Kinsella said, Connecticut requires referral for a full autism evaluation from birth to age 3. But for other situations, such as an anxiety screening, it is less clear how to proceed.

Dr. Kinsella said that in her experience in-person appointments with a mental health professional, compared with telehealth, work best for her patients. This enables the teenager to find a good fit with a therapist, which can take time when first appointments are so elusive. Any support for pediatricians to bridge the gap until therapy is established is welcome.

“It would be great if it came along with some training – just a brief training – of some ways we can help families before they get into a therapist, or before it gets to the point that they need therapy,” Dr. Kinsella said.

Dr. Kinsella stressed that pediatricians need to use their own judgment when interpreting screening results. Sometimes the MCHAT will miss cases of autism, for example, or the PHQ9 will flag a teenager for depression who is actually just fidgety and having some trouble sleeping.

In her view, the existence of such screens – which might also include screenings for drug abuse, toxic stress, or food insecurity, along with autism, anxiety, and maternal or child depression – is a good development, despite their imperfections and the difficulties of getting help in a timely manner.

“Twenty years ago we really didn’t have any screens,” Dr. Kinsella said.

But it may be that there are now too many recommended screens in pediatrics, even if they all individually have value.

“In the adult world, screenings haven’t mushroomed as in pediatrics” said Dr. Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, who practices combined internal medicine and pediatrics at Neighborcare Health in Seattle. Recommended adult health screenings are largely driven by the work of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which requires a high level of evidence before a screening is recommended. The pediatrics screening world, in Dr. Joos’s view, is populated by a more diffuse set of actors and has therefore inevitably resulted in a profusion of recommended screenings.

Although its main focus is adults, Dr. Joos noted that the USPSTF has evaluated many of the pediatric screenings currently endorsed by AAP. Sometimes there is strong evidence for these screenings, such as universal screening for depression and anxiety in older children. But Dr. Joos noted that per the USPSTF, many of the screenings now recommended by AAP on asymptomatic children for autism, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or anemia don’t have strong evidence on a population level.

“In many cases, we have a good screen, but it just lacks the research,” Dr. Joos said. Nonetheless, every screening is recommended with “equal weight,” Dr. Joos said, calling for AAP to offer a more prioritized approach to screening rather than an “all comers” approach.

“If you don’t set priorities, you don’t have priorities,” Dr. Joos said, which leads to untenable expectations for what can be accomplished during short visits.
 

AAP responds

Susan Kressly, MD, who chairs AAP’s Section on Administration and Practice and is a consultant based in Sanibel, Fla., said that we know that using targeting screenings will miss a significant proportion of patients whom you could better assist and care for; for example, if you just go by your gut feeling about whether kids are using drugs or alcohol and just screen those kids. Every screening endorsed by AAP has some degree of evidence for use at a population level rather than case by case, Dr. Kressly noted.

This doesn’t mean that every single screening must be done at each and every recommended interval, she emphasized.

“The first priority is what’s important to the patient and the family. While we understand that screening is at a population health level, there should be some intelligent use and prioritization of these screening tools,” Dr. Kressly said. As examples, Dr. Kressly noted that there is no need to keep administering autism screenings in families whose children already receive autism services, or to ask a teenager questions about anxiety they had answered 6 weeks earlier.

The screenings should be seen as a tool for enhancing relationships with children and their families, not as a series of endless tasks, Dr. Kressly concluded.

Dr. Lessin’s priority is that pediatricians get more support – time, money, training, adequately resourced mental health care – to carry out their expanded role.

“Pediatricians are pretty nice. We want to do the right thing, but everything blocks us from doing it,” Dr. Lessin said.

Dr. Joos, Dr. Kinsella, and Dr. Lessin are on the MDedge Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Pediatricians have long charted the vitals of children and adolescents – height, weight, blood pressure – to ensure that kids are healthy and developing as they should. This is the core of the profession. But today the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians also perform maternal depression screenings, childhood depression screenings, autism screenings, and suicide risk screenings once children become 12 years old in addition to other screenings. Specific screening tools might include the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (MCHAT) for autism screening, the PHQ2 and PHQ9 (part of the longer Patient Health Questionnaire) for depression screening, and the Suicide Behavior Questionnaire Revised (SBQ-R) for suicide screening.

The AAP’s list of recommended screenings – which are developed by various research groups and endorsed by AAP – includes approximately 30 screenings in all, which vary somewhat depending on age. Seven screenings are mental and behavioral health assessments that would, depending on the screening results, require other expertise to address.

“We all want to keep [children] healthy. We actually do want to do these screenings, because they can be very helpful,” said Herschel Lessin, MD, of the Children’s Medical Group in Hopewell Junction, N.Y. Dr. Lessin’s concern is that he may not have anywhere to refer children and their families if he conducts a screening that flags something concerning such as a deeply depressed teenager. Sometimes first appointments with mental health professionals are not available for months.

“Sure – they want us to screen for depression, they want us to screen for anxiety. OK, you get a positive. What do you do? Well, guess what – there are no resources for children and mental health in this country,” Dr. Lessin said.

In Dr. Lessin’s view, economic realities prevent pediatricians from performing detailed psychological screenings anyway – no matter how useful or evidence based they might be, even if mental health support was abundant. He estimates that his practice conducts 20-25 visits a day, around 20 minutes each, of which maybe a dozen are well-child visits, just to keep the doors open. If he thoroughly screened every child or adolescent in the manner recommended by the AAP, Dr. Lessin said, he could do a fraction of that volume and would have to close his doors as a result.

Beside the time burden, insurers reimburse developmental and psychological screenings at low rates, Dr. Lessin said, even with claims that accurately itemize every screening delivered.

“Insurance companies refuse to pay adequately for any of this stuff. They expect me to do it for free, or do it for pennies,” Dr. Lessin said. He said that the natural result of such an arrangement is that some pediatricians stop taking insurance and only work with families that can afford their rates, further entrenching unequal health care by catering to wealthy families who can afford to pay for longer visits. Other pediatricians just don’t do all of the recommended screenings.

“I don’t want it to sound like I’m whining about being paid. They don’t adequately resource what they expect us to do, which is to be society’s social worker,” Dr. Lessin said.
 

Practical advice for interpreting and prioritizing screenings

Other pediatricians called for screening developers to include guidance for pediatricians about how to counsel families when a screening turns up a concerning result.

“What can we do as pediatricians in that moment to help that family?” asked Karalyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire in Cheshire, Conn.

Sometimes the path forward is clear, as with an autism screening; in those cases, Dr. Kinsella said, Connecticut requires referral for a full autism evaluation from birth to age 3. But for other situations, such as an anxiety screening, it is less clear how to proceed.

Dr. Kinsella said that in her experience in-person appointments with a mental health professional, compared with telehealth, work best for her patients. This enables the teenager to find a good fit with a therapist, which can take time when first appointments are so elusive. Any support for pediatricians to bridge the gap until therapy is established is welcome.

“It would be great if it came along with some training – just a brief training – of some ways we can help families before they get into a therapist, or before it gets to the point that they need therapy,” Dr. Kinsella said.

Dr. Kinsella stressed that pediatricians need to use their own judgment when interpreting screening results. Sometimes the MCHAT will miss cases of autism, for example, or the PHQ9 will flag a teenager for depression who is actually just fidgety and having some trouble sleeping.

In her view, the existence of such screens – which might also include screenings for drug abuse, toxic stress, or food insecurity, along with autism, anxiety, and maternal or child depression – is a good development, despite their imperfections and the difficulties of getting help in a timely manner.

“Twenty years ago we really didn’t have any screens,” Dr. Kinsella said.

But it may be that there are now too many recommended screens in pediatrics, even if they all individually have value.

“In the adult world, screenings haven’t mushroomed as in pediatrics” said Dr. Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, who practices combined internal medicine and pediatrics at Neighborcare Health in Seattle. Recommended adult health screenings are largely driven by the work of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which requires a high level of evidence before a screening is recommended. The pediatrics screening world, in Dr. Joos’s view, is populated by a more diffuse set of actors and has therefore inevitably resulted in a profusion of recommended screenings.

Although its main focus is adults, Dr. Joos noted that the USPSTF has evaluated many of the pediatric screenings currently endorsed by AAP. Sometimes there is strong evidence for these screenings, such as universal screening for depression and anxiety in older children. But Dr. Joos noted that per the USPSTF, many of the screenings now recommended by AAP on asymptomatic children for autism, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or anemia don’t have strong evidence on a population level.

“In many cases, we have a good screen, but it just lacks the research,” Dr. Joos said. Nonetheless, every screening is recommended with “equal weight,” Dr. Joos said, calling for AAP to offer a more prioritized approach to screening rather than an “all comers” approach.

“If you don’t set priorities, you don’t have priorities,” Dr. Joos said, which leads to untenable expectations for what can be accomplished during short visits.
 

AAP responds

Susan Kressly, MD, who chairs AAP’s Section on Administration and Practice and is a consultant based in Sanibel, Fla., said that we know that using targeting screenings will miss a significant proportion of patients whom you could better assist and care for; for example, if you just go by your gut feeling about whether kids are using drugs or alcohol and just screen those kids. Every screening endorsed by AAP has some degree of evidence for use at a population level rather than case by case, Dr. Kressly noted.

This doesn’t mean that every single screening must be done at each and every recommended interval, she emphasized.

“The first priority is what’s important to the patient and the family. While we understand that screening is at a population health level, there should be some intelligent use and prioritization of these screening tools,” Dr. Kressly said. As examples, Dr. Kressly noted that there is no need to keep administering autism screenings in families whose children already receive autism services, or to ask a teenager questions about anxiety they had answered 6 weeks earlier.

The screenings should be seen as a tool for enhancing relationships with children and their families, not as a series of endless tasks, Dr. Kressly concluded.

Dr. Lessin’s priority is that pediatricians get more support – time, money, training, adequately resourced mental health care – to carry out their expanded role.

“Pediatricians are pretty nice. We want to do the right thing, but everything blocks us from doing it,” Dr. Lessin said.

Dr. Joos, Dr. Kinsella, and Dr. Lessin are on the MDedge Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.