Obstetrics

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lung ultrasound works well in children with COVID-19

Lung ultrasound has “high concordance” with radiologic findings in children with COVID-19 and offers benefits over other imaging techniques, such as CT. “First, it may reduce the number of radiologic examinations, lowering the radiation exposure of the patients,” wrote Marco Denina, MD, and colleagues from the pediatric infectious diseases unit at Regina Margherita Children’s Hospital in Turin, Italy. “Secondly, when performed at the bedside, [lung ultrasound] allows for the reduction of the patient’s movement within the hospital; thus, it lowers the number of health care workers and medical devices exposed to [SARS-CoV-2].” The findings of the small, observational study were published in Pediatrics. Read more.

New hypertension definitions reveal preclampsia risk

Using the new clinical definitions of hypertension, pregnant women with even modest elevations in blood pressure are at increased risk for preeclampsia, according to results from a large retrospective cohort study. Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby. The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy, which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states. Read more.

Face mask type matters when sterilizing

When sterilizing face masks, the type of mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks. With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO2) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%. Read more.

FDA approves first treatment for adult-onset Still’s disease

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indications for canakinumab (Ilaris) to include all patients with active Still’s disease older than 2 years, adding adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) to a previous approval for juvenile-onset Still’s disease, also known as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA). That makes Ilaris the first approved treatment for AOSD. The results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 36 patients with AOSD aged 22-70 years showed that the efficacy and safety data in AOSD were generally consistent with the results of a pooled analysis of sJIA patients, according to Novartis, which markets canakinumab. Read more.

Intranasal DHE shows promise in migraine

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. The new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE. The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lung ultrasound works well in children with COVID-19

Lung ultrasound has “high concordance” with radiologic findings in children with COVID-19 and offers benefits over other imaging techniques, such as CT. “First, it may reduce the number of radiologic examinations, lowering the radiation exposure of the patients,” wrote Marco Denina, MD, and colleagues from the pediatric infectious diseases unit at Regina Margherita Children’s Hospital in Turin, Italy. “Secondly, when performed at the bedside, [lung ultrasound] allows for the reduction of the patient’s movement within the hospital; thus, it lowers the number of health care workers and medical devices exposed to [SARS-CoV-2].” The findings of the small, observational study were published in Pediatrics. Read more.

New hypertension definitions reveal preclampsia risk

Using the new clinical definitions of hypertension, pregnant women with even modest elevations in blood pressure are at increased risk for preeclampsia, according to results from a large retrospective cohort study. Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby. The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy, which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states. Read more.

Face mask type matters when sterilizing

When sterilizing face masks, the type of mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks. With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO2) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%. Read more.

FDA approves first treatment for adult-onset Still’s disease

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indications for canakinumab (Ilaris) to include all patients with active Still’s disease older than 2 years, adding adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) to a previous approval for juvenile-onset Still’s disease, also known as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA). That makes Ilaris the first approved treatment for AOSD. The results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 36 patients with AOSD aged 22-70 years showed that the efficacy and safety data in AOSD were generally consistent with the results of a pooled analysis of sJIA patients, according to Novartis, which markets canakinumab. Read more.

Intranasal DHE shows promise in migraine

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. The new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE. The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lung ultrasound works well in children with COVID-19

Lung ultrasound has “high concordance” with radiologic findings in children with COVID-19 and offers benefits over other imaging techniques, such as CT. “First, it may reduce the number of radiologic examinations, lowering the radiation exposure of the patients,” wrote Marco Denina, MD, and colleagues from the pediatric infectious diseases unit at Regina Margherita Children’s Hospital in Turin, Italy. “Secondly, when performed at the bedside, [lung ultrasound] allows for the reduction of the patient’s movement within the hospital; thus, it lowers the number of health care workers and medical devices exposed to [SARS-CoV-2].” The findings of the small, observational study were published in Pediatrics. Read more.

New hypertension definitions reveal preclampsia risk

Using the new clinical definitions of hypertension, pregnant women with even modest elevations in blood pressure are at increased risk for preeclampsia, according to results from a large retrospective cohort study. Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby. The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy, which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states. Read more.

Face mask type matters when sterilizing

When sterilizing face masks, the type of mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks. With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO2) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%. Read more.

FDA approves first treatment for adult-onset Still’s disease

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indications for canakinumab (Ilaris) to include all patients with active Still’s disease older than 2 years, adding adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) to a previous approval for juvenile-onset Still’s disease, also known as systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA). That makes Ilaris the first approved treatment for AOSD. The results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 36 patients with AOSD aged 22-70 years showed that the efficacy and safety data in AOSD were generally consistent with the results of a pooled analysis of sJIA patients, according to Novartis, which markets canakinumab. Read more.

Intranasal DHE shows promise in migraine

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. The new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE. The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Using the new clinical definitions of hypertension, pregnant women with even modest elevations in blood pressure (BP) are at increased risk for preeclampsia, according to results from a large retrospective cohort study.

American Heart Association

In a 2017 guideline, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association changed clinical definitions of hypertension in adults. People previously deemed to have prehypertension were classed as having elevated blood pressure (systolic BP 120-129 mm Hg and diastolic BP >80 mm Hg) or stage 1 hypertension (systolic 130-139 mm Hg or diastolic 80-89 mm Hg).

And while hypertension as earlier defined (at or above systolic 140 mm Hg or at or above diastolic 90 mm Hg; now called stage 2 hypertension) has been long associated with adverse maternal and fetal effects, it was unclear whether lesser elevations in blood pressure also are linked to the same.

For their research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby and had two or more prenatal appointments before week 20 of pregnancy. The women in the study were seen at the same institution over a 3-year period ending in 2018. Three-quarters of the cohort had normal blood pressure, while 14% had elevated blood pressure and 5% had stage 1 hypertension before 20 weeks. Another 6% of the cohort had stage 2 hypertension.

The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did with 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Both term and preterm preeclampsia were factors in women with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, but preterm preeclampsia was associated with a higher risk. Although black race was associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia, the pattern of increasing risk with higher blood pressure category was similar in both black and white women.

Researchers also looked at gestational diabetes, severe maternal morbidity, neonatal morbidity, and placental abruption as secondary outcomes. They found the risk of gestational diabetes increased in a stepwise fashion as blood pressure increased, compared with normotensive women. Higher risk of severe maternal and neonatal morbidities was seen only in women with stage 2 hypertension. Placental abruption was rare in this cohort and the odds were not increased in any group.

The findings “highlight the importance of early pregnancy BP elevations, which may reflect prepregnancy BP status,” and suggest that the new guidelines “can identify women early in pregnancy who may benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues wrote.

Although randomized trials will be needed to identify the best prevention and management strategies for this patient group, they added, some clinicians may want to consider low-dose aspirin – an intervention shown to safely reduce preeclampsia risk among women with stage 2 hypertension – for women with elevated BP or stage 1 hypertension.

Dr. Sutton and colleagues acknowledged that its retrospective design is among the limitations of their study, and that use of antihypertensive medications could not be captured in their study.

Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states.

“Are these seemingly normal blood pressures associated with poor outcomes, maternal or neonatal? I think that this paper strongly tells us yes,” Dr. Santillan added. “But does that mean we have to do more aggressive blood pressure monitoring, seeing your doctor every month or so? Maybe we should change the way we’re treating people early on in gestation.”

The question of whether aspirin helps reduce preeclampsia risk in women with elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension needs to be resolved in studies, Dr. Santillan said. But because of its favorable risk profile, “if I consider that if a patient has significant risk factors for developing preeclampsia, baby aspirin is fine.”

Postpregnancy blood pressure management is something that should also be reconsidered in light of the findings, Dr. Santillan said. Half of women with preeclampsia will have chronic hypertension after they deliver, increasing their risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes later in life. But because most are young and otherwise healthy, they often are lost to follow-up.

“I think this paper has helped open up that conversation, that there is probably a link between what we’re doing in pregnancy to what we should be doing in the postpartum period,” he said.

Dr. Sutton and colleagues’ study received funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the American Heart Association; and the National Institutes of Health. None of its authors had relevant disclosures. Dr. Santillan disclosed holding U.S. and international patents for preeclampsia prediction, diagnosis, and treatment.

SOURCE: Sutton et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:129-39.

Using the new clinical definitions of hypertension, pregnant women with even modest elevations in blood pressure (BP) are at increased risk for preeclampsia, according to results from a large retrospective cohort study.

American Heart Association

In a 2017 guideline, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association changed clinical definitions of hypertension in adults. People previously deemed to have prehypertension were classed as having elevated blood pressure (systolic BP 120-129 mm Hg and diastolic BP >80 mm Hg) or stage 1 hypertension (systolic 130-139 mm Hg or diastolic 80-89 mm Hg).

And while hypertension as earlier defined (at or above systolic 140 mm Hg or at or above diastolic 90 mm Hg; now called stage 2 hypertension) has been long associated with adverse maternal and fetal effects, it was unclear whether lesser elevations in blood pressure also are linked to the same.

For their research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby and had two or more prenatal appointments before week 20 of pregnancy. The women in the study were seen at the same institution over a 3-year period ending in 2018. Three-quarters of the cohort had normal blood pressure, while 14% had elevated blood pressure and 5% had stage 1 hypertension before 20 weeks. Another 6% of the cohort had stage 2 hypertension.

The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did with 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Both term and preterm preeclampsia were factors in women with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, but preterm preeclampsia was associated with a higher risk. Although black race was associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia, the pattern of increasing risk with higher blood pressure category was similar in both black and white women.

Researchers also looked at gestational diabetes, severe maternal morbidity, neonatal morbidity, and placental abruption as secondary outcomes. They found the risk of gestational diabetes increased in a stepwise fashion as blood pressure increased, compared with normotensive women. Higher risk of severe maternal and neonatal morbidities was seen only in women with stage 2 hypertension. Placental abruption was rare in this cohort and the odds were not increased in any group.

The findings “highlight the importance of early pregnancy BP elevations, which may reflect prepregnancy BP status,” and suggest that the new guidelines “can identify women early in pregnancy who may benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues wrote.

Although randomized trials will be needed to identify the best prevention and management strategies for this patient group, they added, some clinicians may want to consider low-dose aspirin – an intervention shown to safely reduce preeclampsia risk among women with stage 2 hypertension – for women with elevated BP or stage 1 hypertension.

Dr. Sutton and colleagues acknowledged that its retrospective design is among the limitations of their study, and that use of antihypertensive medications could not be captured in their study.

Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states.

“Are these seemingly normal blood pressures associated with poor outcomes, maternal or neonatal? I think that this paper strongly tells us yes,” Dr. Santillan added. “But does that mean we have to do more aggressive blood pressure monitoring, seeing your doctor every month or so? Maybe we should change the way we’re treating people early on in gestation.”

The question of whether aspirin helps reduce preeclampsia risk in women with elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension needs to be resolved in studies, Dr. Santillan said. But because of its favorable risk profile, “if I consider that if a patient has significant risk factors for developing preeclampsia, baby aspirin is fine.”

Postpregnancy blood pressure management is something that should also be reconsidered in light of the findings, Dr. Santillan said. Half of women with preeclampsia will have chronic hypertension after they deliver, increasing their risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes later in life. But because most are young and otherwise healthy, they often are lost to follow-up.

“I think this paper has helped open up that conversation, that there is probably a link between what we’re doing in pregnancy to what we should be doing in the postpartum period,” he said.

Dr. Sutton and colleagues’ study received funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the American Heart Association; and the National Institutes of Health. None of its authors had relevant disclosures. Dr. Santillan disclosed holding U.S. and international patents for preeclampsia prediction, diagnosis, and treatment.

SOURCE: Sutton et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:129-39.

Using the new clinical definitions of hypertension, pregnant women with even modest elevations in blood pressure (BP) are at increased risk for preeclampsia, according to results from a large retrospective cohort study.

American Heart Association

In a 2017 guideline, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association changed clinical definitions of hypertension in adults. People previously deemed to have prehypertension were classed as having elevated blood pressure (systolic BP 120-129 mm Hg and diastolic BP >80 mm Hg) or stage 1 hypertension (systolic 130-139 mm Hg or diastolic 80-89 mm Hg).

And while hypertension as earlier defined (at or above systolic 140 mm Hg or at or above diastolic 90 mm Hg; now called stage 2 hypertension) has been long associated with adverse maternal and fetal effects, it was unclear whether lesser elevations in blood pressure also are linked to the same.

For their research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby and had two or more prenatal appointments before week 20 of pregnancy. The women in the study were seen at the same institution over a 3-year period ending in 2018. Three-quarters of the cohort had normal blood pressure, while 14% had elevated blood pressure and 5% had stage 1 hypertension before 20 weeks. Another 6% of the cohort had stage 2 hypertension.

The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did with 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Both term and preterm preeclampsia were factors in women with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, but preterm preeclampsia was associated with a higher risk. Although black race was associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia, the pattern of increasing risk with higher blood pressure category was similar in both black and white women.

Researchers also looked at gestational diabetes, severe maternal morbidity, neonatal morbidity, and placental abruption as secondary outcomes. They found the risk of gestational diabetes increased in a stepwise fashion as blood pressure increased, compared with normotensive women. Higher risk of severe maternal and neonatal morbidities was seen only in women with stage 2 hypertension. Placental abruption was rare in this cohort and the odds were not increased in any group.

The findings “highlight the importance of early pregnancy BP elevations, which may reflect prepregnancy BP status,” and suggest that the new guidelines “can identify women early in pregnancy who may benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues wrote.

Although randomized trials will be needed to identify the best prevention and management strategies for this patient group, they added, some clinicians may want to consider low-dose aspirin – an intervention shown to safely reduce preeclampsia risk among women with stage 2 hypertension – for women with elevated BP or stage 1 hypertension.

Dr. Sutton and colleagues acknowledged that its retrospective design is among the limitations of their study, and that use of antihypertensive medications could not be captured in their study.

Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states.

“Are these seemingly normal blood pressures associated with poor outcomes, maternal or neonatal? I think that this paper strongly tells us yes,” Dr. Santillan added. “But does that mean we have to do more aggressive blood pressure monitoring, seeing your doctor every month or so? Maybe we should change the way we’re treating people early on in gestation.”

The question of whether aspirin helps reduce preeclampsia risk in women with elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension needs to be resolved in studies, Dr. Santillan said. But because of its favorable risk profile, “if I consider that if a patient has significant risk factors for developing preeclampsia, baby aspirin is fine.”

Postpregnancy blood pressure management is something that should also be reconsidered in light of the findings, Dr. Santillan said. Half of women with preeclampsia will have chronic hypertension after they deliver, increasing their risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes later in life. But because most are young and otherwise healthy, they often are lost to follow-up.

“I think this paper has helped open up that conversation, that there is probably a link between what we’re doing in pregnancy to what we should be doing in the postpartum period,” he said.

Dr. Sutton and colleagues’ study received funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the American Heart Association; and the National Institutes of Health. None of its authors had relevant disclosures. Dr. Santillan disclosed holding U.S. and international patents for preeclampsia prediction, diagnosis, and treatment.

SOURCE: Sutton et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:129-39.

Cost concerns have circulated regarding elective induction of labor, a method that’s become increasingly popular in the United States. Two studies in Obstetrics & Gynecology, however, offer no consensus on the cost burden of this method.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

A retrospective analysis of a large cohort in California reported higher costs for induction, compared with spontaneous labor, after accounting for variables such as parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age. A prospective study of five Utah hospitals found no significant cost differences between induction and expectant management.

The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management), a multicenter study that compared elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with spontaneous labor in low-risk nulliparous women, suggests that induction may have some benefits. While its researchers found no differences in perinatal outcomes, induction cases had fewer cesareans, fewer hypertensive disorders, and fewer newborns requiring respiratory support.

One key question that remains following ARRIVE is whether this practice should be implemented universally, Alyssa R. Hersh, MD, MPH, lead author of the California study, said in an interview. Quantifying the costs associated with elective labor is important because “health care in the United States is already much more expensive than in other countries, and [elective labor] could have a dramatic impact on annual health care costs.”

In a retrospective analysis, Dr. Hersh, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues examined data from more than 1.2 million women in California with singleton, nonanomalous births. They excluded for multiple factors such as medically indicated induction of labor, placenta previa, breech presentation, or planned cesarean delivery.

Estimating cost differences between elective induction and spontaneous labor for mothers and neonates, they stratified results by vaginal or cesarean delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery, and geographic location. Elective induced labor represented 15% of the overall cohort of 1.2 million women.

Among vaginal deliveries, median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 in the induction group and $9,462 in the spontaneous labor group. For cesarean deliveries, the median costs were $20,294 with induction of labor and $18,812 with spontaneous labor.

Costs of maternal hospitalization with elective induction of labor were significantly higher than that of spontaneous labor, regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery, the authors reported. Comparing costs at rural and urban areas, the induction group saw higher maternal hospitalization costs and longer lengths of stay regardless of scenario.

Neonatal care was the one metric that incurred lower costs and lengths of stay in the induction group. Fewer adverse outcomes in this group could explain this outlier. “However, because this is observational data, we cannot elucidate what exactly contributed to these decreased costs,” Dr. Hersh and colleagues noted.

Timeliness was another limitation. “It is important to note that our study was conducted between 2007 and 2011, and the patients undergoing elective induction of labor during those years may differ from women undergoing elective induction of labor currently,” the authors acknowledged.

Another study by Brett D. Einerson, MD, MPH, of the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and associates evaluated the actual hospital costs of patients undergoing elective induction and expectant management in a subset of patients from the ARRIVE trial.

“If, medically speaking, induction is equal to expectant management or has some benefit, as the larger ARRIVE trial suggests, we wanted to know: At what cost?” Dr. Einerson said in an interview.

Study participants hailed from five Utah hospitals within two health systems: the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare. Taking available data for 1,231 enrollees, investigators randomized 608 to labor induction and 623 to spontaneous labor. They measured actual hospital costs using advanced value-based analytics platforms at the Utah hospitals, comparing cost means and reporting the relative difference between induction and expectant management.

Overall, they found no significant differences between the mean total cost of elective induction and expectant management (adjusted mean difference, +4.7%). This was the case for other metrics: Costs did not vary among the five health systems or in most phases of care, including maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge.

The induction group did incur higher maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs (17%). However, these were offset by savings achieved during outpatient antenatal care (–47%). The assumption was additional costs of time spent on the labor ward might overwhelm cost savings elsewhere (reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer prenatal appointments and tests). “But this was not the case,” Dr. Einerson said.

Ultimately, the study was not large enough to find smaller differences in cost, he noted. It was only large enough to say that cost didn’t differentiate between arms with a margin of +/–7%. “A cost increase (or cost savings) with induction of 7% is meaningful over time and on a national scale,” Dr. Einerson explained.

Taken together, the two studies show that cost is not an insurmountable barrier to elective induced labor, Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, and Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136[1]:6-7).

“This will be especially true if we are innovative and creatively adapt our facilities and spaces, thinking about where and how some of the required care can be appropriately and more economically offered,” they noted.

“Specifically, strategies to safely reduce labor and delivery time for inductions of labor, including considering and studying outpatient cervical ripening, may make elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation even less costly and even more feasible to offer to all women,” suggested Dr. Ecker and Dr. Clapp, both at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Hersh and coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for their study. Dr. Einerson and most coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures; one coauthor reported receiving funds from GestVision as a consultant, and another coauthor reported funds paid to her or her institution from some pharmaceutical companies when she was primary investigator on various trials or a consultant. This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neither Dr. Ecker nor Dr Clapp had any relevant financial disclosures or received any funding.

SOURCES: Hersh AR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003865; Einerson BD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003930.

Cost concerns have circulated regarding elective induction of labor, a method that’s become increasingly popular in the United States. Two studies in Obstetrics & Gynecology, however, offer no consensus on the cost burden of this method.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

A retrospective analysis of a large cohort in California reported higher costs for induction, compared with spontaneous labor, after accounting for variables such as parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age. A prospective study of five Utah hospitals found no significant cost differences between induction and expectant management.

The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management), a multicenter study that compared elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with spontaneous labor in low-risk nulliparous women, suggests that induction may have some benefits. While its researchers found no differences in perinatal outcomes, induction cases had fewer cesareans, fewer hypertensive disorders, and fewer newborns requiring respiratory support.

One key question that remains following ARRIVE is whether this practice should be implemented universally, Alyssa R. Hersh, MD, MPH, lead author of the California study, said in an interview. Quantifying the costs associated with elective labor is important because “health care in the United States is already much more expensive than in other countries, and [elective labor] could have a dramatic impact on annual health care costs.”

In a retrospective analysis, Dr. Hersh, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues examined data from more than 1.2 million women in California with singleton, nonanomalous births. They excluded for multiple factors such as medically indicated induction of labor, placenta previa, breech presentation, or planned cesarean delivery.

Estimating cost differences between elective induction and spontaneous labor for mothers and neonates, they stratified results by vaginal or cesarean delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery, and geographic location. Elective induced labor represented 15% of the overall cohort of 1.2 million women.

Among vaginal deliveries, median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 in the induction group and $9,462 in the spontaneous labor group. For cesarean deliveries, the median costs were $20,294 with induction of labor and $18,812 with spontaneous labor.

Costs of maternal hospitalization with elective induction of labor were significantly higher than that of spontaneous labor, regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery, the authors reported. Comparing costs at rural and urban areas, the induction group saw higher maternal hospitalization costs and longer lengths of stay regardless of scenario.

Neonatal care was the one metric that incurred lower costs and lengths of stay in the induction group. Fewer adverse outcomes in this group could explain this outlier. “However, because this is observational data, we cannot elucidate what exactly contributed to these decreased costs,” Dr. Hersh and colleagues noted.

Timeliness was another limitation. “It is important to note that our study was conducted between 2007 and 2011, and the patients undergoing elective induction of labor during those years may differ from women undergoing elective induction of labor currently,” the authors acknowledged.

Another study by Brett D. Einerson, MD, MPH, of the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and associates evaluated the actual hospital costs of patients undergoing elective induction and expectant management in a subset of patients from the ARRIVE trial.

“If, medically speaking, induction is equal to expectant management or has some benefit, as the larger ARRIVE trial suggests, we wanted to know: At what cost?” Dr. Einerson said in an interview.

Study participants hailed from five Utah hospitals within two health systems: the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare. Taking available data for 1,231 enrollees, investigators randomized 608 to labor induction and 623 to spontaneous labor. They measured actual hospital costs using advanced value-based analytics platforms at the Utah hospitals, comparing cost means and reporting the relative difference between induction and expectant management.

Overall, they found no significant differences between the mean total cost of elective induction and expectant management (adjusted mean difference, +4.7%). This was the case for other metrics: Costs did not vary among the five health systems or in most phases of care, including maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge.

The induction group did incur higher maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs (17%). However, these were offset by savings achieved during outpatient antenatal care (–47%). The assumption was additional costs of time spent on the labor ward might overwhelm cost savings elsewhere (reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer prenatal appointments and tests). “But this was not the case,” Dr. Einerson said.

Ultimately, the study was not large enough to find smaller differences in cost, he noted. It was only large enough to say that cost didn’t differentiate between arms with a margin of +/–7%. “A cost increase (or cost savings) with induction of 7% is meaningful over time and on a national scale,” Dr. Einerson explained.

Taken together, the two studies show that cost is not an insurmountable barrier to elective induced labor, Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, and Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136[1]:6-7).

“This will be especially true if we are innovative and creatively adapt our facilities and spaces, thinking about where and how some of the required care can be appropriately and more economically offered,” they noted.

“Specifically, strategies to safely reduce labor and delivery time for inductions of labor, including considering and studying outpatient cervical ripening, may make elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation even less costly and even more feasible to offer to all women,” suggested Dr. Ecker and Dr. Clapp, both at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Hersh and coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for their study. Dr. Einerson and most coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures; one coauthor reported receiving funds from GestVision as a consultant, and another coauthor reported funds paid to her or her institution from some pharmaceutical companies when she was primary investigator on various trials or a consultant. This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neither Dr. Ecker nor Dr Clapp had any relevant financial disclosures or received any funding.

SOURCES: Hersh AR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003865; Einerson BD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003930.

Cost concerns have circulated regarding elective induction of labor, a method that’s become increasingly popular in the United States. Two studies in Obstetrics & Gynecology, however, offer no consensus on the cost burden of this method.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

A retrospective analysis of a large cohort in California reported higher costs for induction, compared with spontaneous labor, after accounting for variables such as parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age. A prospective study of five Utah hospitals found no significant cost differences between induction and expectant management.

The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management), a multicenter study that compared elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with spontaneous labor in low-risk nulliparous women, suggests that induction may have some benefits. While its researchers found no differences in perinatal outcomes, induction cases had fewer cesareans, fewer hypertensive disorders, and fewer newborns requiring respiratory support.

One key question that remains following ARRIVE is whether this practice should be implemented universally, Alyssa R. Hersh, MD, MPH, lead author of the California study, said in an interview. Quantifying the costs associated with elective labor is important because “health care in the United States is already much more expensive than in other countries, and [elective labor] could have a dramatic impact on annual health care costs.”

In a retrospective analysis, Dr. Hersh, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues examined data from more than 1.2 million women in California with singleton, nonanomalous births. They excluded for multiple factors such as medically indicated induction of labor, placenta previa, breech presentation, or planned cesarean delivery.

Estimating cost differences between elective induction and spontaneous labor for mothers and neonates, they stratified results by vaginal or cesarean delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery, and geographic location. Elective induced labor represented 15% of the overall cohort of 1.2 million women.

Among vaginal deliveries, median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 in the induction group and $9,462 in the spontaneous labor group. For cesarean deliveries, the median costs were $20,294 with induction of labor and $18,812 with spontaneous labor.

Costs of maternal hospitalization with elective induction of labor were significantly higher than that of spontaneous labor, regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery, the authors reported. Comparing costs at rural and urban areas, the induction group saw higher maternal hospitalization costs and longer lengths of stay regardless of scenario.

Neonatal care was the one metric that incurred lower costs and lengths of stay in the induction group. Fewer adverse outcomes in this group could explain this outlier. “However, because this is observational data, we cannot elucidate what exactly contributed to these decreased costs,” Dr. Hersh and colleagues noted.

Timeliness was another limitation. “It is important to note that our study was conducted between 2007 and 2011, and the patients undergoing elective induction of labor during those years may differ from women undergoing elective induction of labor currently,” the authors acknowledged.

Another study by Brett D. Einerson, MD, MPH, of the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and associates evaluated the actual hospital costs of patients undergoing elective induction and expectant management in a subset of patients from the ARRIVE trial.

“If, medically speaking, induction is equal to expectant management or has some benefit, as the larger ARRIVE trial suggests, we wanted to know: At what cost?” Dr. Einerson said in an interview.

Study participants hailed from five Utah hospitals within two health systems: the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare. Taking available data for 1,231 enrollees, investigators randomized 608 to labor induction and 623 to spontaneous labor. They measured actual hospital costs using advanced value-based analytics platforms at the Utah hospitals, comparing cost means and reporting the relative difference between induction and expectant management.

Overall, they found no significant differences between the mean total cost of elective induction and expectant management (adjusted mean difference, +4.7%). This was the case for other metrics: Costs did not vary among the five health systems or in most phases of care, including maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge.

The induction group did incur higher maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs (17%). However, these were offset by savings achieved during outpatient antenatal care (–47%). The assumption was additional costs of time spent on the labor ward might overwhelm cost savings elsewhere (reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer prenatal appointments and tests). “But this was not the case,” Dr. Einerson said.

Ultimately, the study was not large enough to find smaller differences in cost, he noted. It was only large enough to say that cost didn’t differentiate between arms with a margin of +/–7%. “A cost increase (or cost savings) with induction of 7% is meaningful over time and on a national scale,” Dr. Einerson explained.

Taken together, the two studies show that cost is not an insurmountable barrier to elective induced labor, Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, and Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136[1]:6-7).

“This will be especially true if we are innovative and creatively adapt our facilities and spaces, thinking about where and how some of the required care can be appropriately and more economically offered,” they noted.

“Specifically, strategies to safely reduce labor and delivery time for inductions of labor, including considering and studying outpatient cervical ripening, may make elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation even less costly and even more feasible to offer to all women,” suggested Dr. Ecker and Dr. Clapp, both at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Hersh and coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for their study. Dr. Einerson and most coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures; one coauthor reported receiving funds from GestVision as a consultant, and another coauthor reported funds paid to her or her institution from some pharmaceutical companies when she was primary investigator on various trials or a consultant. This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neither Dr. Ecker nor Dr Clapp had any relevant financial disclosures or received any funding.

SOURCES: Hersh AR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003865; Einerson BD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003930.

After cesarean birth followed by truncal block, locally infiltrated liposomal bupivacaine is excreted in breast milk, but neonatal exposure levels appear safe, based on a prospective cohort study.

SelectStock/Getty Images

Over the course of 4 days, relative neonatal dosages of bupivacaine were less than 1%, remaining below the 10% threshold of concern, reported Hiba J. Mustafa, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.

Liposomal bupivacaine can achieve up to 4 days of postcesarean pain control, which is significantly longer than the 8 hours provided by standard bupivacaine, the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology. But usage of the liposomal formulation has not been widespread, they noted, partly because of a lack of clinical studies evaluating breast milk transfer and neonatal safety.

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues enrolled 30 healthy pregnant women scheduled to undergo cesarean birth at full term. All patients were aged 18-40 years, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II. Exclusion criteria included a number of maternal and neonatal health concerns, such as sensitivity to local anesthetics, metabolic disorders, fetal anomaly, fetal growth restriction, and others.

The day of surgery, before the procedure, maternal blood samples were collected and used for baseline measurements.

Each woman received a spinal anesthetic including 150 mcg of morphine, 15 mcg of intrathecal fentanyl, and 1.4-1.6 mL of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine hydrochloride. Within 30 minutes after birth, a bilateral transversus abdominus plane block was performed using 266 mg of 1.3% liposomal bupivacaine and 52 mg of 0.25% bupivacaine hydrochloride.

Using the block as time point zero, maternal blood and breast milk samples were collected at hour 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96. Sparse sampling was employed, such that participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to provide paired blood and milk samples at hour 2, 12, and 48; or hour 6, 24, 72, and 96. Bupivacaine was quantified in samples by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.

Using these data, the investigators determined bupivacaine concentrations in plasma and milk, milk/plasma area under the curve (AUC) ratios, neonatal dosage, and relative neonatal dosage. In addition, adverse events in both mothers and neonates were recorded for 2 weeks post partum.

Mean bupivacaine concentrations peaked in breast milk at 6 hours, at 58 ng/mL. This peak was followed by a steady reduction to an “almost undetectable” level of 5.2 ng/mL at 96 hours. Maternal plasma levels peaked first at hour 6 (155.9 ng/mL), then again at hour 48 (225.8 ng/mL), followed by a steady decline until hour 96, when the level reached 80.6 ng/mL.

Relative mean concentrations of milk to plasma were 44%, 36%, 28%, and 18% at hour 2, 6, 12, and 24, respectively. AUC ratios were used to represent exposure across various time intervals. For instance, the AUC ratio for milk/plasma from hour 0 to hour 2 was 0.45. The AUC findings declined steadily until the final ratio, which spanned hour 0 to hour 96, at 0.15.

These AUC ratios allowed for calculation of neonatal dosage and relative neonatal dosage using an average daily milk intake of 150 mL/kg per day. For the longest range, spanning from hour 0 to hour 96, the neonatal dosage was 15,155.4 ng/kg, which translated to a relative neonatal dosage of 0.396%.

No mothers or neonates experienced adverse events.

“Bupivacaine was transferred into mother’s milk such that an exclusively breastfeeding neonate would ingest less than 1% (relative neonatal dosage) of the maternal dose,” the investigators wrote, noting that this falls safely below the acceptable threshold of 10%.

“Because bupivacaine is metabolized primarily in the liver, a neonate’s absorption will likely be even lower [than modeled] given the first-pass effect,” they added.

Based on these findings, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues concluded that “the level of bupivacaine ingested by the sucking neonate is acceptable and compatible with breastfeeding.”

Michael G. Ross MD, MPH, Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Public Health at Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, commented that, this study adds to the literature of drug excretion into breast milk. “For the vast majority of drugs with passive transfer from maternal plasma to breast milk, the effective dosages of exclusive breastfeeding neonates are approximately 5% of the maternal (oral) dose. In the present study, the authors demonstrated a relative neonatal dosage of less than 1%. This low value results from consequences of minimal maternal plasma absorption (in the present case from transversus abdominis injection), maternal volume of distribution, transfer into breast milk, and the volume of milk ingestion. These results should provide reassurance for the safety of breastfeeding term infants under the conditions of the study.

“There are a number of study concerns, including the inability to differentiate absorption of the spinal bupivacaine from the liposomal bupivacaine, the lack of paired maternal plasma and breast milk sample, and the lack of detail as to how  much milk was expressed for each sample. Importantly, breast milk composition varies from foremilk to hindmilk. Thus, a single sample may not accurately reflect the composition ingested by the infant. The suggestion of two peaks in maternal plasma concentration was not demonstrated statistically and may be an artifact of the timing of spinal and liposomal injections, or the fact that different patients were studied at each time period.

“Most importantly, despite the demonstrated safety, the authors acknowledge conflicting results of clinical benefits of liposomal bupivacaine injection. As such, I recommend that postcesarean transversus abdominis blocks be performed only under institutional review board-approved study protocols,” said Dr. Ross, codirector of the Institute for Women’ and Children’s Health at the Lundquist Institute, Torrance, Calif.*


The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Ross had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Mustafa et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003886.

*This article was updated 6/16/2020.

After cesarean birth followed by truncal block, locally infiltrated liposomal bupivacaine is excreted in breast milk, but neonatal exposure levels appear safe, based on a prospective cohort study.

SelectStock/Getty Images

Over the course of 4 days, relative neonatal dosages of bupivacaine were less than 1%, remaining below the 10% threshold of concern, reported Hiba J. Mustafa, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.

Liposomal bupivacaine can achieve up to 4 days of postcesarean pain control, which is significantly longer than the 8 hours provided by standard bupivacaine, the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology. But usage of the liposomal formulation has not been widespread, they noted, partly because of a lack of clinical studies evaluating breast milk transfer and neonatal safety.

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues enrolled 30 healthy pregnant women scheduled to undergo cesarean birth at full term. All patients were aged 18-40 years, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II. Exclusion criteria included a number of maternal and neonatal health concerns, such as sensitivity to local anesthetics, metabolic disorders, fetal anomaly, fetal growth restriction, and others.

The day of surgery, before the procedure, maternal blood samples were collected and used for baseline measurements.

Each woman received a spinal anesthetic including 150 mcg of morphine, 15 mcg of intrathecal fentanyl, and 1.4-1.6 mL of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine hydrochloride. Within 30 minutes after birth, a bilateral transversus abdominus plane block was performed using 266 mg of 1.3% liposomal bupivacaine and 52 mg of 0.25% bupivacaine hydrochloride.

Using the block as time point zero, maternal blood and breast milk samples were collected at hour 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96. Sparse sampling was employed, such that participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to provide paired blood and milk samples at hour 2, 12, and 48; or hour 6, 24, 72, and 96. Bupivacaine was quantified in samples by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.

Using these data, the investigators determined bupivacaine concentrations in plasma and milk, milk/plasma area under the curve (AUC) ratios, neonatal dosage, and relative neonatal dosage. In addition, adverse events in both mothers and neonates were recorded for 2 weeks post partum.

Mean bupivacaine concentrations peaked in breast milk at 6 hours, at 58 ng/mL. This peak was followed by a steady reduction to an “almost undetectable” level of 5.2 ng/mL at 96 hours. Maternal plasma levels peaked first at hour 6 (155.9 ng/mL), then again at hour 48 (225.8 ng/mL), followed by a steady decline until hour 96, when the level reached 80.6 ng/mL.

Relative mean concentrations of milk to plasma were 44%, 36%, 28%, and 18% at hour 2, 6, 12, and 24, respectively. AUC ratios were used to represent exposure across various time intervals. For instance, the AUC ratio for milk/plasma from hour 0 to hour 2 was 0.45. The AUC findings declined steadily until the final ratio, which spanned hour 0 to hour 96, at 0.15.

These AUC ratios allowed for calculation of neonatal dosage and relative neonatal dosage using an average daily milk intake of 150 mL/kg per day. For the longest range, spanning from hour 0 to hour 96, the neonatal dosage was 15,155.4 ng/kg, which translated to a relative neonatal dosage of 0.396%.

No mothers or neonates experienced adverse events.

“Bupivacaine was transferred into mother’s milk such that an exclusively breastfeeding neonate would ingest less than 1% (relative neonatal dosage) of the maternal dose,” the investigators wrote, noting that this falls safely below the acceptable threshold of 10%.

“Because bupivacaine is metabolized primarily in the liver, a neonate’s absorption will likely be even lower [than modeled] given the first-pass effect,” they added.

Based on these findings, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues concluded that “the level of bupivacaine ingested by the sucking neonate is acceptable and compatible with breastfeeding.”

Michael G. Ross MD, MPH, Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Public Health at Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, commented that, this study adds to the literature of drug excretion into breast milk. “For the vast majority of drugs with passive transfer from maternal plasma to breast milk, the effective dosages of exclusive breastfeeding neonates are approximately 5% of the maternal (oral) dose. In the present study, the authors demonstrated a relative neonatal dosage of less than 1%. This low value results from consequences of minimal maternal plasma absorption (in the present case from transversus abdominis injection), maternal volume of distribution, transfer into breast milk, and the volume of milk ingestion. These results should provide reassurance for the safety of breastfeeding term infants under the conditions of the study.

“There are a number of study concerns, including the inability to differentiate absorption of the spinal bupivacaine from the liposomal bupivacaine, the lack of paired maternal plasma and breast milk sample, and the lack of detail as to how  much milk was expressed for each sample. Importantly, breast milk composition varies from foremilk to hindmilk. Thus, a single sample may not accurately reflect the composition ingested by the infant. The suggestion of two peaks in maternal plasma concentration was not demonstrated statistically and may be an artifact of the timing of spinal and liposomal injections, or the fact that different patients were studied at each time period.

“Most importantly, despite the demonstrated safety, the authors acknowledge conflicting results of clinical benefits of liposomal bupivacaine injection. As such, I recommend that postcesarean transversus abdominis blocks be performed only under institutional review board-approved study protocols,” said Dr. Ross, codirector of the Institute for Women’ and Children’s Health at the Lundquist Institute, Torrance, Calif.*


The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Ross had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Mustafa et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003886.

*This article was updated 6/16/2020.

After cesarean birth followed by truncal block, locally infiltrated liposomal bupivacaine is excreted in breast milk, but neonatal exposure levels appear safe, based on a prospective cohort study.

SelectStock/Getty Images

Over the course of 4 days, relative neonatal dosages of bupivacaine were less than 1%, remaining below the 10% threshold of concern, reported Hiba J. Mustafa, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.

Liposomal bupivacaine can achieve up to 4 days of postcesarean pain control, which is significantly longer than the 8 hours provided by standard bupivacaine, the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology. But usage of the liposomal formulation has not been widespread, they noted, partly because of a lack of clinical studies evaluating breast milk transfer and neonatal safety.

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues enrolled 30 healthy pregnant women scheduled to undergo cesarean birth at full term. All patients were aged 18-40 years, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II. Exclusion criteria included a number of maternal and neonatal health concerns, such as sensitivity to local anesthetics, metabolic disorders, fetal anomaly, fetal growth restriction, and others.

The day of surgery, before the procedure, maternal blood samples were collected and used for baseline measurements.

Each woman received a spinal anesthetic including 150 mcg of morphine, 15 mcg of intrathecal fentanyl, and 1.4-1.6 mL of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine hydrochloride. Within 30 minutes after birth, a bilateral transversus abdominus plane block was performed using 266 mg of 1.3% liposomal bupivacaine and 52 mg of 0.25% bupivacaine hydrochloride.

Using the block as time point zero, maternal blood and breast milk samples were collected at hour 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96. Sparse sampling was employed, such that participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to provide paired blood and milk samples at hour 2, 12, and 48; or hour 6, 24, 72, and 96. Bupivacaine was quantified in samples by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.

Using these data, the investigators determined bupivacaine concentrations in plasma and milk, milk/plasma area under the curve (AUC) ratios, neonatal dosage, and relative neonatal dosage. In addition, adverse events in both mothers and neonates were recorded for 2 weeks post partum.

Mean bupivacaine concentrations peaked in breast milk at 6 hours, at 58 ng/mL. This peak was followed by a steady reduction to an “almost undetectable” level of 5.2 ng/mL at 96 hours. Maternal plasma levels peaked first at hour 6 (155.9 ng/mL), then again at hour 48 (225.8 ng/mL), followed by a steady decline until hour 96, when the level reached 80.6 ng/mL.

Relative mean concentrations of milk to plasma were 44%, 36%, 28%, and 18% at hour 2, 6, 12, and 24, respectively. AUC ratios were used to represent exposure across various time intervals. For instance, the AUC ratio for milk/plasma from hour 0 to hour 2 was 0.45. The AUC findings declined steadily until the final ratio, which spanned hour 0 to hour 96, at 0.15.

These AUC ratios allowed for calculation of neonatal dosage and relative neonatal dosage using an average daily milk intake of 150 mL/kg per day. For the longest range, spanning from hour 0 to hour 96, the neonatal dosage was 15,155.4 ng/kg, which translated to a relative neonatal dosage of 0.396%.

No mothers or neonates experienced adverse events.

“Bupivacaine was transferred into mother’s milk such that an exclusively breastfeeding neonate would ingest less than 1% (relative neonatal dosage) of the maternal dose,” the investigators wrote, noting that this falls safely below the acceptable threshold of 10%.

“Because bupivacaine is metabolized primarily in the liver, a neonate’s absorption will likely be even lower [than modeled] given the first-pass effect,” they added.

Based on these findings, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues concluded that “the level of bupivacaine ingested by the sucking neonate is acceptable and compatible with breastfeeding.”

Michael G. Ross MD, MPH, Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Public Health at Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, commented that, this study adds to the literature of drug excretion into breast milk. “For the vast majority of drugs with passive transfer from maternal plasma to breast milk, the effective dosages of exclusive breastfeeding neonates are approximately 5% of the maternal (oral) dose. In the present study, the authors demonstrated a relative neonatal dosage of less than 1%. This low value results from consequences of minimal maternal plasma absorption (in the present case from transversus abdominis injection), maternal volume of distribution, transfer into breast milk, and the volume of milk ingestion. These results should provide reassurance for the safety of breastfeeding term infants under the conditions of the study.

“There are a number of study concerns, including the inability to differentiate absorption of the spinal bupivacaine from the liposomal bupivacaine, the lack of paired maternal plasma and breast milk sample, and the lack of detail as to how  much milk was expressed for each sample. Importantly, breast milk composition varies from foremilk to hindmilk. Thus, a single sample may not accurately reflect the composition ingested by the infant. The suggestion of two peaks in maternal plasma concentration was not demonstrated statistically and may be an artifact of the timing of spinal and liposomal injections, or the fact that different patients were studied at each time period.

“Most importantly, despite the demonstrated safety, the authors acknowledge conflicting results of clinical benefits of liposomal bupivacaine injection. As such, I recommend that postcesarean transversus abdominis blocks be performed only under institutional review board-approved study protocols,” said Dr. Ross, codirector of the Institute for Women’ and Children’s Health at the Lundquist Institute, Torrance, Calif.*


The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Ross had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Mustafa et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003886.

*This article was updated 6/16/2020.

Living in a neighborhood lacking adequate access to affordable high-quality food is associated with a modestly greater risk of developing a pregnancy morbidity, according to a retrospective observational study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Previous research has linked so-called “food deserts” to higher systolic blood pressure and an increased risk of cardiovascular events in people with coronary artery disease, the authors note.

“Research on populations in the United States confirm that increased access to supermarkets is associated with lower prevalence of overweight and obesity, and improved fruit and vegetable consumption,” said Matthew J. Tipton, MD, of Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, and colleagues.

“With our study showing an association between living in a food desert and increased pregnancy morbidity, it is our hope that with future work, an unhealthy food environment could prove to be a modifiable factor that does contribute to disparities in pregnancy morbidity,” the authors said. “Perhaps then, one could question whether greater access to healthier foods could reduce unexplained pregnancy morbidity for this population of patients,” paving the way toward developing interventions that can then improve vulnerable women’s health.

The researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of all the pregnant patients who delivered at Loyola University Medical Center in 2014. To determine who lived in a food desert, the authors relied on data about grocery food availability within Census tracts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Access Research Atlas.

Dr. Tipton and associates defined living in a food desert as living in a low-income Census tract “where at least 33% of the population is more than half a mile from the nearest large grocery store for an urban area or more than 10 miles for a rural area.” Low-income Census tracts are those where “at least 20% of the population has a median family income at or below 80% of the metropolitan area or state median income.”

The authors compared women’s residence within a food desert (or not) with six different pregnancy morbidities: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, prelabor rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and intrauterine growth restriction.

Among 1,001 deliveries, about 1 in 5 women (20%) lived in a food desert. These women tended to be slightly younger than those not living in a food desert (28 vs. 30 years old), and a higher proportion of women in food deserts were black (44%) rather than white (32%). They also had a lower average income ($44,694) than those not living in food deserts ($67,005).

After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance type (private, Medicaid, other), the researchers found that women who lived in a food desert had 1.6 times greater odds of pregnancy comorbidity than if they did not (odds ratio, 1.64; P = .004). Nearly half the women living in food deserts had any type of comorbidity (47%), compared with just over a third of women who did not (36%).

Among the six comorbidities studied, preterm rupture of membranes was significantly different before adjustment between those who lived in food deserts (16%) and those who did not (10%) (P = .015). An association with preeclampsia had borderline significance before adjustment: 13% of women in food deserts had preeclampsia, compared with 9% of women not (P = .049). After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance, however, neither of these associations retained statistically significant differences.

The study was limited by leaving out consideration of other factors besides local food access that might influence pregnancy health, including “quality of patient-doctor communication, implicit bias, structural racism, and stress owing to concern for neighborhood safety,” Dr. Tipton and associates said.

“An additional, albeit less obvious factor that may be unique to patients suffering disproportionately from obstetric morbidity is exposure to toxic elements,” the researchers add. “It has been shown in a previous study that low-income, predominately black communities of pregnant women may suffer disproportionately from lead or arsenic exposure.”

The study did not note external funding, and the authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Tipton MJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003868.

Living in a neighborhood lacking adequate access to affordable high-quality food is associated with a modestly greater risk of developing a pregnancy morbidity, according to a retrospective observational study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Previous research has linked so-called “food deserts” to higher systolic blood pressure and an increased risk of cardiovascular events in people with coronary artery disease, the authors note.

“Research on populations in the United States confirm that increased access to supermarkets is associated with lower prevalence of overweight and obesity, and improved fruit and vegetable consumption,” said Matthew J. Tipton, MD, of Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, and colleagues.

“With our study showing an association between living in a food desert and increased pregnancy morbidity, it is our hope that with future work, an unhealthy food environment could prove to be a modifiable factor that does contribute to disparities in pregnancy morbidity,” the authors said. “Perhaps then, one could question whether greater access to healthier foods could reduce unexplained pregnancy morbidity for this population of patients,” paving the way toward developing interventions that can then improve vulnerable women’s health.

The researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of all the pregnant patients who delivered at Loyola University Medical Center in 2014. To determine who lived in a food desert, the authors relied on data about grocery food availability within Census tracts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Access Research Atlas.

Dr. Tipton and associates defined living in a food desert as living in a low-income Census tract “where at least 33% of the population is more than half a mile from the nearest large grocery store for an urban area or more than 10 miles for a rural area.” Low-income Census tracts are those where “at least 20% of the population has a median family income at or below 80% of the metropolitan area or state median income.”

The authors compared women’s residence within a food desert (or not) with six different pregnancy morbidities: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, prelabor rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and intrauterine growth restriction.

Among 1,001 deliveries, about 1 in 5 women (20%) lived in a food desert. These women tended to be slightly younger than those not living in a food desert (28 vs. 30 years old), and a higher proportion of women in food deserts were black (44%) rather than white (32%). They also had a lower average income ($44,694) than those not living in food deserts ($67,005).

After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance type (private, Medicaid, other), the researchers found that women who lived in a food desert had 1.6 times greater odds of pregnancy comorbidity than if they did not (odds ratio, 1.64; P = .004). Nearly half the women living in food deserts had any type of comorbidity (47%), compared with just over a third of women who did not (36%).

Among the six comorbidities studied, preterm rupture of membranes was significantly different before adjustment between those who lived in food deserts (16%) and those who did not (10%) (P = .015). An association with preeclampsia had borderline significance before adjustment: 13% of women in food deserts had preeclampsia, compared with 9% of women not (P = .049). After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance, however, neither of these associations retained statistically significant differences.

The study was limited by leaving out consideration of other factors besides local food access that might influence pregnancy health, including “quality of patient-doctor communication, implicit bias, structural racism, and stress owing to concern for neighborhood safety,” Dr. Tipton and associates said.

“An additional, albeit less obvious factor that may be unique to patients suffering disproportionately from obstetric morbidity is exposure to toxic elements,” the researchers add. “It has been shown in a previous study that low-income, predominately black communities of pregnant women may suffer disproportionately from lead or arsenic exposure.”

The study did not note external funding, and the authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Tipton MJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003868.

Living in a neighborhood lacking adequate access to affordable high-quality food is associated with a modestly greater risk of developing a pregnancy morbidity, according to a retrospective observational study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Previous research has linked so-called “food deserts” to higher systolic blood pressure and an increased risk of cardiovascular events in people with coronary artery disease, the authors note.

“Research on populations in the United States confirm that increased access to supermarkets is associated with lower prevalence of overweight and obesity, and improved fruit and vegetable consumption,” said Matthew J. Tipton, MD, of Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, and colleagues.

“With our study showing an association between living in a food desert and increased pregnancy morbidity, it is our hope that with future work, an unhealthy food environment could prove to be a modifiable factor that does contribute to disparities in pregnancy morbidity,” the authors said. “Perhaps then, one could question whether greater access to healthier foods could reduce unexplained pregnancy morbidity for this population of patients,” paving the way toward developing interventions that can then improve vulnerable women’s health.

The researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of all the pregnant patients who delivered at Loyola University Medical Center in 2014. To determine who lived in a food desert, the authors relied on data about grocery food availability within Census tracts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Access Research Atlas.

Dr. Tipton and associates defined living in a food desert as living in a low-income Census tract “where at least 33% of the population is more than half a mile from the nearest large grocery store for an urban area or more than 10 miles for a rural area.” Low-income Census tracts are those where “at least 20% of the population has a median family income at or below 80% of the metropolitan area or state median income.”

The authors compared women’s residence within a food desert (or not) with six different pregnancy morbidities: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, prelabor rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and intrauterine growth restriction.

Among 1,001 deliveries, about 1 in 5 women (20%) lived in a food desert. These women tended to be slightly younger than those not living in a food desert (28 vs. 30 years old), and a higher proportion of women in food deserts were black (44%) rather than white (32%). They also had a lower average income ($44,694) than those not living in food deserts ($67,005).

After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance type (private, Medicaid, other), the researchers found that women who lived in a food desert had 1.6 times greater odds of pregnancy comorbidity than if they did not (odds ratio, 1.64; P = .004). Nearly half the women living in food deserts had any type of comorbidity (47%), compared with just over a third of women who did not (36%).

Among the six comorbidities studied, preterm rupture of membranes was significantly different before adjustment between those who lived in food deserts (16%) and those who did not (10%) (P = .015). An association with preeclampsia had borderline significance before adjustment: 13% of women in food deserts had preeclampsia, compared with 9% of women not (P = .049). After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance, however, neither of these associations retained statistically significant differences.

The study was limited by leaving out consideration of other factors besides local food access that might influence pregnancy health, including “quality of patient-doctor communication, implicit bias, structural racism, and stress owing to concern for neighborhood safety,” Dr. Tipton and associates said.

“An additional, albeit less obvious factor that may be unique to patients suffering disproportionately from obstetric morbidity is exposure to toxic elements,” the researchers add. “It has been shown in a previous study that low-income, predominately black communities of pregnant women may suffer disproportionately from lead or arsenic exposure.”

The study did not note external funding, and the authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Tipton MJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003868.

Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.

After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.

“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”

Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.

The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
 

Pause expanded use?

“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.

To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.

The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
 

A range of disorders

In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).

In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.

“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.

Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.

Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.

After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.

“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”

Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.

The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
 

Pause expanded use?

“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.

To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.

The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
 

A range of disorders

In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).

In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.

“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.

Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.

Exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment is significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, according to a Finnish population-based study published in JAMA. The findings may lead to changes in clinical practice, particularly for infants who may be born full term.

After adjustment for variables such as maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, any lifetime mental disorder diagnosis, and gestational age at birth, exposure to maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disorders in children, compared with nonexposure, with a hazard ratio of 1.33. Among children born at term, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.47. Among preterm children, the hazard ratio was not significant.

“Although benefits of this therapy outweigh risks in the most vulnerable infants, this may not be true for all infants,” wrote Sara B. DeMauro, MD, an attending neonatologist and program director of the neonatal follow-up program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an editorial also published in JAMA. “Recommendations to administer this therapy to broader populations of pregnant women may need to be reexamined until sufficient safety data, particularly among more mature infants, are available.”

Corticosteroid treatment to accelerate fetal maturation is standard care before 34 weeks’ gestation when there is a likelihood of delivery within 7 days, and studies have found that providing this therapy reduces the risk for respiratory problems when administered beyond 34 weeks. In 2016, updates to U.S. guidelines allowed for the use of corticosteroid treatment between 34 weeks and 36 weeks 6 days when women are at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days and have not received a previous course of antenatal corticosteroids.

The data from Finland indicate that “a significant number of very preterm children who might have benefited from this treatment did not receive it,” Dr. DeMauro wrote. At the same time, “45% of steroid-exposed infants were delivered at term. In these infants, minor short-term benefit may have been outweighed by significant longer-term risks. These data elucidate both the continuing struggle to accurately predict preterm birth and the incomplete uptake of an effective therapy that is beneficial when administered to the correct patients.”
 

Pause expanded use?

“Since the recommendations came out to expand the use of corticosteroids for preterm labor up until 37 weeks gestational age, my practice has incorporated these guidelines,” said Santina Wheat, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “We have incorporated the guidelines though with the understanding that the benefits outweigh the risk. This article indicates that we may have been wrong in that understanding.” Although the association does not establish that the treatment causes mental and behavioral disorders, it “raises the question of whether we should halt this practice until additional information can be gathered,” noted Dr. Wheat, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

When administered before delivery of a very premature infant, corticosteroid therapy accelerates fetal lung maturation and helps prevent neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and brain injury. Investigators demonstrated the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids in 1972, and the treatment – “one of the most important advances in perinatal care” – became widely used in the 1990s, Dr. DeMauro said.

To examine whether treatment exposure is associated with a risk of childhood mental and behavioral disorders and whether the risk is similar in infants born at term and preterm, Katri Räikkönen, PhD, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective study of more than 670,000 children.

The researchers identified all singleton pregnancies ending in a live birth in Finland during Jan. 1, 2006–Dec.31, 2017. In addition, they identified all consecutive maternal sibling pairs born at term, including sibling pairs discordant for maternal antenatal corticosteroid treatment exposure and sibling pairs concordant for treatment exposure or nonexposure. The investigators identified diagnoses of childhood mental and behavioral disorders using the Finnish Care Register for Health Care using ICD-10 codes on hospital inpatient and outpatient treatments by physicians in specialized medical care.
 

A range of disorders

In all, 670,097 infants with a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years were included in the analysis, and 14,868 (2.22%) were exposed to antenatal corticosteroids. Of the treatment-exposed children, about 45% were born at term. Of the nonexposed children, approximately 97% were born at term. Cumulative incidence rates for any mental and behavioral disorder were significantly higher for treatment-exposed children, compared with nonexposed children, in the entire cohort (12.01% vs. 6.45%; P less than .001) and in term-born children (8.89% vs. 6.31%; P less than .001).

In preterm children, the incidence rate of any mental and behavioral disorder was significantly higher among those with treatment exposure (14.59% vs. 10.71%; P less than .001). Associations persisted when the investigators focused on 241,621 sibling pairs, “suggesting that unmeasured familial confounding did not explain these associations,” the authors said.

“[In] the entire cohort and term-born children, treatment exposure ... was significantly associated with psychological development disorders; attention-deficit/hyperactivity or conduct disorders; mixed disorders of conduct and emotions, emotional disorders, disorders of social functioning or tic disorders; other behavioral or emotional disorders; and sleep disorders,” Dr. Räikkönen and colleagues reported. Among preterm-born, treatment-exposed children, the adjusted hazard ratio was significantly lower for intellectual disability and higher for sleep disorders.

Dr. DeMauro noted potential confounders in this observational study, including abnormal pregnancy events that lead clinicians to administer steroids. Such events “predispose the exposed children to adverse cognitive outcomes,” suggests some research. “Alternately, after a pregnancy at high risk for preterm delivery, families may perceive their children as vulnerable and therefore may be more likely to seek care and earlier diagnosis of mental or behavioral disorders,” Dr. DeMauro said.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, European Commission, Foundation for Pediatric Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. The investigators and Dr. DeMauro had no conflict of interest disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Räikkönen K et al. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1924-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3937.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, many significant changes have occurred that have made the implementation of telemedicine easier and more attractive for gynecologic practices. In the first article in this series, we discussed the benefits of telemedicine to physicians and patients, how to get started using telemedicine, and implementing a workflow. This article will discuss the common hurdles in the process and the proper coding to use to insure reimbursement for services rendered.

Barriers to implementing telemedicine

Incorrect assumptions

Latecomers to telemedicine often assume that patients prefer face-to-face visits when, in fact, many may prefer the convenience of virtual visits. More than 50% of patients who are surveyed about their experience with telemedicine say that online tools have helped improve their relationship with their providers.¹ Telemedicine has grown astronomically during the COVID-19 pandemic to the point where many patients now expect their health care providers to be able to conduct virtual visits. Practices that do not offer telemedicine may find their patients seeking services elsewhere. Nearly two-thirds of health care professionals expect their commitment to telemedicine to increase significantly in the next 3 years.² Of those providers who have not yet adopted the practice, nearly 85% expect to implement telemedicine in the near future.³ COVID-19 has motivated the increased use of telemedicine to enhance the communication with patients, making it possible for patients to have enhanced access to health care during this pandemic while minimizing infectious transmission of COVID-19 to physicians and their staff.⁴

Admittedly, telemedicine is not appropriate for all patients. In general, situations that do not lend themselves to telemedicine are those for which an in-person visit is required to evaluate the patient via a physical examination, to perform a protocol-driven procedure, or provide an aggressive intervention. Additional patients for whom telemedicine may be inappropriate include those with cognitive disorders, those with language barriers, those with emergency situations that warrant an office visit or a visit to the emergency department, and patients who do not have access to the technology to conduct a virtual visit.

Cost and complexity

The process of implementing electronic health records (EHRs) left a bitter taste in the mouths of many health care professionals. But EHRs are complicated and expensive. Implementation often resulted in lost productivity. Because the learning curve was so steep, many physicians had to decrease the number of patients they saw before becoming comfortable with the conversion from paper charts to an EHR.

Telemedicine implementation is much less onerous and expensive. Telemedicine is available as a cloud-based platform, which requires less information technology (IT) support and less hardware and software. The technology required for patients to participate in telemedicine is nearly ubiquitous. According to the Pew Research Center, 96% of Americans own a cell phone (81% have a smart phone), and more than half (52%) own a tablet, so the basic equipment to connect patients to providers is already in place.⁵

On the provider side, the basic equipment required for a telemedicine program is a computer with video and audio capabilities and a broadband connection that is fast enough to show video in real time and to provide high-quality viewing of any images to be reviewed.

The growth in telemedicine means that telemedicine options are now more diverse, with many more affordable solutions. However, most telemedicine programs do require the purchase and set-up of new technology and equipment and the training of staff—some of which may be outside the budgets of health care providers in smaller independent practices. Many gynecologists have technology budgets that are already stretched thin. And for patients who do not have access to a smartphone or computer with Internet access, real-time telemedicine may be out of reach.

But with new guidelines put forth by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in March 2020, connectivity can take place inexpensively using free platforms such as Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, and Facebook Messenger. If a non‒HIPAA-compliant platform is used initially, conversion to a HIPAA-compliant platform is recommended.⁶ These platforms do not require the purchase of, or subscription to, any expensive hardware or software. The disadvantages of these programs are the lack of documentation, the failure to be Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant, and the lack of encryption; however, these disadvantages are no longer an issue after the new CMS guidelines.

Depending on the magnitude of the program, IT assistance may be needed to get started. It is imperative that the telemedicine program is interoperable with the EHR and the billing program. Otherwise, double and triple entry will erase the efficiency provided by conducting a virtual visit.

Continue to: Licensing...

Licensing

Another concern or barrier is a license to participate in telemedicine. The March 15, 2020, approval of telemedicine states that physicians who are licensed in the state where the patient is located do not require any additional license or permission to conduct virtual visits.⁷ CMS has temporarily waived the requirement that out-of-state providers be licensed in the state where they are providing services when they are licensed in another state. For questions regarding licensure, contact your State Board of Medicine or Department of Health for information on requirements for licenses across state lines (see “Resources,” at the end of the article).

Informed consent

Just like with any other aspect of providing care for patients, obtaining informed consent is paramount. Not only is getting informed patient consent a recommended best practice of the American Telemedicine Association (ATA), but it is actually a legal requirement in many states and could be a condition of getting paid, depending on the payer. To check the requirements regarding patient consent in your state, look at The National Telehealth Policy Resource Center’s state map (see “Resources.")

Some states do not have any requirements regarding consent for a virtual visit. Others require verbal consent. Even if it is not a legal requirement in your state, consider making it a part of your practice’s policy to obtain written or verbal consent and to document in the patient’s record that consent was obtained prior to the virtual visit so that you are protected when using this new technology.

Because telemedicine is a new way of receiving care for many patients, it is important to let them know how it works including how patient confidentiality and privacy are handled, what technical equipment is required, and what they should expect in terms of scheduling, cancellations, and billing policies. A sample consent form for telemedicine use is shown in FIGURE 1.

Liability insurance

Another hurdle that must be considered is liability insurance for conducting virtual visits with patients. Gynecologists who are going to offer telemedicine care to patients should request proof in writing that their liability insurance policy covers telemedicine malpractice and that the coverage extends to other states should the patient be in another state from the state in which the gynecologist holds a license. Additionally, gynecologists who provide telemedicine care should check with liability insurers regarding any requirements or limitations to conducting a virtual visit with their patients and should document them. For example, the policy may require that the physician keep a written or recorded record of the visit in the EHR. If that is the case, then using Skype, Facebook, or Google for the virtual visit, which do not include documentation, would be less desirable.

Privacy

Certainly, there is concern about privacy, and HIPAA compliance is critical to telemedicine success. Because of the COVID-19 emergency, as of March 1, 2020, physicians may now communicate with patients, and provide telehealth services, through remote communications without penalties.⁸ With these changes in the HIPAA requirements, physicians may use applications that allow for video chats, including Apple FaceTime, Facebook Messenger video chat, Google Hangouts video, and Skype, to provide telehealth without risk that the Office for Civil Rights will impose a penalty for noncompliance with HIPAA rules. The consent for patients should mention that these “public” applications potentially introduce privacy risks. This is a motivation for gynecologists to consider one of the programs that promises encryption, privacy, and HIPAA compliance, such as Updox, Doxy.me, and Amazon Chime. It is also important to recognize that a virtual visit could result in colleagues (if the patient is in an office setting) or family members (if the patient is in the home environment) overhearing conversations between the health care professional and the patient. Therefore, we suggest that patients conduct virtual visits in locations in which they feel assured of some semblance of privacy.

Continue to: Compensation for telemedicine...

Compensation for telemedicine

Perhaps the biggest barrier to virtual health adoption has been compensation for telemedicine visits. Both commercial payers and CMS have been slow to enact formal policies for telemedicine reimbursement. Because of this, the common misconceptions (that providers cannot be reimbursed for telemedicine appointments or that compensation occurs at a reduced rate) have persisted, making telemedicine economically unappealing.

The good news is that this is changing; legislation in most states is quickly embracing virtual health visits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁹ In fact, as of January 1, 2020, telemedicine services are no longer considered “optional” coverage in Medicare Advantage plans.¹⁰ Nor are they required to have an additional fee. Instead, CMS now allows telemedicine as a standard, covered benefit in all plans, enabling beneficiaries to seek care from their homes rather than requiring them to go to a health care facility.¹¹ In the past, telemedicine was restricted for use in rural areas or when patients resided a great distance from their health care providers. Starting March 6, 2020, and for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, Medicare will make payment for professional services furnished to beneficiaries in all areas of the country in all settings regardless of location or distance between the patient and the health care provider.¹²

In addition, since March 15, 2020, CMS has expanded access to telemedicine services for all Medicare beneficiaries—not just those who have been diagnosed with COVID-19.¹³ The expanded access also applies to pre-COVID-19 coverage from physician offices, skilled nursing facilities, and hospitals. This means that Medicare will now make payments to physicians for telemedicine services provided in any health care facility or in a patient’s home, so that patients do not need to go to the physician’s office.

The facts are that there are parity laws and that commercial payers and CMS are required by state law to reimburse for telemedicine—often at the same rate as that for a comparable in-person visit. On the commercial side, there has been an increase in commercial parity legislation that requires health plans to cover virtual visits in the same way they cover face-to-face services. With the new guidelines for reimbursement, every state and Washington DC has parity laws in place. (To stay abreast of state-by-state changes in virtual health reimbursement, the Center for Connected Health Policy and the Advisory Board Primer are valuable resources. See “Resources.”) As long as the provider performs and documents the elements of history and decision-making, including the time spent counseling, and documents the visit as if a face-to-face visit occurred, then clinicians have a billable evaluation and management (E&M) visit.

Continue to: Virtual services for Medicare patients...

Virtual services for Medicare patients

There are 3 main types of virtual services gynecologists can provide to Medicare patients: Medicare telehealth visits, virtual check-ins, and e-visits.

Medicare telehealth visits. Largely because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare patients may now use telecommunication technology for any services that previously occurred in an in-person communication. The gynecologist must use an interactive audio and video telecommunications system that permits real-time communication between the physician and the patient, and the patient should have a prior established relationship with the gynecologist with whom the telemedicine visit is taking place. The new guidelines indicate that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will not conduct audits to ensure that such a prior relationship exists for claims submitted during this public health emergency.¹⁴

The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for virtual visits using synchronous audio/visual communication are:

• 99201-99295, Office visit for a new patient
• 99211-99215, Office visit for an established patient.

Important modifiers for telemedicine visits include:

• modifier 02 for POS (place of service) for telehealth Medicare
• modifier 95 for commercial payers.

(A list of all available CPT codes for telehealth services from CMS can be found in “Resources.”)

Virtual check-ins. Established Medicare patients may have a brief communication with gynecologists the traditional way using a telephone or via live video. These brief virtual services, usually 5 to 10 minutes in duration, are initiated by the patient. The purpose of the virtual check-in is to determine if an office visit or a test or procedure is indicated.

Medicare pays for these “virtual check-ins” (or brief communication technology-based services) for patients to communicate with their physicians and avoid unnecessary trips to the office. These brief virtual check-ins are only for established patients. If an existing patient contacts the gynecologist’s office to ask a question or determine if an office visit is necessary, the gynecologist may bill for it using code G2012.

E-visits. Established Medicare patients may have non–face-to-face patient-initiated communications with their gynecologists without going to the physician’s office. These services can be billed only when the physician has an established relationship with the patient. The services may be billed using CPT codes 99421 to 99423. Coding for these visits is determined by the length of time the gynecologist spends online with the patient:

• 99421: Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient 5 to 10 minutes spent on the virtual visit
• 99422: 11 to 20 minutes
• 99423: ≥ 21 minutes.

Many clinicians want to immediately start the communication process with their patients. Many will avail themselves of the free video communication offered by Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, and Facebook Messenger. Since the March 15, 2020, relaxation of the HIPAA restrictions for telemedicine, it is now possible to have a virtual visit with a patient using one of the free, non–HIPAA-compliant connections. This type of visit is no different than a telephone call but with an added video component. Using these free technologies, a gynecologist can have an asynchronous visit with a patient (referred to as the store and forward method of sending information or medical images), which means that the service takes place in one direction with no opportunity for interaction with the patient. Asynchronous visits are akin to video text messages left for the patient. By contrast, a synchronous or real-time video visit with a patient is a 2-way communication that provides medical care without examining the patient.

Using triangulation

There are some downsides to telemedicine visits. First, virtual visits on Skype, FaceTime, and other non–HIPAA-compliant methods are not conducted on an encrypted website. Second, no documentation is created for the doctor-patient encounter. Finally, unless the physician keeps a record of these virtual visits and submits the interactions to the practice coders, there will be no billing and no reimbursement for the visits. In this scenario, physicians are legally responsible for their decision-making, prescription writing, and medical advice, but do not receive compensation for their efforts.

This can be remedied by using “triangulation,” which involves: 1. the physician, 2. the patient, and 3. a scribe or medical assistant who will record the visit. Before initiating the virtual visit using triangulation, it is imperative to ask the patient for permission if your medical assistant (or any other person in the office who functions as a scribe) will be listening to the conversation. It is important to explain that the person is there to take accurate notes and ascertain that the notes are entered into the EHR. Also, the scribe or assistant will record the time, date, and duration of the visit, which is a requirement for billing purposes. The scribe may also ascertain that the visit is properly coded and entered into the practice management system, and that a bill is submitted to the insurance company. By using triangulation, you have documentation that consent was obtained, that the visit took place, that notes were taken, and that the patient’s insurance company will be billed for the visit (see FIGURE 2 for a sample documentation form).

Continue to: Which CPT codes should I use?...

Which CPT codes should I use?

The answer depends on a number of factors, but a good rule of thumb is to use the same codes that you would use for an in-person appointment (CPT codes 99211-99215 for an established patient visit and 99201-99205 for a new patient visit). These are the most common CPT codes for outpatient gynecologic office visits whether they take place face-to-face or as a synchronous virtual visit (via a real-time interactive audio and video telecommunications system).

For example, the reimbursement for code 99213 has a range from $73 to $100. You may wonder how you can achieve the complexity requirements for a level-3 office visit without a physical examination. Whether as a face-to-face or virtual visit, documentation for these encounters requires 2 of 3 of the following components:

• expanded problem-focused history
• expanded problem-focused exam (not accomplished with telemedicine)
• low-complexity medical decision-making OR
• at least 15 minutes spent face to face with the patient if coding is based on time.

If a gynecologist reviews the results of a recent lab test for an estrogen-deficient patient and adjusts the estrogen dosage, writes a prescription, and spends 15 minutes communicating with the patient, he/she has met the complexity requirements for a code 99213. Because Level 3 and 4 visits (99214 and 99215) require a comprehensive physical examination, it is necessary to document the time spent with the patient (code 99214 requires 25 to 39 minutes of consultation and code 99215 requires ≥ 40 minutes).

Some final billing and coding advice

Always confirm telemedicine billing guidelines before beginning to conduct telemedicine visits. Consider starting a phone call to a payer armed with the fact that the payer is required by law to offer parity between telemedicine and face-to-face visits. Then ask which specific billing codes should be used.

Until you and your practice become comfortable with the process of, and the coding and billing for, telemedicine, consider using a telemedicine platform that has a built-in rules engine that offers recommendations for each telemedicine visit based on past claims data. These systems help gynecologists determine which CPT code to use and which modifiers are appropriate for the various insurance companies. In other words, the rules engine helps you submit a clean claim that is less likely to be denied and very likely to be paid. There are some vendors who are so confident that their rules engine will match the service with the proper CPT code and modifier that they guarantee full private payer reimbursement for telemedicine visits, or the vendor will reimburse the claim.

Watch for the third and final installment in this series, which was written with the assistance of 2 attorneys. It will review the legal guidelines for implementing telemedicine in a gynecologic practice and discuss the future of the technology. ●

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, many significant changes have occurred that have made the implementation of telemedicine easier and more attractive for gynecologic practices. In the first article in this series, we discussed the benefits of telemedicine to physicians and patients, how to get started using telemedicine, and implementing a workflow. This article will discuss the common hurdles in the process and the proper coding to use to insure reimbursement for services rendered.

Barriers to implementing telemedicine

Incorrect assumptions

Latecomers to telemedicine often assume that patients prefer face-to-face visits when, in fact, many may prefer the convenience of virtual visits. More than 50% of patients who are surveyed about their experience with telemedicine say that online tools have helped improve their relationship with their providers.¹ Telemedicine has grown astronomically during the COVID-19 pandemic to the point where many patients now expect their health care providers to be able to conduct virtual visits. Practices that do not offer telemedicine may find their patients seeking services elsewhere. Nearly two-thirds of health care professionals expect their commitment to telemedicine to increase significantly in the next 3 years.² Of those providers who have not yet adopted the practice, nearly 85% expect to implement telemedicine in the near future.³ COVID-19 has motivated the increased use of telemedicine to enhance the communication with patients, making it possible for patients to have enhanced access to health care during this pandemic while minimizing infectious transmission of COVID-19 to physicians and their staff.⁴

Admittedly, telemedicine is not appropriate for all patients. In general, situations that do not lend themselves to telemedicine are those for which an in-person visit is required to evaluate the patient via a physical examination, to perform a protocol-driven procedure, or provide an aggressive intervention. Additional patients for whom telemedicine may be inappropriate include those with cognitive disorders, those with language barriers, those with emergency situations that warrant an office visit or a visit to the emergency department, and patients who do not have access to the technology to conduct a virtual visit.

Cost and complexity

The process of implementing electronic health records (EHRs) left a bitter taste in the mouths of many health care professionals. But EHRs are complicated and expensive. Implementation often resulted in lost productivity. Because the learning curve was so steep, many physicians had to decrease the number of patients they saw before becoming comfortable with the conversion from paper charts to an EHR.

Telemedicine implementation is much less onerous and expensive. Telemedicine is available as a cloud-based platform, which requires less information technology (IT) support and less hardware and software. The technology required for patients to participate in telemedicine is nearly ubiquitous. According to the Pew Research Center, 96% of Americans own a cell phone (81% have a smart phone), and more than half (52%) own a tablet, so the basic equipment to connect patients to providers is already in place.⁵

On the provider side, the basic equipment required for a telemedicine program is a computer with video and audio capabilities and a broadband connection that is fast enough to show video in real time and to provide high-quality viewing of any images to be reviewed.

The growth in telemedicine means that telemedicine options are now more diverse, with many more affordable solutions. However, most telemedicine programs do require the purchase and set-up of new technology and equipment and the training of staff—some of which may be outside the budgets of health care providers in smaller independent practices. Many gynecologists have technology budgets that are already stretched thin. And for patients who do not have access to a smartphone or computer with Internet access, real-time telemedicine may be out of reach.

But with new guidelines put forth by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in March 2020, connectivity can take place inexpensively using free platforms such as Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, and Facebook Messenger. If a non‒HIPAA-compliant platform is used initially, conversion to a HIPAA-compliant platform is recommended.⁶ These platforms do not require the purchase of, or subscription to, any expensive hardware or software. The disadvantages of these programs are the lack of documentation, the failure to be Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant, and the lack of encryption; however, these disadvantages are no longer an issue after the new CMS guidelines.

Depending on the magnitude of the program, IT assistance may be needed to get started. It is imperative that the telemedicine program is interoperable with the EHR and the billing program. Otherwise, double and triple entry will erase the efficiency provided by conducting a virtual visit.

Continue to: Licensing...

Licensing

Another concern or barrier is a license to participate in telemedicine. The March 15, 2020, approval of telemedicine states that physicians who are licensed in the state where the patient is located do not require any additional license or permission to conduct virtual visits.⁷ CMS has temporarily waived the requirement that out-of-state providers be licensed in the state where they are providing services when they are licensed in another state. For questions regarding licensure, contact your State Board of Medicine or Department of Health for information on requirements for licenses across state lines (see “Resources,” at the end of the article).

Informed consent

Just like with any other aspect of providing care for patients, obtaining informed consent is paramount. Not only is getting informed patient consent a recommended best practice of the American Telemedicine Association (ATA), but it is actually a legal requirement in many states and could be a condition of getting paid, depending on the payer. To check the requirements regarding patient consent in your state, look at The National Telehealth Policy Resource Center’s state map (see “Resources.")

Some states do not have any requirements regarding consent for a virtual visit. Others require verbal consent. Even if it is not a legal requirement in your state, consider making it a part of your practice’s policy to obtain written or verbal consent and to document in the patient’s record that consent was obtained prior to the virtual visit so that you are protected when using this new technology.

Because telemedicine is a new way of receiving care for many patients, it is important to let them know how it works including how patient confidentiality and privacy are handled, what technical equipment is required, and what they should expect in terms of scheduling, cancellations, and billing policies. A sample consent form for telemedicine use is shown in FIGURE 1.

Liability insurance

Another hurdle that must be considered is liability insurance for conducting virtual visits with patients. Gynecologists who are going to offer telemedicine care to patients should request proof in writing that their liability insurance policy covers telemedicine malpractice and that the coverage extends to other states should the patient be in another state from the state in which the gynecologist holds a license. Additionally, gynecologists who provide telemedicine care should check with liability insurers regarding any requirements or limitations to conducting a virtual visit with their patients and should document them. For example, the policy may require that the physician keep a written or recorded record of the visit in the EHR. If that is the case, then using Skype, Facebook, or Google for the virtual visit, which do not include documentation, would be less desirable.

Privacy

Certainly, there is concern about privacy, and HIPAA compliance is critical to telemedicine success. Because of the COVID-19 emergency, as of March 1, 2020, physicians may now communicate with patients, and provide telehealth services, through remote communications without penalties.⁸ With these changes in the HIPAA requirements, physicians may use applications that allow for video chats, including Apple FaceTime, Facebook Messenger video chat, Google Hangouts video, and Skype, to provide telehealth without risk that the Office for Civil Rights will impose a penalty for noncompliance with HIPAA rules. The consent for patients should mention that these “public” applications potentially introduce privacy risks. This is a motivation for gynecologists to consider one of the programs that promises encryption, privacy, and HIPAA compliance, such as Updox, Doxy.me, and Amazon Chime. It is also important to recognize that a virtual visit could result in colleagues (if the patient is in an office setting) or family members (if the patient is in the home environment) overhearing conversations between the health care professional and the patient. Therefore, we suggest that patients conduct virtual visits in locations in which they feel assured of some semblance of privacy.

Continue to: Compensation for telemedicine...

Compensation for telemedicine

Perhaps the biggest barrier to virtual health adoption has been compensation for telemedicine visits. Both commercial payers and CMS have been slow to enact formal policies for telemedicine reimbursement. Because of this, the common misconceptions (that providers cannot be reimbursed for telemedicine appointments or that compensation occurs at a reduced rate) have persisted, making telemedicine economically unappealing.

The good news is that this is changing; legislation in most states is quickly embracing virtual health visits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁹ In fact, as of January 1, 2020, telemedicine services are no longer considered “optional” coverage in Medicare Advantage plans.¹⁰ Nor are they required to have an additional fee. Instead, CMS now allows telemedicine as a standard, covered benefit in all plans, enabling beneficiaries to seek care from their homes rather than requiring them to go to a health care facility.¹¹ In the past, telemedicine was restricted for use in rural areas or when patients resided a great distance from their health care providers. Starting March 6, 2020, and for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, Medicare will make payment for professional services furnished to beneficiaries in all areas of the country in all settings regardless of location or distance between the patient and the health care provider.¹²

In addition, since March 15, 2020, CMS has expanded access to telemedicine services for all Medicare beneficiaries—not just those who have been diagnosed with COVID-19.¹³ The expanded access also applies to pre-COVID-19 coverage from physician offices, skilled nursing facilities, and hospitals. This means that Medicare will now make payments to physicians for telemedicine services provided in any health care facility or in a patient’s home, so that patients do not need to go to the physician’s office.

The facts are that there are parity laws and that commercial payers and CMS are required by state law to reimburse for telemedicine—often at the same rate as that for a comparable in-person visit. On the commercial side, there has been an increase in commercial parity legislation that requires health plans to cover virtual visits in the same way they cover face-to-face services. With the new guidelines for reimbursement, every state and Washington DC has parity laws in place. (To stay abreast of state-by-state changes in virtual health reimbursement, the Center for Connected Health Policy and the Advisory Board Primer are valuable resources. See “Resources.”) As long as the provider performs and documents the elements of history and decision-making, including the time spent counseling, and documents the visit as if a face-to-face visit occurred, then clinicians have a billable evaluation and management (E&M) visit.

Continue to: Virtual services for Medicare patients...

Virtual services for Medicare patients

There are 3 main types of virtual services gynecologists can provide to Medicare patients: Medicare telehealth visits, virtual check-ins, and e-visits.

Medicare telehealth visits. Largely because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare patients may now use telecommunication technology for any services that previously occurred in an in-person communication. The gynecologist must use an interactive audio and video telecommunications system that permits real-time communication between the physician and the patient, and the patient should have a prior established relationship with the gynecologist with whom the telemedicine visit is taking place. The new guidelines indicate that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will not conduct audits to ensure that such a prior relationship exists for claims submitted during this public health emergency.¹⁴

The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for virtual visits using synchronous audio/visual communication are:

• 99201-99295, Office visit for a new patient
• 99211-99215, Office visit for an established patient.

Important modifiers for telemedicine visits include:

• modifier 02 for POS (place of service) for telehealth Medicare
• modifier 95 for commercial payers.

(A list of all available CPT codes for telehealth services from CMS can be found in “Resources.”)

Virtual check-ins. Established Medicare patients may have a brief communication with gynecologists the traditional way using a telephone or via live video. These brief virtual services, usually 5 to 10 minutes in duration, are initiated by the patient. The purpose of the virtual check-in is to determine if an office visit or a test or procedure is indicated.

Medicare pays for these “virtual check-ins” (or brief communication technology-based services) for patients to communicate with their physicians and avoid unnecessary trips to the office. These brief virtual check-ins are only for established patients. If an existing patient contacts the gynecologist’s office to ask a question or determine if an office visit is necessary, the gynecologist may bill for it using code G2012.

E-visits. Established Medicare patients may have non–face-to-face patient-initiated communications with their gynecologists without going to the physician’s office. These services can be billed only when the physician has an established relationship with the patient. The services may be billed using CPT codes 99421 to 99423. Coding for these visits is determined by the length of time the gynecologist spends online with the patient:

• 99421: Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient 5 to 10 minutes spent on the virtual visit
• 99422: 11 to 20 minutes
• 99423: ≥ 21 minutes.

Many clinicians want to immediately start the communication process with their patients. Many will avail themselves of the free video communication offered by Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, and Facebook Messenger. Since the March 15, 2020, relaxation of the HIPAA restrictions for telemedicine, it is now possible to have a virtual visit with a patient using one of the free, non–HIPAA-compliant connections. This type of visit is no different than a telephone call but with an added video component. Using these free technologies, a gynecologist can have an asynchronous visit with a patient (referred to as the store and forward method of sending information or medical images), which means that the service takes place in one direction with no opportunity for interaction with the patient. Asynchronous visits are akin to video text messages left for the patient. By contrast, a synchronous or real-time video visit with a patient is a 2-way communication that provides medical care without examining the patient.

Using triangulation

There are some downsides to telemedicine visits. First, virtual visits on Skype, FaceTime, and other non–HIPAA-compliant methods are not conducted on an encrypted website. Second, no documentation is created for the doctor-patient encounter. Finally, unless the physician keeps a record of these virtual visits and submits the interactions to the practice coders, there will be no billing and no reimbursement for the visits. In this scenario, physicians are legally responsible for their decision-making, prescription writing, and medical advice, but do not receive compensation for their efforts.

This can be remedied by using “triangulation,” which involves: 1. the physician, 2. the patient, and 3. a scribe or medical assistant who will record the visit. Before initiating the virtual visit using triangulation, it is imperative to ask the patient for permission if your medical assistant (or any other person in the office who functions as a scribe) will be listening to the conversation. It is important to explain that the person is there to take accurate notes and ascertain that the notes are entered into the EHR. Also, the scribe or assistant will record the time, date, and duration of the visit, which is a requirement for billing purposes. The scribe may also ascertain that the visit is properly coded and entered into the practice management system, and that a bill is submitted to the insurance company. By using triangulation, you have documentation that consent was obtained, that the visit took place, that notes were taken, and that the patient’s insurance company will be billed for the visit (see FIGURE 2 for a sample documentation form).

Continue to: Which CPT codes should I use?...

Which CPT codes should I use?

The answer depends on a number of factors, but a good rule of thumb is to use the same codes that you would use for an in-person appointment (CPT codes 99211-99215 for an established patient visit and 99201-99205 for a new patient visit). These are the most common CPT codes for outpatient gynecologic office visits whether they take place face-to-face or as a synchronous virtual visit (via a real-time interactive audio and video telecommunications system).

For example, the reimbursement for code 99213 has a range from $73 to $100. You may wonder how you can achieve the complexity requirements for a level-3 office visit without a physical examination. Whether as a face-to-face or virtual visit, documentation for these encounters requires 2 of 3 of the following components:

• expanded problem-focused history
• expanded problem-focused exam (not accomplished with telemedicine)
• low-complexity medical decision-making OR
• at least 15 minutes spent face to face with the patient if coding is based on time.

If a gynecologist reviews the results of a recent lab test for an estrogen-deficient patient and adjusts the estrogen dosage, writes a prescription, and spends 15 minutes communicating with the patient, he/she has met the complexity requirements for a code 99213. Because Level 3 and 4 visits (99214 and 99215) require a comprehensive physical examination, it is necessary to document the time spent with the patient (code 99214 requires 25 to 39 minutes of consultation and code 99215 requires ≥ 40 minutes).

Some final billing and coding advice

Always confirm telemedicine billing guidelines before beginning to conduct telemedicine visits. Consider starting a phone call to a payer armed with the fact that the payer is required by law to offer parity between telemedicine and face-to-face visits. Then ask which specific billing codes should be used.

Until you and your practice become comfortable with the process of, and the coding and billing for, telemedicine, consider using a telemedicine platform that has a built-in rules engine that offers recommendations for each telemedicine visit based on past claims data. These systems help gynecologists determine which CPT code to use and which modifiers are appropriate for the various insurance companies. In other words, the rules engine helps you submit a clean claim that is less likely to be denied and very likely to be paid. There are some vendors who are so confident that their rules engine will match the service with the proper CPT code and modifier that they guarantee full private payer reimbursement for telemedicine visits, or the vendor will reimburse the claim.

Watch for the third and final installment in this series, which was written with the assistance of 2 attorneys. It will review the legal guidelines for implementing telemedicine in a gynecologic practice and discuss the future of the technology. ●

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, many significant changes have occurred that have made the implementation of telemedicine easier and more attractive for gynecologic practices. In the first article in this series, we discussed the benefits of telemedicine to physicians and patients, how to get started using telemedicine, and implementing a workflow. This article will discuss the common hurdles in the process and the proper coding to use to insure reimbursement for services rendered.

Barriers to implementing telemedicine

Incorrect assumptions

Latecomers to telemedicine often assume that patients prefer face-to-face visits when, in fact, many may prefer the convenience of virtual visits. More than 50% of patients who are surveyed about their experience with telemedicine say that online tools have helped improve their relationship with their providers.¹ Telemedicine has grown astronomically during the COVID-19 pandemic to the point where many patients now expect their health care providers to be able to conduct virtual visits. Practices that do not offer telemedicine may find their patients seeking services elsewhere. Nearly two-thirds of health care professionals expect their commitment to telemedicine to increase significantly in the next 3 years.² Of those providers who have not yet adopted the practice, nearly 85% expect to implement telemedicine in the near future.³ COVID-19 has motivated the increased use of telemedicine to enhance the communication with patients, making it possible for patients to have enhanced access to health care during this pandemic while minimizing infectious transmission of COVID-19 to physicians and their staff.⁴

Admittedly, telemedicine is not appropriate for all patients. In general, situations that do not lend themselves to telemedicine are those for which an in-person visit is required to evaluate the patient via a physical examination, to perform a protocol-driven procedure, or provide an aggressive intervention. Additional patients for whom telemedicine may be inappropriate include those with cognitive disorders, those with language barriers, those with emergency situations that warrant an office visit or a visit to the emergency department, and patients who do not have access to the technology to conduct a virtual visit.

Cost and complexity

The process of implementing electronic health records (EHRs) left a bitter taste in the mouths of many health care professionals. But EHRs are complicated and expensive. Implementation often resulted in lost productivity. Because the learning curve was so steep, many physicians had to decrease the number of patients they saw before becoming comfortable with the conversion from paper charts to an EHR.

Telemedicine implementation is much less onerous and expensive. Telemedicine is available as a cloud-based platform, which requires less information technology (IT) support and less hardware and software. The technology required for patients to participate in telemedicine is nearly ubiquitous. According to the Pew Research Center, 96% of Americans own a cell phone (81% have a smart phone), and more than half (52%) own a tablet, so the basic equipment to connect patients to providers is already in place.⁵

On the provider side, the basic equipment required for a telemedicine program is a computer with video and audio capabilities and a broadband connection that is fast enough to show video in real time and to provide high-quality viewing of any images to be reviewed.

The growth in telemedicine means that telemedicine options are now more diverse, with many more affordable solutions. However, most telemedicine programs do require the purchase and set-up of new technology and equipment and the training of staff—some of which may be outside the budgets of health care providers in smaller independent practices. Many gynecologists have technology budgets that are already stretched thin. And for patients who do not have access to a smartphone or computer with Internet access, real-time telemedicine may be out of reach.

But with new guidelines put forth by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in March 2020, connectivity can take place inexpensively using free platforms such as Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, and Facebook Messenger. If a non‒HIPAA-compliant platform is used initially, conversion to a HIPAA-compliant platform is recommended.⁶ These platforms do not require the purchase of, or subscription to, any expensive hardware or software. The disadvantages of these programs are the lack of documentation, the failure to be Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant, and the lack of encryption; however, these disadvantages are no longer an issue after the new CMS guidelines.

Depending on the magnitude of the program, IT assistance may be needed to get started. It is imperative that the telemedicine program is interoperable with the EHR and the billing program. Otherwise, double and triple entry will erase the efficiency provided by conducting a virtual visit.

Continue to: Licensing...

Licensing

Another concern or barrier is a license to participate in telemedicine. The March 15, 2020, approval of telemedicine states that physicians who are licensed in the state where the patient is located do not require any additional license or permission to conduct virtual visits.⁷ CMS has temporarily waived the requirement that out-of-state providers be licensed in the state where they are providing services when they are licensed in another state. For questions regarding licensure, contact your State Board of Medicine or Department of Health for information on requirements for licenses across state lines (see “Resources,” at the end of the article).

Informed consent

Just like with any other aspect of providing care for patients, obtaining informed consent is paramount. Not only is getting informed patient consent a recommended best practice of the American Telemedicine Association (ATA), but it is actually a legal requirement in many states and could be a condition of getting paid, depending on the payer. To check the requirements regarding patient consent in your state, look at The National Telehealth Policy Resource Center’s state map (see “Resources.")

Some states do not have any requirements regarding consent for a virtual visit. Others require verbal consent. Even if it is not a legal requirement in your state, consider making it a part of your practice’s policy to obtain written or verbal consent and to document in the patient’s record that consent was obtained prior to the virtual visit so that you are protected when using this new technology.

Because telemedicine is a new way of receiving care for many patients, it is important to let them know how it works including how patient confidentiality and privacy are handled, what technical equipment is required, and what they should expect in terms of scheduling, cancellations, and billing policies. A sample consent form for telemedicine use is shown in FIGURE 1.

Liability insurance

Another hurdle that must be considered is liability insurance for conducting virtual visits with patients. Gynecologists who are going to offer telemedicine care to patients should request proof in writing that their liability insurance policy covers telemedicine malpractice and that the coverage extends to other states should the patient be in another state from the state in which the gynecologist holds a license. Additionally, gynecologists who provide telemedicine care should check with liability insurers regarding any requirements or limitations to conducting a virtual visit with their patients and should document them. For example, the policy may require that the physician keep a written or recorded record of the visit in the EHR. If that is the case, then using Skype, Facebook, or Google for the virtual visit, which do not include documentation, would be less desirable.

Privacy

Certainly, there is concern about privacy, and HIPAA compliance is critical to telemedicine success. Because of the COVID-19 emergency, as of March 1, 2020, physicians may now communicate with patients, and provide telehealth services, through remote communications without penalties.⁸ With these changes in the HIPAA requirements, physicians may use applications that allow for video chats, including Apple FaceTime, Facebook Messenger video chat, Google Hangouts video, and Skype, to provide telehealth without risk that the Office for Civil Rights will impose a penalty for noncompliance with HIPAA rules. The consent for patients should mention that these “public” applications potentially introduce privacy risks. This is a motivation for gynecologists to consider one of the programs that promises encryption, privacy, and HIPAA compliance, such as Updox, Doxy.me, and Amazon Chime. It is also important to recognize that a virtual visit could result in colleagues (if the patient is in an office setting) or family members (if the patient is in the home environment) overhearing conversations between the health care professional and the patient. Therefore, we suggest that patients conduct virtual visits in locations in which they feel assured of some semblance of privacy.

Continue to: Compensation for telemedicine...

Compensation for telemedicine

Perhaps the biggest barrier to virtual health adoption has been compensation for telemedicine visits. Both commercial payers and CMS have been slow to enact formal policies for telemedicine reimbursement. Because of this, the common misconceptions (that providers cannot be reimbursed for telemedicine appointments or that compensation occurs at a reduced rate) have persisted, making telemedicine economically unappealing.

The good news is that this is changing; legislation in most states is quickly embracing virtual health visits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁹ In fact, as of January 1, 2020, telemedicine services are no longer considered “optional” coverage in Medicare Advantage plans.¹⁰ Nor are they required to have an additional fee. Instead, CMS now allows telemedicine as a standard, covered benefit in all plans, enabling beneficiaries to seek care from their homes rather than requiring them to go to a health care facility.¹¹ In the past, telemedicine was restricted for use in rural areas or when patients resided a great distance from their health care providers. Starting March 6, 2020, and for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, Medicare will make payment for professional services furnished to beneficiaries in all areas of the country in all settings regardless of location or distance between the patient and the health care provider.¹²

In addition, since March 15, 2020, CMS has expanded access to telemedicine services for all Medicare beneficiaries—not just those who have been diagnosed with COVID-19.¹³ The expanded access also applies to pre-COVID-19 coverage from physician offices, skilled nursing facilities, and hospitals. This means that Medicare will now make payments to physicians for telemedicine services provided in any health care facility or in a patient’s home, so that patients do not need to go to the physician’s office.

The facts are that there are parity laws and that commercial payers and CMS are required by state law to reimburse for telemedicine—often at the same rate as that for a comparable in-person visit. On the commercial side, there has been an increase in commercial parity legislation that requires health plans to cover virtual visits in the same way they cover face-to-face services. With the new guidelines for reimbursement, every state and Washington DC has parity laws in place. (To stay abreast of state-by-state changes in virtual health reimbursement, the Center for Connected Health Policy and the Advisory Board Primer are valuable resources. See “Resources.”) As long as the provider performs and documents the elements of history and decision-making, including the time spent counseling, and documents the visit as if a face-to-face visit occurred, then clinicians have a billable evaluation and management (E&M) visit.

Continue to: Virtual services for Medicare patients...

Virtual services for Medicare patients

There are 3 main types of virtual services gynecologists can provide to Medicare patients: Medicare telehealth visits, virtual check-ins, and e-visits.

Medicare telehealth visits. Largely because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare patients may now use telecommunication technology for any services that previously occurred in an in-person communication. The gynecologist must use an interactive audio and video telecommunications system that permits real-time communication between the physician and the patient, and the patient should have a prior established relationship with the gynecologist with whom the telemedicine visit is taking place. The new guidelines indicate that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will not conduct audits to ensure that such a prior relationship exists for claims submitted during this public health emergency.¹⁴

The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for virtual visits using synchronous audio/visual communication are:

• 99201-99295, Office visit for a new patient
• 99211-99215, Office visit for an established patient.

Important modifiers for telemedicine visits include:

• modifier 02 for POS (place of service) for telehealth Medicare
• modifier 95 for commercial payers.

(A list of all available CPT codes for telehealth services from CMS can be found in “Resources.”)

Virtual check-ins. Established Medicare patients may have a brief communication with gynecologists the traditional way using a telephone or via live video. These brief virtual services, usually 5 to 10 minutes in duration, are initiated by the patient. The purpose of the virtual check-in is to determine if an office visit or a test or procedure is indicated.

Medicare pays for these “virtual check-ins” (or brief communication technology-based services) for patients to communicate with their physicians and avoid unnecessary trips to the office. These brief virtual check-ins are only for established patients. If an existing patient contacts the gynecologist’s office to ask a question or determine if an office visit is necessary, the gynecologist may bill for it using code G2012.

E-visits. Established Medicare patients may have non–face-to-face patient-initiated communications with their gynecologists without going to the physician’s office. These services can be billed only when the physician has an established relationship with the patient. The services may be billed using CPT codes 99421 to 99423. Coding for these visits is determined by the length of time the gynecologist spends online with the patient:

• 99421: Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient 5 to 10 minutes spent on the virtual visit
• 99422: 11 to 20 minutes
• 99423: ≥ 21 minutes.

Many clinicians want to immediately start the communication process with their patients. Many will avail themselves of the free video communication offered by Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, and Facebook Messenger. Since the March 15, 2020, relaxation of the HIPAA restrictions for telemedicine, it is now possible to have a virtual visit with a patient using one of the free, non–HIPAA-compliant connections. This type of visit is no different than a telephone call but with an added video component. Using these free technologies, a gynecologist can have an asynchronous visit with a patient (referred to as the store and forward method of sending information or medical images), which means that the service takes place in one direction with no opportunity for interaction with the patient. Asynchronous visits are akin to video text messages left for the patient. By contrast, a synchronous or real-time video visit with a patient is a 2-way communication that provides medical care without examining the patient.

Using triangulation

There are some downsides to telemedicine visits. First, virtual visits on Skype, FaceTime, and other non–HIPAA-compliant methods are not conducted on an encrypted website. Second, no documentation is created for the doctor-patient encounter. Finally, unless the physician keeps a record of these virtual visits and submits the interactions to the practice coders, there will be no billing and no reimbursement for the visits. In this scenario, physicians are legally responsible for their decision-making, prescription writing, and medical advice, but do not receive compensation for their efforts.

This can be remedied by using “triangulation,” which involves: 1. the physician, 2. the patient, and 3. a scribe or medical assistant who will record the visit. Before initiating the virtual visit using triangulation, it is imperative to ask the patient for permission if your medical assistant (or any other person in the office who functions as a scribe) will be listening to the conversation. It is important to explain that the person is there to take accurate notes and ascertain that the notes are entered into the EHR. Also, the scribe or assistant will record the time, date, and duration of the visit, which is a requirement for billing purposes. The scribe may also ascertain that the visit is properly coded and entered into the practice management system, and that a bill is submitted to the insurance company. By using triangulation, you have documentation that consent was obtained, that the visit took place, that notes were taken, and that the patient’s insurance company will be billed for the visit (see FIGURE 2 for a sample documentation form).

Continue to: Which CPT codes should I use?...

Which CPT codes should I use?

The answer depends on a number of factors, but a good rule of thumb is to use the same codes that you would use for an in-person appointment (CPT codes 99211-99215 for an established patient visit and 99201-99205 for a new patient visit). These are the most common CPT codes for outpatient gynecologic office visits whether they take place face-to-face or as a synchronous virtual visit (via a real-time interactive audio and video telecommunications system).

For example, the reimbursement for code 99213 has a range from $73 to $100. You may wonder how you can achieve the complexity requirements for a level-3 office visit without a physical examination. Whether as a face-to-face or virtual visit, documentation for these encounters requires 2 of 3 of the following components:

• expanded problem-focused history
• expanded problem-focused exam (not accomplished with telemedicine)
• low-complexity medical decision-making OR
• at least 15 minutes spent face to face with the patient if coding is based on time.

If a gynecologist reviews the results of a recent lab test for an estrogen-deficient patient and adjusts the estrogen dosage, writes a prescription, and spends 15 minutes communicating with the patient, he/she has met the complexity requirements for a code 99213. Because Level 3 and 4 visits (99214 and 99215) require a comprehensive physical examination, it is necessary to document the time spent with the patient (code 99214 requires 25 to 39 minutes of consultation and code 99215 requires ≥ 40 minutes).

Some final billing and coding advice

Always confirm telemedicine billing guidelines before beginning to conduct telemedicine visits. Consider starting a phone call to a payer armed with the fact that the payer is required by law to offer parity between telemedicine and face-to-face visits. Then ask which specific billing codes should be used.

Until you and your practice become comfortable with the process of, and the coding and billing for, telemedicine, consider using a telemedicine platform that has a built-in rules engine that offers recommendations for each telemedicine visit based on past claims data. These systems help gynecologists determine which CPT code to use and which modifiers are appropriate for the various insurance companies. In other words, the rules engine helps you submit a clean claim that is less likely to be denied and very likely to be paid. There are some vendors who are so confident that their rules engine will match the service with the proper CPT code and modifier that they guarantee full private payer reimbursement for telemedicine visits, or the vendor will reimburse the claim.

Watch for the third and final installment in this series, which was written with the assistance of 2 attorneys. It will review the legal guidelines for implementing telemedicine in a gynecologic practice and discuss the future of the technology. ●

Although pelvic examinations may only last a few minutes, the examination is scary and uncomfortable for many patients. To help minimize fear and discomfort, the exam should take place in a comfortable and professional environment. The clinician should provide appropriate gowns, private facilities for undressing, sensitively use draping, and clearly explain the components of the examination. Trained professional chaperones play an important role in intimate physical examinations, including:

• providing reassurance to the patient of the professional integrity of the intimate examination
• supporting and educating the patient during the examination
• increasing the efficiency of the clinician during a procedure
• acting as a witness should a misunderstanding with the patient arise.

Major medical professional societies have issued guidance to clinicians on the use of a chaperone during intimate physical examinations. Professional society guidance ranges from endorsing joint decision-making between physician and patient on the presence of a chaperone to more proscriptive guidance that emphasizes the importance of a chaperone at every intimate physical examination.

Examples of professional societies’ guidance that supports joint decision-making between physician and patient about the presence of a chaperone include:

• American Medical Association: “Adopt a policy that patients are free to request a chaperone and ensure that the policy is communicated to patients. Always honor a patient’s request to have a chaperone.”¹
• Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada: “It is a reasonable and acceptable practice to perform a physical examination, including breast and pelvic examination without the presence of a third person in the room unless the woman or health care provider indicates a desire for a third party to be present.” “If the health care provider chooses to have a third person present during all examinations, the health care provider should explain this policy to the woman.”²
• American College of Physicians: “Care and respect should guide the performance of the physical examination. The location and degree of privacy should be appropriate for the examination being performed, with chaperone services as an option. An appropriate setting and sufficient time should be allocated to encourage exploration of aspects of the patient’s life pertinent to health, including habits, relationships, sexuality, vocation, culture, religion, and spirituality.”³

By contrast, the following professional society guidance strongly recommends the presence of a chaperone for every intimate physical examination:

• United States Veterans Administration: “A female chaperone must be in the examination room during breast and pelvic exams…this includes procedures such as urodynamic testing or treatments such as pelvic floor physical therapy.”⁴
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: “The presence of a chaperone is considered essential for every pelvic examination. Verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of the chaperone who is to be present during the examination and recorded in the notes. If the patient declines the presence of a chaperone, the doctor should explain that a chaperone is also required to help in many cases and then attempt to arrange for the chaperone to be standing nearby within earshot. The reasons for declining a chaperone and alternative arrangements offered should be documented. Consent should also be specific to whether the intended examination is vaginal, rectal or both. Communication skills are essential in conducting intimate examinations.”⁵
• American College Health Association (ACHA): “It is ACHA’s recommendation that, as part of institutional policy, a chaperone be provided for every sensitive medical examination and procedure.”⁶

Continue to: New guidance from ACOG on trained chaperones...

New guidance from ACOG on trained chaperones

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently issued a committee opinion recommending “that a chaperone be present for all breast, genital, and rectal examinations. The need for a chaperone is irrespective of the sex or gender of the person performing the examination and applies to examinations performed in the outpatient and inpatient settings, including labor and delivery, as well as during diagnostic studies such as transvaginal ultrasonography and urodynamic testing.”⁷

This new proscriptive guidance will significantly change practice for the many obstetrician-gynecologists who do not routinely have a chaperone present during intimate examinations. The policy provides exceptions to the presence of a chaperone in cases of medical emergencies and if the patient declines a chaperone. ACOG recommends that when a patient declines a chaperone the clinician should educate the patient that a “chaperone is an integral part of the clinical team whose role includes assisting with the examination and protecting the patient and the physician. Any concerns the patient has regarding the presence of a chaperone should be elicited and addressed if feasible. If, after counseling, the patient refuses the chaperone, this decision should be respected and documented in the medical record.”⁷ ACOG discourages the use of family members, medical students, and residents as chaperones.

Training of chaperones

Chaperones are health care professionals who should be trained for their specific role. Chaperones need to protect patient privacy and the confidentiality of health information. Chaperones should be trained to recognize the components of a professional intimate examination and to identify variances from standard practice. In many ambulatory practices, medical assistants perform the role of chaperone. The American Association of Medical Assistants (AAMA) offers national certification for medical assistants through an examination developed by the National Board of Medical Examiners. To be eligible for AAMA certification an individual must complete at least two semesters of medical assisting education that includes courses in anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, and relevant mathematics.

Reporting variances that occur during an intimate examination

Best practices are evolving on how to deal with the rare event of a chaperone witnessing a physician perform an intimate examination that is outside of standard professional practice. Chaperones may be reluctant to report a variance because physicians are in a powerful position, and the accuracy of their report will be challenged, threatening the chaperone’s employment. Processes for encouraging all team members to report concerns must be clearly explained to the chaperone and other members of the health care team. Clinicians should be aware that deviations from standard practice will be reported and investigated. Medical practices must develop a reporting system that ensures the reporting individual will be protected from retaliation.

In addition, the chaperone needs to know to whom they should report a variance. In large multispecialty medical practices, chaperones often can report concerns to nursing leaders or human resources. In small ambulatory practices, chaperones may be advised to report concerns about a physician to the practice manager or medical director. Regardless, every practice should have the best process for reporting a concern. In turn, the practice leaders who are responsible for investigating reports of concerning behavior should have a defined process for confidentially interviewing the chaperone, clinician, and patient.

Even when a chaperone is present for intimate examinations, problems can arise if the chaperone is not trained to recognize variances from standard practice or does not have a clear means for reporting variances and when the practice does not have a process for investigating reported variances.

Sadly, misconduct has been documented among priests, ministers, sports coaches, professors, scout masters, and clinicians. Trusted professionals are in positions of power in relation to their clients, patients, and students. Physicians and nurses are held in high esteem and trust by patients. To preserve the trust of the public we must treat all people with dignity and respect their autonomy. The presence of a chaperone during intimate examinations may help us fulfill Hippocrates’ edict, “First, do no harm.” ●

Although pelvic examinations may only last a few minutes, the examination is scary and uncomfortable for many patients. To help minimize fear and discomfort, the exam should take place in a comfortable and professional environment. The clinician should provide appropriate gowns, private facilities for undressing, sensitively use draping, and clearly explain the components of the examination. Trained professional chaperones play an important role in intimate physical examinations, including:

• providing reassurance to the patient of the professional integrity of the intimate examination
• supporting and educating the patient during the examination
• increasing the efficiency of the clinician during a procedure
• acting as a witness should a misunderstanding with the patient arise.

Major medical professional societies have issued guidance to clinicians on the use of a chaperone during intimate physical examinations. Professional society guidance ranges from endorsing joint decision-making between physician and patient on the presence of a chaperone to more proscriptive guidance that emphasizes the importance of a chaperone at every intimate physical examination.

Examples of professional societies’ guidance that supports joint decision-making between physician and patient about the presence of a chaperone include:

• American Medical Association: “Adopt a policy that patients are free to request a chaperone and ensure that the policy is communicated to patients. Always honor a patient’s request to have a chaperone.”¹
• Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada: “It is a reasonable and acceptable practice to perform a physical examination, including breast and pelvic examination without the presence of a third person in the room unless the woman or health care provider indicates a desire for a third party to be present.” “If the health care provider chooses to have a third person present during all examinations, the health care provider should explain this policy to the woman.”²
• American College of Physicians: “Care and respect should guide the performance of the physical examination. The location and degree of privacy should be appropriate for the examination being performed, with chaperone services as an option. An appropriate setting and sufficient time should be allocated to encourage exploration of aspects of the patient’s life pertinent to health, including habits, relationships, sexuality, vocation, culture, religion, and spirituality.”³

By contrast, the following professional society guidance strongly recommends the presence of a chaperone for every intimate physical examination:

• United States Veterans Administration: “A female chaperone must be in the examination room during breast and pelvic exams…this includes procedures such as urodynamic testing or treatments such as pelvic floor physical therapy.”⁴
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: “The presence of a chaperone is considered essential for every pelvic examination. Verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of the chaperone who is to be present during the examination and recorded in the notes. If the patient declines the presence of a chaperone, the doctor should explain that a chaperone is also required to help in many cases and then attempt to arrange for the chaperone to be standing nearby within earshot. The reasons for declining a chaperone and alternative arrangements offered should be documented. Consent should also be specific to whether the intended examination is vaginal, rectal or both. Communication skills are essential in conducting intimate examinations.”⁵
• American College Health Association (ACHA): “It is ACHA’s recommendation that, as part of institutional policy, a chaperone be provided for every sensitive medical examination and procedure.”⁶

Continue to: New guidance from ACOG on trained chaperones...

New guidance from ACOG on trained chaperones

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently issued a committee opinion recommending “that a chaperone be present for all breast, genital, and rectal examinations. The need for a chaperone is irrespective of the sex or gender of the person performing the examination and applies to examinations performed in the outpatient and inpatient settings, including labor and delivery, as well as during diagnostic studies such as transvaginal ultrasonography and urodynamic testing.”⁷

This new proscriptive guidance will significantly change practice for the many obstetrician-gynecologists who do not routinely have a chaperone present during intimate examinations. The policy provides exceptions to the presence of a chaperone in cases of medical emergencies and if the patient declines a chaperone. ACOG recommends that when a patient declines a chaperone the clinician should educate the patient that a “chaperone is an integral part of the clinical team whose role includes assisting with the examination and protecting the patient and the physician. Any concerns the patient has regarding the presence of a chaperone should be elicited and addressed if feasible. If, after counseling, the patient refuses the chaperone, this decision should be respected and documented in the medical record.”⁷ ACOG discourages the use of family members, medical students, and residents as chaperones.

Training of chaperones

Chaperones are health care professionals who should be trained for their specific role. Chaperones need to protect patient privacy and the confidentiality of health information. Chaperones should be trained to recognize the components of a professional intimate examination and to identify variances from standard practice. In many ambulatory practices, medical assistants perform the role of chaperone. The American Association of Medical Assistants (AAMA) offers national certification for medical assistants through an examination developed by the National Board of Medical Examiners. To be eligible for AAMA certification an individual must complete at least two semesters of medical assisting education that includes courses in anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, and relevant mathematics.

Reporting variances that occur during an intimate examination

Best practices are evolving on how to deal with the rare event of a chaperone witnessing a physician perform an intimate examination that is outside of standard professional practice. Chaperones may be reluctant to report a variance because physicians are in a powerful position, and the accuracy of their report will be challenged, threatening the chaperone’s employment. Processes for encouraging all team members to report concerns must be clearly explained to the chaperone and other members of the health care team. Clinicians should be aware that deviations from standard practice will be reported and investigated. Medical practices must develop a reporting system that ensures the reporting individual will be protected from retaliation.

In addition, the chaperone needs to know to whom they should report a variance. In large multispecialty medical practices, chaperones often can report concerns to nursing leaders or human resources. In small ambulatory practices, chaperones may be advised to report concerns about a physician to the practice manager or medical director. Regardless, every practice should have the best process for reporting a concern. In turn, the practice leaders who are responsible for investigating reports of concerning behavior should have a defined process for confidentially interviewing the chaperone, clinician, and patient.

Even when a chaperone is present for intimate examinations, problems can arise if the chaperone is not trained to recognize variances from standard practice or does not have a clear means for reporting variances and when the practice does not have a process for investigating reported variances.

Sadly, misconduct has been documented among priests, ministers, sports coaches, professors, scout masters, and clinicians. Trusted professionals are in positions of power in relation to their clients, patients, and students. Physicians and nurses are held in high esteem and trust by patients. To preserve the trust of the public we must treat all people with dignity and respect their autonomy. The presence of a chaperone during intimate examinations may help us fulfill Hippocrates’ edict, “First, do no harm.” ●

Although pelvic examinations may only last a few minutes, the examination is scary and uncomfortable for many patients. To help minimize fear and discomfort, the exam should take place in a comfortable and professional environment. The clinician should provide appropriate gowns, private facilities for undressing, sensitively use draping, and clearly explain the components of the examination. Trained professional chaperones play an important role in intimate physical examinations, including:

• providing reassurance to the patient of the professional integrity of the intimate examination
• supporting and educating the patient during the examination
• increasing the efficiency of the clinician during a procedure
• acting as a witness should a misunderstanding with the patient arise.

Major medical professional societies have issued guidance to clinicians on the use of a chaperone during intimate physical examinations. Professional society guidance ranges from endorsing joint decision-making between physician and patient on the presence of a chaperone to more proscriptive guidance that emphasizes the importance of a chaperone at every intimate physical examination.

Examples of professional societies’ guidance that supports joint decision-making between physician and patient about the presence of a chaperone include:

• American Medical Association: “Adopt a policy that patients are free to request a chaperone and ensure that the policy is communicated to patients. Always honor a patient’s request to have a chaperone.”¹
• Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada: “It is a reasonable and acceptable practice to perform a physical examination, including breast and pelvic examination without the presence of a third person in the room unless the woman or health care provider indicates a desire for a third party to be present.” “If the health care provider chooses to have a third person present during all examinations, the health care provider should explain this policy to the woman.”²
• American College of Physicians: “Care and respect should guide the performance of the physical examination. The location and degree of privacy should be appropriate for the examination being performed, with chaperone services as an option. An appropriate setting and sufficient time should be allocated to encourage exploration of aspects of the patient’s life pertinent to health, including habits, relationships, sexuality, vocation, culture, religion, and spirituality.”³

By contrast, the following professional society guidance strongly recommends the presence of a chaperone for every intimate physical examination:

• United States Veterans Administration: “A female chaperone must be in the examination room during breast and pelvic exams…this includes procedures such as urodynamic testing or treatments such as pelvic floor physical therapy.”⁴
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: “The presence of a chaperone is considered essential for every pelvic examination. Verbal consent should be obtained in the presence of the chaperone who is to be present during the examination and recorded in the notes. If the patient declines the presence of a chaperone, the doctor should explain that a chaperone is also required to help in many cases and then attempt to arrange for the chaperone to be standing nearby within earshot. The reasons for declining a chaperone and alternative arrangements offered should be documented. Consent should also be specific to whether the intended examination is vaginal, rectal or both. Communication skills are essential in conducting intimate examinations.”⁵
• American College Health Association (ACHA): “It is ACHA’s recommendation that, as part of institutional policy, a chaperone be provided for every sensitive medical examination and procedure.”⁶

Continue to: New guidance from ACOG on trained chaperones...

New guidance from ACOG on trained chaperones

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently issued a committee opinion recommending “that a chaperone be present for all breast, genital, and rectal examinations. The need for a chaperone is irrespective of the sex or gender of the person performing the examination and applies to examinations performed in the outpatient and inpatient settings, including labor and delivery, as well as during diagnostic studies such as transvaginal ultrasonography and urodynamic testing.”⁷

This new proscriptive guidance will significantly change practice for the many obstetrician-gynecologists who do not routinely have a chaperone present during intimate examinations. The policy provides exceptions to the presence of a chaperone in cases of medical emergencies and if the patient declines a chaperone. ACOG recommends that when a patient declines a chaperone the clinician should educate the patient that a “chaperone is an integral part of the clinical team whose role includes assisting with the examination and protecting the patient and the physician. Any concerns the patient has regarding the presence of a chaperone should be elicited and addressed if feasible. If, after counseling, the patient refuses the chaperone, this decision should be respected and documented in the medical record.”⁷ ACOG discourages the use of family members, medical students, and residents as chaperones.

Training of chaperones

Chaperones are health care professionals who should be trained for their specific role. Chaperones need to protect patient privacy and the confidentiality of health information. Chaperones should be trained to recognize the components of a professional intimate examination and to identify variances from standard practice. In many ambulatory practices, medical assistants perform the role of chaperone. The American Association of Medical Assistants (AAMA) offers national certification for medical assistants through an examination developed by the National Board of Medical Examiners. To be eligible for AAMA certification an individual must complete at least two semesters of medical assisting education that includes courses in anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, and relevant mathematics.

Reporting variances that occur during an intimate examination

Best practices are evolving on how to deal with the rare event of a chaperone witnessing a physician perform an intimate examination that is outside of standard professional practice. Chaperones may be reluctant to report a variance because physicians are in a powerful position, and the accuracy of their report will be challenged, threatening the chaperone’s employment. Processes for encouraging all team members to report concerns must be clearly explained to the chaperone and other members of the health care team. Clinicians should be aware that deviations from standard practice will be reported and investigated. Medical practices must develop a reporting system that ensures the reporting individual will be protected from retaliation.

In addition, the chaperone needs to know to whom they should report a variance. In large multispecialty medical practices, chaperones often can report concerns to nursing leaders or human resources. In small ambulatory practices, chaperones may be advised to report concerns about a physician to the practice manager or medical director. Regardless, every practice should have the best process for reporting a concern. In turn, the practice leaders who are responsible for investigating reports of concerning behavior should have a defined process for confidentially interviewing the chaperone, clinician, and patient.

Even when a chaperone is present for intimate examinations, problems can arise if the chaperone is not trained to recognize variances from standard practice or does not have a clear means for reporting variances and when the practice does not have a process for investigating reported variances.

Sadly, misconduct has been documented among priests, ministers, sports coaches, professors, scout masters, and clinicians. Trusted professionals are in positions of power in relation to their clients, patients, and students. Physicians and nurses are held in high esteem and trust by patients. To preserve the trust of the public we must treat all people with dignity and respect their autonomy. The presence of a chaperone during intimate examinations may help us fulfill Hippocrates’ edict, “First, do no harm.” ●

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Addressing racism in the maternal mortality crisis

The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality. “The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative, a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health. This article is part of an ongoing feature series on the crisis in maternal mortality in the United States. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders. Read more.

A ‘Beacon’ for physicians, nurses facing retaliation

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy. Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality. The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus. “There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.” Read more.

COVID-19 ravages the Navajo Nation

The Navajo Nation has the most cases of the COVID-19 virus of any tribe in the United States, and numbers as of May 31, 2020, are 5,348, with 246 confirmed deaths. These devastating numbers, which might be leveling off, are associated with Navajo people having higher-than-average rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. This is compounded with 30%-40% of homes having no electricity or running water, and a poverty rate of about 38%. “We endured and learned from each Naayee, hunger, and death to name a few adversities. The COVID-19 pandemic, or “Big Cough” (Dikos Nitsaa’igii -19 in Navajo language), is a monster confronting the Navajo today. It has had significant impact on our nation and people,” Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., wrote in a commentary on MDedge. Read more.

Heart pump system authorized for COVID-19 patients

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation. The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including pulmonary embolism. Read more.

Deprescribing hypertension meds looks safe for older adults

Some patients aged 80 years or older can potentially cut back on their number of antihypertensive meds, under physician guidance, without an important loss of blood pressure control, researchers concluded based on findings from a randomized multicenter trial. The study, called Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE), entered “patients in whom the benefits of taking blood pressure-lowering treatments might start to be outweighed by the potential harms,” said James P. Sheppard, PhD, of University of Oxford (England). The report was published in JAMA. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Addressing racism in the maternal mortality crisis

The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality. “The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative, a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health. This article is part of an ongoing feature series on the crisis in maternal mortality in the United States. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders. Read more.

A ‘Beacon’ for physicians, nurses facing retaliation

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy. Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality. The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus. “There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.” Read more.

COVID-19 ravages the Navajo Nation

The Navajo Nation has the most cases of the COVID-19 virus of any tribe in the United States, and numbers as of May 31, 2020, are 5,348, with 246 confirmed deaths. These devastating numbers, which might be leveling off, are associated with Navajo people having higher-than-average rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. This is compounded with 30%-40% of homes having no electricity or running water, and a poverty rate of about 38%. “We endured and learned from each Naayee, hunger, and death to name a few adversities. The COVID-19 pandemic, or “Big Cough” (Dikos Nitsaa’igii -19 in Navajo language), is a monster confronting the Navajo today. It has had significant impact on our nation and people,” Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., wrote in a commentary on MDedge. Read more.

Heart pump system authorized for COVID-19 patients

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation. The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including pulmonary embolism. Read more.

Deprescribing hypertension meds looks safe for older adults

Some patients aged 80 years or older can potentially cut back on their number of antihypertensive meds, under physician guidance, without an important loss of blood pressure control, researchers concluded based on findings from a randomized multicenter trial. The study, called Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE), entered “patients in whom the benefits of taking blood pressure-lowering treatments might start to be outweighed by the potential harms,” said James P. Sheppard, PhD, of University of Oxford (England). The report was published in JAMA. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Addressing racism in the maternal mortality crisis

The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality. “The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative, a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health. This article is part of an ongoing feature series on the crisis in maternal mortality in the United States. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders. Read more.

A ‘Beacon’ for physicians, nurses facing retaliation

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy. Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality. The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus. “There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.” Read more.

COVID-19 ravages the Navajo Nation

The Navajo Nation has the most cases of the COVID-19 virus of any tribe in the United States, and numbers as of May 31, 2020, are 5,348, with 246 confirmed deaths. These devastating numbers, which might be leveling off, are associated with Navajo people having higher-than-average rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. This is compounded with 30%-40% of homes having no electricity or running water, and a poverty rate of about 38%. “We endured and learned from each Naayee, hunger, and death to name a few adversities. The COVID-19 pandemic, or “Big Cough” (Dikos Nitsaa’igii -19 in Navajo language), is a monster confronting the Navajo today. It has had significant impact on our nation and people,” Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., wrote in a commentary on MDedge. Read more.

Heart pump system authorized for COVID-19 patients

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation. The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including pulmonary embolism. Read more.

Deprescribing hypertension meds looks safe for older adults

Some patients aged 80 years or older can potentially cut back on their number of antihypertensive meds, under physician guidance, without an important loss of blood pressure control, researchers concluded based on findings from a randomized multicenter trial. The study, called Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE), entered “patients in whom the benefits of taking blood pressure-lowering treatments might start to be outweighed by the potential harms,” said James P. Sheppard, PhD, of University of Oxford (England). The report was published in JAMA. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

This is the second of a two-part article on the role of racism and bias in the U.S. maternal mortality crisis and part of an ongoing Ob.Gyn. News feature series on the crisis. Part one of the story explored existing data, societal factors, and patient experiences related to structural racism, overt racism, and implicit bias as factors contributing to racial disparities in maternal outcomes. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders.



The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality.

Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact, but in the spotlight that the pandemic is training on the inequities and the health system changes taking shape in its wake, some also see hope for a shift in at least one important driver of the racial health disparities: access to care.

Non-Hispanic black women are at least three times more likely than Hispanic women and non-Hispanic white women to experience pregnancy-related death, and indigenous women are more than twice as likely, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The added strain COVID-19 is putting on the system stands to further limit the access to care that many pregnant women of color experience and to exacerbate racial disparities, panelists agreed during a recent National Maternal Health Patient Centered Outcomes Research Network webinar entitled “The Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Brown, and Native Pregnant People.”

“The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said panelist Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative (NBEC), a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health.
 

Hope for solutions from the ashes of a pandemic

The weaknesses in the system that Dr. Crear-Perry spoke of are in many ways a product of structural racism as described in a conceptual report in The Lancet, titled “America: Equity and Equality in Health,” which dug into the entrenched and tangled historical roots of racist sociological and political factors that formed a foundation for health inequity over time.

Today, people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. The authors defined structural racism as “the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice.” Today, largely as a result of these “reinforcing systems,” people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. At the same time, and for the same reasons, they are more likely to work in the service industry, be essential workers, and use mass transit, each of which increases the risk of exposure to COVID-19, Dr. Crear-Perry explained.

“It’s important for us to know that, for maternal mortality, it’s the same thing that happens,” she said. That means the focus on COVID-19–related disparities helps magnify and elevate the conversation regarding similar disparities in maternal outcomes.

It also means that some of the care delivery solutions embraced and facilitated amid the pandemic, such as extension of Medicaid coverage for up to a year after giving birth and broader use and insurance coverage of telemedicine, could finally gain traction; those are solutions long-sought by advocates like Dr. Crear-Perry and others as a means for alleviating racial disparities in maternal outcomes and addressing the maternal mortality crisis.

Therein lies the hope, she explained in an interview. “Some of the policies that we know would have been helpful prior to COVID-19 now are being seen as really important.”
 

Solution: Extending coverage

During a May 7 virtual Congressional hearing on “America’s Two Public Health Crises: The Impact of COVID-19 on Racial Inequities and Maternal Mortality in the U.S.,” cosponsored by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, and the NBEC, Dr. Crear-Perry further explained the importance of extended coverage and care access.

Asked what Congress could do immediately to “ensure that the pandemic does not compound the nation’s maternal mortality crisis, including unacceptable rates among black women,” she didn’t hesitate.

“Well, it would be amazing if we could get Medicaid extended for 12 months post delivery,” she said. “As you can imagine right now, we have moms who are birthing in hospitals where they have to worry about, 2 months later, not having coverage for themselves.”

If that mom is exposed to COVID-19 and has no insurance coverage and a newborn at home, the likelihood that she will call a provider if she develops symptoms is low, Dr. Crear-Perry said. “This is a great opportunity for us to really rethink some of those policies that we know are barriers, that we have created for people to be able to thrive after they have a baby and during child birth.”

Current policies are centered around an arbitrary cutoff of about 6 weeks for postpartum care, but the CDC reports that a third of all postpartum deaths occur between 1 week and 12 months after birth.

“We need our policies to reflect the current knowledge and the science,” she said. “Just like babies have automatic insurance coverage for a year later, mothers should have the same.”

Medicaid finances nearly half of all births in the United States, according to a 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation brief, which explained that federal law requires Medicaid coverage for only 60 days post partum for women who are eligible. Decisions regarding coverage after 60 days are determined by individual states; those that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act typically allow extended coverage – but only with reapplication at 60 days.

Many women in nonexpansion states become uninsured after pregnancy-related coverage ends, as do some in expansion states for whom reapplying is a hurdle too high to clear with a newborn baby to care for at home, Dr. Crear-Perry said.

Addressing these coverage gaps is key to improving access, and it is a core component of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020, a nine-bill package introduced in March by Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and members of the Black Maternal Health Caucus to “fill gaps in existing legislation to comprehensively address every dimension of the Black maternal health crisis in America.”

One bill in the package addresses extended coverage with a goal to “promote innovative payment models to incentivize high-quality maternity care and continuity of health insurance coverage from pregnancy through labor and delivery and up to 1 year post partum.” Another focuses on promoting alternative ways to access care, such as through telemedicine.

Solution: Expanding care access

“There is a need for the democratization of care,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “There is a need for people to have more ways to get care. This idea that the only way you can get prenatal care is you have to come to me at my office, has been a burden for working people for a long, long time.”

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates increased use of telemedicine, but building blocks to allow patients to use it effectively must be put in place, she said. That means expanding broadband access, providing patients with blood pressure cuffs and other tools for use remotely, and expanding reimbursement to include not just video, but also phone calls.

Heart Safe Motherhood, a University of Pennsylvania text-based intervention developed to address postpartum hypertension – a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and at the start of the program, the leading cause of 7-day readmissions among obstetric patients, demonstrated the value of such approaches to care.

The program involves remote blood pressure monitoring using a digital monitor provided to at-risk patients at discharge. Text-based monitoring reminders encourage patients to check their blood pressure twice daily for the first 7 days.

“In our randomized, controlled trial, we saw our ability to meet ACOG guidelines on postpartum blood monitoring leap from 0% to 82%, compared to in-person office visits and 7-day readmissions from hypertension drop from 3% to 0%,” an update at the program website states.

ACOG

Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. and director of the Louisiana State University Health System in New Orleans, also noted the importance of finding ways to deliver care “that are outside the traditional norm.

“Telemedicine, home visiting ... I think there are a wide variety of ways,” she said, noting that these kind of approaches not only help circumvent roadblocks to care, such as lack of transportation, but also can feel more personal and approachable for some women.
 

Solution: Measuring, investing, diversifying, respecting

The aims of other bills in the Momnibus Act also mirror several solutions proposed by maternal health advocates interviewed for this article. Among them are:

• Development of improved data collection processes and quality measures to better understand the factors that contribute to the crisis overall and among special populations, and to inform solutions for addressing them.
• Investments in social determinants of health that influence maternal health outcomes, like housing, transportation, and nutrition.
• Commitment to the growth and diversification of the perinatal workforce to ensure that every mom receives maternity care and support from people she can trust to provide quality care and treat her with respect.

The latter is one that Dr. Gee, Dr. Crear-Perry, and others particularly emphasized.

“We need patient advocates like doulas, midwives and others who are better listeners and better able to advocate for patients,” Dr. Gee said. This would better allow for women’s desires in the childbirth experience to be addressed appropriately, she said, adding that this is something that “frankly, a lot of doctors do not have the time to do.”

That’s why the efforts to address maternal mortality have to focus on the health care system, not just on doctors’ behavior with respect to bias, she said.

Dr. Gee also said there is a need for culturally appropriate literacy and numeracy communications “that respect how people seek and understand information.” This varies by population, which is why it’s important to provide the same approach to care “no matter what the patient looks like,” while also understanding that different patients communicate in different ways.

A 2019 study published in Social Science & Medicine underscored how communication differences can affect outcomes; using a national sample of women who gave birth in U.S. hospitals, the authors found that those who had declined care for themselves or their infant during their childbirth hospitalization were more likely to report receiving poor treatment based on race or ethnicity. They concluded that, in the context of childbirth care, women – particularly black women – pay a penalty for what is perceived as uncooperative behavior.

This is another area where doulas and other patient advocates can help, Dr. Gee said.

Doulas have long been an integral part of the birthing process for many women, particularly women of color, and evidence suggests the supportive care they provide helps to improve outcomes. In fact, several states – including Oregon, Minnesota, and New York, among others – have expanded or have proposed expanding Medicaid coverage to include doula services for pregnant beneficiaries, a move cheered by doula associations and other maternal health advocates.

In many ways, it’s about “respectful maternity care,” which is something Dr. Crear-Perry has been working to promote through the NBEC in partnership with ACOG and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It’s also something the World Health Organization has promoted by establishing global standards for such care.

“We’re hoping to socialize that as a norm in United States ... to really see what it would look like to value what birthing people want and to see them as partners in their birth,” she said.

However, the 2019 Giving Voice to Mothers study demonstrating consistently higher rates of mistreatment during obstetrical care for women of color than for comparable white women shows that the United States is falling short of those standards. The national study of 2,700 women examined how race, ethnicity, and place of birth interact with the experience of receiving maternity care in the United States, and showed that 1 in 6 experienced one or more types of mistreatment – with consistently higher rates among women of color, even after adjusting for interactions between race and other maternal characteristics, Saraswathi Veda, MD, of the Birth Place Lab and professor of midwifery at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues reported in Reproductive Health.
 

Solution: Listening, learning, reflecting, partnering

Timoria McQueen Saba, birth trauma survivor and maternal health advocate, has described experiencing instances of mistreatment throughout her obstetric care, and like Dr. Crear-Perry, she said trust and collaboration in care is imperative for improving outcomes.

“I think the most important thing you can do is really consider a patient a partner in the care you give them,” she said during a panel discussion at the 2019 ACOG annual meeting. “You’re not experts in their lived experience ... center a patient’s voice or the voice of a patient’s family. Incorporate that into your learning.”

During a virtual workshop held May 19-20 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Judette Louis, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and president of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, provided practical guidance for addressing racism and implicit bias in practice and in research to reduce disparities in outcomes.

In an interview, she summarized her key points, reiterating solutions proposed by Dr. Gee and Dr. Crear-Perry and addressed in the Momnibus Act, and also offering a few others:

First, put aside the notion that disparities are genetically driven. For a variety of reasons, that just doesn’t make sense. For one thing, not all blacks are African American.

“My family is from the Caribbean,” she said. “Is it really conceivable that we’re all so similar?”

Look also at the disparities among Native Americans, she said. “How can you take 500 distinct tribes that live across a wide geographic area and lump them into one group and assume that they are similar?”

The problem is racism, not race. “When you keep saying ‘it’s about race, it’s about race, it’s about race’ – that sends a message to the person who is of that race that there is something inherently broken about [them],” she said.

Recognize that the roots of the problem run deep. Learn about and support efforts to address the underlying structural factors that contribute to the problem, Dr. Louis emphasized, and recognize your own bias. “We all have it. The key is to recognize [biases] and mitigate them when taking care of patients.”

That’s easier said than done, at least judging by one survey of maternal-fetal medicine specialists in which 84% of respondents agreed that disparities impact practice, but only 29% agreed their own personal biases affect how they care for patients, she noted.

Tools are available to help individuals identify implicit bias, and training programs for health care providers can help, as well, she said. Implicit bias tests and training programs that help to identify and address bias and racism on individual and organizational levels are increasingly available through academic centers, health systems, and advocacy organizations.

Hope for solutions: Progress and promise

Like Dr. Crear-Perry, Dr. Louis sees hope for reducing disparities and improving maternal outcomes.

In another survey of SMFM members to identify the practice issues most important to them, racial disparities ranked in the top three.

“It says a lot that our [maternal-fetal medicine specialists] really see this as a problem and they want it fixed,” she said. “And I think it says that a lot of people need to work on this, not just us.”

Indeed, many are engaged in that work. Veronica Gillispie, MD, medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review, has been instrumental in recent initiatives to improve maternal outcomes in Louisiana, and she too said she feels optimistic.

“I am hopeful and I do see signs of hope,” she said in an interview.

Teams that she works with and trains seem invested, institutions are increasingly implementing faculty training on racism and bias, and Oschner Health, where Dr. Gillispie practices as an ob.gyn., appointed its first chief diversity officer in February.

Medical students she works with are attuned to the issues of racism, bias, and disparities, and they show a desire to enact change, she said. “They already get it, and they are working to make it better.”

Dr. Crear-Perry also predicts practice-changing results from studies looking at the delivery of obstetrical care and the role of supportive care, and she pointed out another aspect of the COVID-19 crisis that provides an important lesson for health care providers who care for birthing people: the scarcity of personal protective equipment amid the pandemic.

“My friends who are ob.gyns., who are now not getting access to the things they need to stay safe to practice medicine and who are feeling very marginalized at this moment, feeling not valued – that’s how birthing people [of color] feel,” she said. “I’m hoping that builds a sense of empathy.

”I’m hoping at the end of this crisis, that those ob.gyns. will think of patients as allies in fighting for more access to health for everybody and for more resources to do their work,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “We’re all in this together.”

[email protected]

This is the second of a two-part article on the role of racism and bias in the U.S. maternal mortality crisis and part of an ongoing Ob.Gyn. News feature series on the crisis. Part one of the story explored existing data, societal factors, and patient experiences related to structural racism, overt racism, and implicit bias as factors contributing to racial disparities in maternal outcomes. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders.



The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality.

Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact, but in the spotlight that the pandemic is training on the inequities and the health system changes taking shape in its wake, some also see hope for a shift in at least one important driver of the racial health disparities: access to care.

Non-Hispanic black women are at least three times more likely than Hispanic women and non-Hispanic white women to experience pregnancy-related death, and indigenous women are more than twice as likely, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The added strain COVID-19 is putting on the system stands to further limit the access to care that many pregnant women of color experience and to exacerbate racial disparities, panelists agreed during a recent National Maternal Health Patient Centered Outcomes Research Network webinar entitled “The Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Brown, and Native Pregnant People.”

“The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said panelist Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative (NBEC), a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health.
 

Hope for solutions from the ashes of a pandemic

The weaknesses in the system that Dr. Crear-Perry spoke of are in many ways a product of structural racism as described in a conceptual report in The Lancet, titled “America: Equity and Equality in Health,” which dug into the entrenched and tangled historical roots of racist sociological and political factors that formed a foundation for health inequity over time.

Today, people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. The authors defined structural racism as “the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice.” Today, largely as a result of these “reinforcing systems,” people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. At the same time, and for the same reasons, they are more likely to work in the service industry, be essential workers, and use mass transit, each of which increases the risk of exposure to COVID-19, Dr. Crear-Perry explained.

“It’s important for us to know that, for maternal mortality, it’s the same thing that happens,” she said. That means the focus on COVID-19–related disparities helps magnify and elevate the conversation regarding similar disparities in maternal outcomes.

It also means that some of the care delivery solutions embraced and facilitated amid the pandemic, such as extension of Medicaid coverage for up to a year after giving birth and broader use and insurance coverage of telemedicine, could finally gain traction; those are solutions long-sought by advocates like Dr. Crear-Perry and others as a means for alleviating racial disparities in maternal outcomes and addressing the maternal mortality crisis.

Therein lies the hope, she explained in an interview. “Some of the policies that we know would have been helpful prior to COVID-19 now are being seen as really important.”
 

Solution: Extending coverage

During a May 7 virtual Congressional hearing on “America’s Two Public Health Crises: The Impact of COVID-19 on Racial Inequities and Maternal Mortality in the U.S.,” cosponsored by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, and the NBEC, Dr. Crear-Perry further explained the importance of extended coverage and care access.

Asked what Congress could do immediately to “ensure that the pandemic does not compound the nation’s maternal mortality crisis, including unacceptable rates among black women,” she didn’t hesitate.

“Well, it would be amazing if we could get Medicaid extended for 12 months post delivery,” she said. “As you can imagine right now, we have moms who are birthing in hospitals where they have to worry about, 2 months later, not having coverage for themselves.”

If that mom is exposed to COVID-19 and has no insurance coverage and a newborn at home, the likelihood that she will call a provider if she develops symptoms is low, Dr. Crear-Perry said. “This is a great opportunity for us to really rethink some of those policies that we know are barriers, that we have created for people to be able to thrive after they have a baby and during child birth.”

Current policies are centered around an arbitrary cutoff of about 6 weeks for postpartum care, but the CDC reports that a third of all postpartum deaths occur between 1 week and 12 months after birth.

“We need our policies to reflect the current knowledge and the science,” she said. “Just like babies have automatic insurance coverage for a year later, mothers should have the same.”

Medicaid finances nearly half of all births in the United States, according to a 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation brief, which explained that federal law requires Medicaid coverage for only 60 days post partum for women who are eligible. Decisions regarding coverage after 60 days are determined by individual states; those that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act typically allow extended coverage – but only with reapplication at 60 days.

Many women in nonexpansion states become uninsured after pregnancy-related coverage ends, as do some in expansion states for whom reapplying is a hurdle too high to clear with a newborn baby to care for at home, Dr. Crear-Perry said.

Addressing these coverage gaps is key to improving access, and it is a core component of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020, a nine-bill package introduced in March by Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and members of the Black Maternal Health Caucus to “fill gaps in existing legislation to comprehensively address every dimension of the Black maternal health crisis in America.”

One bill in the package addresses extended coverage with a goal to “promote innovative payment models to incentivize high-quality maternity care and continuity of health insurance coverage from pregnancy through labor and delivery and up to 1 year post partum.” Another focuses on promoting alternative ways to access care, such as through telemedicine.

Solution: Expanding care access

“There is a need for the democratization of care,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “There is a need for people to have more ways to get care. This idea that the only way you can get prenatal care is you have to come to me at my office, has been a burden for working people for a long, long time.”

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates increased use of telemedicine, but building blocks to allow patients to use it effectively must be put in place, she said. That means expanding broadband access, providing patients with blood pressure cuffs and other tools for use remotely, and expanding reimbursement to include not just video, but also phone calls.

Heart Safe Motherhood, a University of Pennsylvania text-based intervention developed to address postpartum hypertension – a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and at the start of the program, the leading cause of 7-day readmissions among obstetric patients, demonstrated the value of such approaches to care.

The program involves remote blood pressure monitoring using a digital monitor provided to at-risk patients at discharge. Text-based monitoring reminders encourage patients to check their blood pressure twice daily for the first 7 days.

“In our randomized, controlled trial, we saw our ability to meet ACOG guidelines on postpartum blood monitoring leap from 0% to 82%, compared to in-person office visits and 7-day readmissions from hypertension drop from 3% to 0%,” an update at the program website states.

ACOG

Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. and director of the Louisiana State University Health System in New Orleans, also noted the importance of finding ways to deliver care “that are outside the traditional norm.

“Telemedicine, home visiting ... I think there are a wide variety of ways,” she said, noting that these kind of approaches not only help circumvent roadblocks to care, such as lack of transportation, but also can feel more personal and approachable for some women.
 

Solution: Measuring, investing, diversifying, respecting

The aims of other bills in the Momnibus Act also mirror several solutions proposed by maternal health advocates interviewed for this article. Among them are:

• Development of improved data collection processes and quality measures to better understand the factors that contribute to the crisis overall and among special populations, and to inform solutions for addressing them.
• Investments in social determinants of health that influence maternal health outcomes, like housing, transportation, and nutrition.
• Commitment to the growth and diversification of the perinatal workforce to ensure that every mom receives maternity care and support from people she can trust to provide quality care and treat her with respect.

The latter is one that Dr. Gee, Dr. Crear-Perry, and others particularly emphasized.

“We need patient advocates like doulas, midwives and others who are better listeners and better able to advocate for patients,” Dr. Gee said. This would better allow for women’s desires in the childbirth experience to be addressed appropriately, she said, adding that this is something that “frankly, a lot of doctors do not have the time to do.”

That’s why the efforts to address maternal mortality have to focus on the health care system, not just on doctors’ behavior with respect to bias, she said.

Dr. Gee also said there is a need for culturally appropriate literacy and numeracy communications “that respect how people seek and understand information.” This varies by population, which is why it’s important to provide the same approach to care “no matter what the patient looks like,” while also understanding that different patients communicate in different ways.

A 2019 study published in Social Science & Medicine underscored how communication differences can affect outcomes; using a national sample of women who gave birth in U.S. hospitals, the authors found that those who had declined care for themselves or their infant during their childbirth hospitalization were more likely to report receiving poor treatment based on race or ethnicity. They concluded that, in the context of childbirth care, women – particularly black women – pay a penalty for what is perceived as uncooperative behavior.

This is another area where doulas and other patient advocates can help, Dr. Gee said.

Doulas have long been an integral part of the birthing process for many women, particularly women of color, and evidence suggests the supportive care they provide helps to improve outcomes. In fact, several states – including Oregon, Minnesota, and New York, among others – have expanded or have proposed expanding Medicaid coverage to include doula services for pregnant beneficiaries, a move cheered by doula associations and other maternal health advocates.

In many ways, it’s about “respectful maternity care,” which is something Dr. Crear-Perry has been working to promote through the NBEC in partnership with ACOG and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It’s also something the World Health Organization has promoted by establishing global standards for such care.

“We’re hoping to socialize that as a norm in United States ... to really see what it would look like to value what birthing people want and to see them as partners in their birth,” she said.

However, the 2019 Giving Voice to Mothers study demonstrating consistently higher rates of mistreatment during obstetrical care for women of color than for comparable white women shows that the United States is falling short of those standards. The national study of 2,700 women examined how race, ethnicity, and place of birth interact with the experience of receiving maternity care in the United States, and showed that 1 in 6 experienced one or more types of mistreatment – with consistently higher rates among women of color, even after adjusting for interactions between race and other maternal characteristics, Saraswathi Veda, MD, of the Birth Place Lab and professor of midwifery at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues reported in Reproductive Health.
 

Solution: Listening, learning, reflecting, partnering

Timoria McQueen Saba, birth trauma survivor and maternal health advocate, has described experiencing instances of mistreatment throughout her obstetric care, and like Dr. Crear-Perry, she said trust and collaboration in care is imperative for improving outcomes.

“I think the most important thing you can do is really consider a patient a partner in the care you give them,” she said during a panel discussion at the 2019 ACOG annual meeting. “You’re not experts in their lived experience ... center a patient’s voice or the voice of a patient’s family. Incorporate that into your learning.”

During a virtual workshop held May 19-20 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Judette Louis, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and president of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, provided practical guidance for addressing racism and implicit bias in practice and in research to reduce disparities in outcomes.

In an interview, she summarized her key points, reiterating solutions proposed by Dr. Gee and Dr. Crear-Perry and addressed in the Momnibus Act, and also offering a few others:

First, put aside the notion that disparities are genetically driven. For a variety of reasons, that just doesn’t make sense. For one thing, not all blacks are African American.

“My family is from the Caribbean,” she said. “Is it really conceivable that we’re all so similar?”

Look also at the disparities among Native Americans, she said. “How can you take 500 distinct tribes that live across a wide geographic area and lump them into one group and assume that they are similar?”

The problem is racism, not race. “When you keep saying ‘it’s about race, it’s about race, it’s about race’ – that sends a message to the person who is of that race that there is something inherently broken about [them],” she said.

Recognize that the roots of the problem run deep. Learn about and support efforts to address the underlying structural factors that contribute to the problem, Dr. Louis emphasized, and recognize your own bias. “We all have it. The key is to recognize [biases] and mitigate them when taking care of patients.”

That’s easier said than done, at least judging by one survey of maternal-fetal medicine specialists in which 84% of respondents agreed that disparities impact practice, but only 29% agreed their own personal biases affect how they care for patients, she noted.

Tools are available to help individuals identify implicit bias, and training programs for health care providers can help, as well, she said. Implicit bias tests and training programs that help to identify and address bias and racism on individual and organizational levels are increasingly available through academic centers, health systems, and advocacy organizations.

Hope for solutions: Progress and promise

Like Dr. Crear-Perry, Dr. Louis sees hope for reducing disparities and improving maternal outcomes.

In another survey of SMFM members to identify the practice issues most important to them, racial disparities ranked in the top three.

“It says a lot that our [maternal-fetal medicine specialists] really see this as a problem and they want it fixed,” she said. “And I think it says that a lot of people need to work on this, not just us.”

Indeed, many are engaged in that work. Veronica Gillispie, MD, medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review, has been instrumental in recent initiatives to improve maternal outcomes in Louisiana, and she too said she feels optimistic.

“I am hopeful and I do see signs of hope,” she said in an interview.

Teams that she works with and trains seem invested, institutions are increasingly implementing faculty training on racism and bias, and Oschner Health, where Dr. Gillispie practices as an ob.gyn., appointed its first chief diversity officer in February.

Medical students she works with are attuned to the issues of racism, bias, and disparities, and they show a desire to enact change, she said. “They already get it, and they are working to make it better.”

Dr. Crear-Perry also predicts practice-changing results from studies looking at the delivery of obstetrical care and the role of supportive care, and she pointed out another aspect of the COVID-19 crisis that provides an important lesson for health care providers who care for birthing people: the scarcity of personal protective equipment amid the pandemic.

“My friends who are ob.gyns., who are now not getting access to the things they need to stay safe to practice medicine and who are feeling very marginalized at this moment, feeling not valued – that’s how birthing people [of color] feel,” she said. “I’m hoping that builds a sense of empathy.

”I’m hoping at the end of this crisis, that those ob.gyns. will think of patients as allies in fighting for more access to health for everybody and for more resources to do their work,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “We’re all in this together.”

[email protected]

This is the second of a two-part article on the role of racism and bias in the U.S. maternal mortality crisis and part of an ongoing Ob.Gyn. News feature series on the crisis. Part one of the story explored existing data, societal factors, and patient experiences related to structural racism, overt racism, and implicit bias as factors contributing to racial disparities in maternal outcomes. Here we explore potential solutions for addressing the inequities as proposed by thought leaders and key stakeholders.



The emerging racial disparities in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in the United States are on a collision course with long-standing racial disparities in U.S. maternal care and mortality.

Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact, but in the spotlight that the pandemic is training on the inequities and the health system changes taking shape in its wake, some also see hope for a shift in at least one important driver of the racial health disparities: access to care.

Non-Hispanic black women are at least three times more likely than Hispanic women and non-Hispanic white women to experience pregnancy-related death, and indigenous women are more than twice as likely, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The added strain COVID-19 is putting on the system stands to further limit the access to care that many pregnant women of color experience and to exacerbate racial disparities, panelists agreed during a recent National Maternal Health Patient Centered Outcomes Research Network webinar entitled “The Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Brown, and Native Pregnant People.”

“The saying is that ‘the virus doesn’t discriminate,’ but it understands our biases, right? So, the virus takes advantage of the weaknesses in our system,” said panelist Joia A. Crear-Perry, MD, an ob.gyn. and founder and president of the National Birth Equity Collaborative (NBEC), a New Orleans–based research, training, and advocacy organization working to optimize black maternal and infant health.
 

Hope for solutions from the ashes of a pandemic

The weaknesses in the system that Dr. Crear-Perry spoke of are in many ways a product of structural racism as described in a conceptual report in The Lancet, titled “America: Equity and Equality in Health,” which dug into the entrenched and tangled historical roots of racist sociological and political factors that formed a foundation for health inequity over time.

Today, people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. The authors defined structural racism as “the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice.” Today, largely as a result of these “reinforcing systems,” people of color remain more likely to be excluded from access to health insurance and adequate health care. At the same time, and for the same reasons, they are more likely to work in the service industry, be essential workers, and use mass transit, each of which increases the risk of exposure to COVID-19, Dr. Crear-Perry explained.

“It’s important for us to know that, for maternal mortality, it’s the same thing that happens,” she said. That means the focus on COVID-19–related disparities helps magnify and elevate the conversation regarding similar disparities in maternal outcomes.

It also means that some of the care delivery solutions embraced and facilitated amid the pandemic, such as extension of Medicaid coverage for up to a year after giving birth and broader use and insurance coverage of telemedicine, could finally gain traction; those are solutions long-sought by advocates like Dr. Crear-Perry and others as a means for alleviating racial disparities in maternal outcomes and addressing the maternal mortality crisis.

Therein lies the hope, she explained in an interview. “Some of the policies that we know would have been helpful prior to COVID-19 now are being seen as really important.”
 

Solution: Extending coverage

During a May 7 virtual Congressional hearing on “America’s Two Public Health Crises: The Impact of COVID-19 on Racial Inequities and Maternal Mortality in the U.S.,” cosponsored by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, and the NBEC, Dr. Crear-Perry further explained the importance of extended coverage and care access.

Asked what Congress could do immediately to “ensure that the pandemic does not compound the nation’s maternal mortality crisis, including unacceptable rates among black women,” she didn’t hesitate.

“Well, it would be amazing if we could get Medicaid extended for 12 months post delivery,” she said. “As you can imagine right now, we have moms who are birthing in hospitals where they have to worry about, 2 months later, not having coverage for themselves.”

If that mom is exposed to COVID-19 and has no insurance coverage and a newborn at home, the likelihood that she will call a provider if she develops symptoms is low, Dr. Crear-Perry said. “This is a great opportunity for us to really rethink some of those policies that we know are barriers, that we have created for people to be able to thrive after they have a baby and during child birth.”

Current policies are centered around an arbitrary cutoff of about 6 weeks for postpartum care, but the CDC reports that a third of all postpartum deaths occur between 1 week and 12 months after birth.

“We need our policies to reflect the current knowledge and the science,” she said. “Just like babies have automatic insurance coverage for a year later, mothers should have the same.”

Medicaid finances nearly half of all births in the United States, according to a 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation brief, which explained that federal law requires Medicaid coverage for only 60 days post partum for women who are eligible. Decisions regarding coverage after 60 days are determined by individual states; those that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act typically allow extended coverage – but only with reapplication at 60 days.

Many women in nonexpansion states become uninsured after pregnancy-related coverage ends, as do some in expansion states for whom reapplying is a hurdle too high to clear with a newborn baby to care for at home, Dr. Crear-Perry said.

Addressing these coverage gaps is key to improving access, and it is a core component of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020, a nine-bill package introduced in March by Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and members of the Black Maternal Health Caucus to “fill gaps in existing legislation to comprehensively address every dimension of the Black maternal health crisis in America.”

One bill in the package addresses extended coverage with a goal to “promote innovative payment models to incentivize high-quality maternity care and continuity of health insurance coverage from pregnancy through labor and delivery and up to 1 year post partum.” Another focuses on promoting alternative ways to access care, such as through telemedicine.

Solution: Expanding care access

“There is a need for the democratization of care,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “There is a need for people to have more ways to get care. This idea that the only way you can get prenatal care is you have to come to me at my office, has been a burden for working people for a long, long time.”

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates increased use of telemedicine, but building blocks to allow patients to use it effectively must be put in place, she said. That means expanding broadband access, providing patients with blood pressure cuffs and other tools for use remotely, and expanding reimbursement to include not just video, but also phone calls.

Heart Safe Motherhood, a University of Pennsylvania text-based intervention developed to address postpartum hypertension – a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and at the start of the program, the leading cause of 7-day readmissions among obstetric patients, demonstrated the value of such approaches to care.

The program involves remote blood pressure monitoring using a digital monitor provided to at-risk patients at discharge. Text-based monitoring reminders encourage patients to check their blood pressure twice daily for the first 7 days.

“In our randomized, controlled trial, we saw our ability to meet ACOG guidelines on postpartum blood monitoring leap from 0% to 82%, compared to in-person office visits and 7-day readmissions from hypertension drop from 3% to 0%,” an update at the program website states.

ACOG

Rebekah Gee, MD, an ob.gyn. and director of the Louisiana State University Health System in New Orleans, also noted the importance of finding ways to deliver care “that are outside the traditional norm.

“Telemedicine, home visiting ... I think there are a wide variety of ways,” she said, noting that these kind of approaches not only help circumvent roadblocks to care, such as lack of transportation, but also can feel more personal and approachable for some women.
 

Solution: Measuring, investing, diversifying, respecting

The aims of other bills in the Momnibus Act also mirror several solutions proposed by maternal health advocates interviewed for this article. Among them are:

• Development of improved data collection processes and quality measures to better understand the factors that contribute to the crisis overall and among special populations, and to inform solutions for addressing them.
• Investments in social determinants of health that influence maternal health outcomes, like housing, transportation, and nutrition.
• Commitment to the growth and diversification of the perinatal workforce to ensure that every mom receives maternity care and support from people she can trust to provide quality care and treat her with respect.

The latter is one that Dr. Gee, Dr. Crear-Perry, and others particularly emphasized.

“We need patient advocates like doulas, midwives and others who are better listeners and better able to advocate for patients,” Dr. Gee said. This would better allow for women’s desires in the childbirth experience to be addressed appropriately, she said, adding that this is something that “frankly, a lot of doctors do not have the time to do.”

That’s why the efforts to address maternal mortality have to focus on the health care system, not just on doctors’ behavior with respect to bias, she said.

Dr. Gee also said there is a need for culturally appropriate literacy and numeracy communications “that respect how people seek and understand information.” This varies by population, which is why it’s important to provide the same approach to care “no matter what the patient looks like,” while also understanding that different patients communicate in different ways.

A 2019 study published in Social Science & Medicine underscored how communication differences can affect outcomes; using a national sample of women who gave birth in U.S. hospitals, the authors found that those who had declined care for themselves or their infant during their childbirth hospitalization were more likely to report receiving poor treatment based on race or ethnicity. They concluded that, in the context of childbirth care, women – particularly black women – pay a penalty for what is perceived as uncooperative behavior.

This is another area where doulas and other patient advocates can help, Dr. Gee said.

Doulas have long been an integral part of the birthing process for many women, particularly women of color, and evidence suggests the supportive care they provide helps to improve outcomes. In fact, several states – including Oregon, Minnesota, and New York, among others – have expanded or have proposed expanding Medicaid coverage to include doula services for pregnant beneficiaries, a move cheered by doula associations and other maternal health advocates.

In many ways, it’s about “respectful maternity care,” which is something Dr. Crear-Perry has been working to promote through the NBEC in partnership with ACOG and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It’s also something the World Health Organization has promoted by establishing global standards for such care.

“We’re hoping to socialize that as a norm in United States ... to really see what it would look like to value what birthing people want and to see them as partners in their birth,” she said.

However, the 2019 Giving Voice to Mothers study demonstrating consistently higher rates of mistreatment during obstetrical care for women of color than for comparable white women shows that the United States is falling short of those standards. The national study of 2,700 women examined how race, ethnicity, and place of birth interact with the experience of receiving maternity care in the United States, and showed that 1 in 6 experienced one or more types of mistreatment – with consistently higher rates among women of color, even after adjusting for interactions between race and other maternal characteristics, Saraswathi Veda, MD, of the Birth Place Lab and professor of midwifery at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues reported in Reproductive Health.
 

Solution: Listening, learning, reflecting, partnering

Timoria McQueen Saba, birth trauma survivor and maternal health advocate, has described experiencing instances of mistreatment throughout her obstetric care, and like Dr. Crear-Perry, she said trust and collaboration in care is imperative for improving outcomes.

“I think the most important thing you can do is really consider a patient a partner in the care you give them,” she said during a panel discussion at the 2019 ACOG annual meeting. “You’re not experts in their lived experience ... center a patient’s voice or the voice of a patient’s family. Incorporate that into your learning.”

During a virtual workshop held May 19-20 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Judette Louis, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and president of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, provided practical guidance for addressing racism and implicit bias in practice and in research to reduce disparities in outcomes.

In an interview, she summarized her key points, reiterating solutions proposed by Dr. Gee and Dr. Crear-Perry and addressed in the Momnibus Act, and also offering a few others:

First, put aside the notion that disparities are genetically driven. For a variety of reasons, that just doesn’t make sense. For one thing, not all blacks are African American.

“My family is from the Caribbean,” she said. “Is it really conceivable that we’re all so similar?”

Look also at the disparities among Native Americans, she said. “How can you take 500 distinct tribes that live across a wide geographic area and lump them into one group and assume that they are similar?”

The problem is racism, not race. “When you keep saying ‘it’s about race, it’s about race, it’s about race’ – that sends a message to the person who is of that race that there is something inherently broken about [them],” she said.

Recognize that the roots of the problem run deep. Learn about and support efforts to address the underlying structural factors that contribute to the problem, Dr. Louis emphasized, and recognize your own bias. “We all have it. The key is to recognize [biases] and mitigate them when taking care of patients.”

That’s easier said than done, at least judging by one survey of maternal-fetal medicine specialists in which 84% of respondents agreed that disparities impact practice, but only 29% agreed their own personal biases affect how they care for patients, she noted.

Tools are available to help individuals identify implicit bias, and training programs for health care providers can help, as well, she said. Implicit bias tests and training programs that help to identify and address bias and racism on individual and organizational levels are increasingly available through academic centers, health systems, and advocacy organizations.

Hope for solutions: Progress and promise

Like Dr. Crear-Perry, Dr. Louis sees hope for reducing disparities and improving maternal outcomes.

In another survey of SMFM members to identify the practice issues most important to them, racial disparities ranked in the top three.

“It says a lot that our [maternal-fetal medicine specialists] really see this as a problem and they want it fixed,” she said. “And I think it says that a lot of people need to work on this, not just us.”

Indeed, many are engaged in that work. Veronica Gillispie, MD, medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review, has been instrumental in recent initiatives to improve maternal outcomes in Louisiana, and she too said she feels optimistic.

“I am hopeful and I do see signs of hope,” she said in an interview.

Teams that she works with and trains seem invested, institutions are increasingly implementing faculty training on racism and bias, and Oschner Health, where Dr. Gillispie practices as an ob.gyn., appointed its first chief diversity officer in February.

Medical students she works with are attuned to the issues of racism, bias, and disparities, and they show a desire to enact change, she said. “They already get it, and they are working to make it better.”

Dr. Crear-Perry also predicts practice-changing results from studies looking at the delivery of obstetrical care and the role of supportive care, and she pointed out another aspect of the COVID-19 crisis that provides an important lesson for health care providers who care for birthing people: the scarcity of personal protective equipment amid the pandemic.

“My friends who are ob.gyns., who are now not getting access to the things they need to stay safe to practice medicine and who are feeling very marginalized at this moment, feeling not valued – that’s how birthing people [of color] feel,” she said. “I’m hoping that builds a sense of empathy.

”I’m hoping at the end of this crisis, that those ob.gyns. will think of patients as allies in fighting for more access to health for everybody and for more resources to do their work,” Dr. Crear-Perry said. “We’re all in this together.”

[email protected]