Practice Management

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician practice ownership by corporations, including health insurers, private equity firms, and large pharmacy chains, reached 30.1% as of January for the first time surpassing ownership by hospitals and health systems (28.4%), according to a new report.

As a result, about three in five physician practices are now owned by nonphysicians.

In early 2020, corporations owned just about 17% of US medical practices, while hospitals and health systems owned about 25%, according to the report released Thursday by nonprofit Physician Advocacy Institute (PAI). But corporate ownership of medical groups surged during the pandemic.

These trends raise questions about how best to protect patients and physicians in a changing employment landscape, said Kelly Kenney, PAI’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

“Corporate entities are assuming control of physician practices and changing the face of medicine in the United States with little to no scrutiny from regulators,” Ms. Kenney said.

The research, conducted by consulting group Avalere for PAI, used the IQVIA OneKey database that contains physician and practice location information on hospital and health system ownership.

By 2022-2023, there was a 7.3% increase in the percentage of practices owned by hospitals and 5.9% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these organizations, PAI said. In the same time frame, there was an 11% increase in the percentage of practices owned by corporations and a 3.0% increase in the percentage of physicians employed by these entities.

“Physicians have an ethical responsibility to their patients’ health,” Ms. Kenney said. “Corporate entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and are motivated to put profits first…these interests can conflict with providing the best medical care to patients.”
 

Federal Scrutiny Increases

However, both federal and state regulators are paying more attention to what happens to patients and physicians when corporations acquire practices.

“Given recent trends, we are concerned that some transactions may generate profits for those firms at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety, quality of care, and affordable healthcare for patients and taxpayers,” said the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments.

This statement appears in those agencies’ joint request for information (RFI) announced in March. An RFI is a tool that federal agencies can use to gauge the level of both support and opposition they would face if they were to try to change policies. Public comments are due May 6.

Corporations and advocacy groups often submit detailed comments outlining reasons why the federal government should or should not act on an issue. But individuals also can make their case in this forum.

The FTC, DOJ, and HHS are looking broadly at consolidation in healthcare, but they also spell out potential concerns related to acquisition of physician practices.

For example, they asked clinicians and support staff to provide feedback about whether acquisitions lead to changes in:

• Take-home pay
• Staffing levels
• Workplace safety
• Compensation model (eg, from fixed salary to volume based)
• Policies regarding patient referrals
• Mix of patients
• The volume of patients
• The way providers practice medicine (eg, incentives, prescribing decisions, forced protocols, restrictions on time spent with patients, or mandatory coding practices)
• Administrative or managerial organization (eg, transition to a management services organization).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession. 
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote. 

'It's Not About Being Political' 

The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics." 
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better." 
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.  
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns." 
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist." 
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing." 
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations." 

When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear 

Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."  
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said. 
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added. 
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said. 
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government." 
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.  
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said. 

Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond 

Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees. 
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns." 
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce. 
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty." 
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised. 
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added. 
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues. 
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession. 
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote. 

'It's Not About Being Political' 

The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics." 
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better." 
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.  
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns." 
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist." 
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing." 
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations." 

When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear 

Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."  
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said. 
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added. 
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said. 
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government." 
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.  
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said. 

Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond 

Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees. 
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns." 
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce. 
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty." 
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised. 
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added. 
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues. 
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession. 
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote. 

'It's Not About Being Political' 

The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics." 
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better." 
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.  
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns." 
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist." 
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing." 
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations." 

When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear 

Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."  
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said. 
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added. 
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said. 
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government." 
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.  
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said. 

Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond 

Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees. 
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns." 
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce. 
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty." 
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised. 
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added. 
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues. 
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.