User login
Physician Fined $25K Over Supervision of DNP Who Called Herself ‘Doctor’
The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.
According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.
A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.
For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.
Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.
Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.
However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.
Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.
Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.
Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.
“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.
“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.
According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.
A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.
For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.
Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.
Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.
However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.
Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.
Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.
Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.
“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.
“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.
According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.
A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.
For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.
Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.
Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.
However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.
Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.
Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.
Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.
“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.
“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
BCBSMA Rolls Back Restrictive Anesthesia Policy
In a significant victory for patients and healthcare providers, . The change is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024, so no claims will be rejected for payment.
The decision follows intense advocacy efforts by a coalition that included AGA, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and the American College of Surgeons (ACS), with the Massachusetts Gastroenterology Association demonstrating exceptional leadership and the Massachusetts Society of Anesthesiologists (MSA) persevering throughout the process. The BCBSMA heeded the coalition’s warnings about the potential impact on cancer screening access and patient choice in GI care.
Physician leaders representing the societies played a crucial role in meetings with BCBSMA, contributing to this positive outcome. Member engagement, including contacting legislators, media outreach, and participation in the #Noto154 campaign, had a substantial impact.
BCBSMA informed the societies that all claims will be paid; however, documentation will still be required for patients presenting with ASA 1 and ASA 2. Providers may download a list of commonly used diagnosis codes documented with the administration of propofol. The AGA encourages members to still be mindful that BCBSMA will be monitoring the use of these codes for propofol administration. Members can see BCBSMA policy 154 for the complete list of diagnosis codes that support use of MAC. The societies have requested that BCBSMA provide education to providers on this requirement.
The AGA intends to closely monitor developments to ensure similar policies are not introduced nationally.
In a significant victory for patients and healthcare providers, . The change is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024, so no claims will be rejected for payment.
The decision follows intense advocacy efforts by a coalition that included AGA, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and the American College of Surgeons (ACS), with the Massachusetts Gastroenterology Association demonstrating exceptional leadership and the Massachusetts Society of Anesthesiologists (MSA) persevering throughout the process. The BCBSMA heeded the coalition’s warnings about the potential impact on cancer screening access and patient choice in GI care.
Physician leaders representing the societies played a crucial role in meetings with BCBSMA, contributing to this positive outcome. Member engagement, including contacting legislators, media outreach, and participation in the #Noto154 campaign, had a substantial impact.
BCBSMA informed the societies that all claims will be paid; however, documentation will still be required for patients presenting with ASA 1 and ASA 2. Providers may download a list of commonly used diagnosis codes documented with the administration of propofol. The AGA encourages members to still be mindful that BCBSMA will be monitoring the use of these codes for propofol administration. Members can see BCBSMA policy 154 for the complete list of diagnosis codes that support use of MAC. The societies have requested that BCBSMA provide education to providers on this requirement.
The AGA intends to closely monitor developments to ensure similar policies are not introduced nationally.
In a significant victory for patients and healthcare providers, . The change is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024, so no claims will be rejected for payment.
The decision follows intense advocacy efforts by a coalition that included AGA, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and the American College of Surgeons (ACS), with the Massachusetts Gastroenterology Association demonstrating exceptional leadership and the Massachusetts Society of Anesthesiologists (MSA) persevering throughout the process. The BCBSMA heeded the coalition’s warnings about the potential impact on cancer screening access and patient choice in GI care.
Physician leaders representing the societies played a crucial role in meetings with BCBSMA, contributing to this positive outcome. Member engagement, including contacting legislators, media outreach, and participation in the #Noto154 campaign, had a substantial impact.
BCBSMA informed the societies that all claims will be paid; however, documentation will still be required for patients presenting with ASA 1 and ASA 2. Providers may download a list of commonly used diagnosis codes documented with the administration of propofol. The AGA encourages members to still be mindful that BCBSMA will be monitoring the use of these codes for propofol administration. Members can see BCBSMA policy 154 for the complete list of diagnosis codes that support use of MAC. The societies have requested that BCBSMA provide education to providers on this requirement.
The AGA intends to closely monitor developments to ensure similar policies are not introduced nationally.
Win! CMS reins in prior authorization
According to a rule issued by CMS, starting in 2026, health plans must decide on prior authorization requests within 72 hours for an expedited request or 7 days for non-urgent appeals.
The rule also requires plans to provide a detailed rationale for a denial and include metrics on denials and approvals.
AGA and our allies in the physician community have aggressively advocated that Congress and the Administration address prior auth, which slows patient access to care and contributes to physician burnout.
The rule applies to Medicare, Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Plans (CHIP), and qualified health plans on the exchange.
Thank you to our advocates who called on policymakers to take action to ensure patients receive care in a timely manner.
According to a rule issued by CMS, starting in 2026, health plans must decide on prior authorization requests within 72 hours for an expedited request or 7 days for non-urgent appeals.
The rule also requires plans to provide a detailed rationale for a denial and include metrics on denials and approvals.
AGA and our allies in the physician community have aggressively advocated that Congress and the Administration address prior auth, which slows patient access to care and contributes to physician burnout.
The rule applies to Medicare, Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Plans (CHIP), and qualified health plans on the exchange.
Thank you to our advocates who called on policymakers to take action to ensure patients receive care in a timely manner.
According to a rule issued by CMS, starting in 2026, health plans must decide on prior authorization requests within 72 hours for an expedited request or 7 days for non-urgent appeals.
The rule also requires plans to provide a detailed rationale for a denial and include metrics on denials and approvals.
AGA and our allies in the physician community have aggressively advocated that Congress and the Administration address prior auth, which slows patient access to care and contributes to physician burnout.
The rule applies to Medicare, Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Plans (CHIP), and qualified health plans on the exchange.
Thank you to our advocates who called on policymakers to take action to ensure patients receive care in a timely manner.
Doc Sues State Over ‘Antiquated’ Telehealth Rules
Telemedicine visits skyrocketed during the pandemic, but
In the complaint filed on December 13 in New Jersey District Court, plaintiff Shannon MacDonald, MD, radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that New Jersey’s telehealth rules make it illegal for her and other out-of-state specialists to consult with and treat residents who could benefit from their unique expertise, unless they first obtain licensure through the medical board.
While she currently maintains licenses in six states, New Jersey’s application process can take several months and requires an initial fee of $550, plus additional expenses for a background check and fingerprinting, court documents said.
Physicians providing telehealth services to New Jersey residents without a state-authorized medical license are subject to up to 5 years in prison and criminal and civil fines exceeding $10,000.
“Every day, my ethical obligations to my patients are in direct conflict with the legal framework,” said Dr. MacDonald.
She and coplaintiff Paul Gardner, MD, neurosurgical codirector of the Center for Cranial Base Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, are represented by the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which recently sued Louisiana’s governor over its medical board diversity rules.
The lawsuit names Otto Sabando, DO, president of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. Representatives for Dr. Sabando and the medical board did not respond to a request for comment.
The complaint describes the care Dr. MacDonald provided several years before the pandemic for an out-of-state patient, J.A., also named as a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with pineoblastoma at 18 months old.
After initially undergoing treatment in New York, court documents indicate that J.A.’s medical team referred him to Dr. MacDonald “because of her nationally recognized expertise in proton therapy” targeting rare childhood cancers. Dr. MacDonald remotely reviewed J.A.’s scans and discussed options before his family pursued treatment with her in Boston.
Dr. MacDonald said that allowing more patients like J.A. to use telehealth to access services when specialists are unavailable in their state would go a long way toward achieving health equity. She says it could reduce the financial burden of travel and lodging expenses and provide timely consultations and follow-up care.
Many states, including New Jersey, waived or eased licensing regulations during the pandemic so physicians could temporarily practice in other states. Since those emergency orders have ended, physicians must again seek licensure in the states where their patients are located or potentially be subjected to fines or other penalties by state medical boards.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law in 2022 joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement that offers a streamlined process for physicians already licensed in their home states to obtain licensure in 37 other member states as well as the District of Columbia and Territory of Guam. However, the lawsuit alleges that applications still take weeks and pose significant administrative and financial barriers for physicians.
Telehealth in a Post-COVID World
“Until COVID, we didn’t realize that a telephone call really was practicing medicine,” said Dr. MacDonald. “After being allowed to do telemedicine consultations across state lines for a year and 2 years for follow-ups, I thought it would last forever, but it’s placed a spotlight on what we cannot do.”
Dr. MacDonald, who recently penned a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, said laws regarding interstate practice are outdated.
“They made sense in the preindustrial era when you had to be in the same location as your patient, but they make little sense in the modern era when distance disappears over the Internet or telephone,” she said.
The issue isn’t unique to New Jersey. Caleb Trotter, JD, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that 30 states prohibit doctors from conducting telemedicine services in states where they are not licensed.
“Some hospitals instruct doctors and administrators to ask the patient where they are physically located at the beginning of a telehealth appointment, and if it isn’t a state where the physician is licensed, they are instructed to end the appointment immediately,” Mr. Trotter said. “A win in New Jersey would solve a very real problem for these [patients] of not having convenient legal access to specialists.”
Neither Dr. MacDonald nor Dr. Gardner have had any enforcement actions taken against them, said Mr. Trotter. Still, he said the New Jersey attorney general’s office reminded physicians last year that state licensure rules apply to out-of-state doctors using telemedicine to conduct follow-up appointments.
In November, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed telemedicine reforms, including exceptions for the care of established patients and screening for specialty referrals.
Dr. MacDonald hopes the lawsuit will increase awareness of telehealth laws and spur changes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Telemedicine visits skyrocketed during the pandemic, but
In the complaint filed on December 13 in New Jersey District Court, plaintiff Shannon MacDonald, MD, radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that New Jersey’s telehealth rules make it illegal for her and other out-of-state specialists to consult with and treat residents who could benefit from their unique expertise, unless they first obtain licensure through the medical board.
While she currently maintains licenses in six states, New Jersey’s application process can take several months and requires an initial fee of $550, plus additional expenses for a background check and fingerprinting, court documents said.
Physicians providing telehealth services to New Jersey residents without a state-authorized medical license are subject to up to 5 years in prison and criminal and civil fines exceeding $10,000.
“Every day, my ethical obligations to my patients are in direct conflict with the legal framework,” said Dr. MacDonald.
She and coplaintiff Paul Gardner, MD, neurosurgical codirector of the Center for Cranial Base Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, are represented by the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which recently sued Louisiana’s governor over its medical board diversity rules.
The lawsuit names Otto Sabando, DO, president of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. Representatives for Dr. Sabando and the medical board did not respond to a request for comment.
The complaint describes the care Dr. MacDonald provided several years before the pandemic for an out-of-state patient, J.A., also named as a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with pineoblastoma at 18 months old.
After initially undergoing treatment in New York, court documents indicate that J.A.’s medical team referred him to Dr. MacDonald “because of her nationally recognized expertise in proton therapy” targeting rare childhood cancers. Dr. MacDonald remotely reviewed J.A.’s scans and discussed options before his family pursued treatment with her in Boston.
Dr. MacDonald said that allowing more patients like J.A. to use telehealth to access services when specialists are unavailable in their state would go a long way toward achieving health equity. She says it could reduce the financial burden of travel and lodging expenses and provide timely consultations and follow-up care.
Many states, including New Jersey, waived or eased licensing regulations during the pandemic so physicians could temporarily practice in other states. Since those emergency orders have ended, physicians must again seek licensure in the states where their patients are located or potentially be subjected to fines or other penalties by state medical boards.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law in 2022 joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement that offers a streamlined process for physicians already licensed in their home states to obtain licensure in 37 other member states as well as the District of Columbia and Territory of Guam. However, the lawsuit alleges that applications still take weeks and pose significant administrative and financial barriers for physicians.
Telehealth in a Post-COVID World
“Until COVID, we didn’t realize that a telephone call really was practicing medicine,” said Dr. MacDonald. “After being allowed to do telemedicine consultations across state lines for a year and 2 years for follow-ups, I thought it would last forever, but it’s placed a spotlight on what we cannot do.”
Dr. MacDonald, who recently penned a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, said laws regarding interstate practice are outdated.
“They made sense in the preindustrial era when you had to be in the same location as your patient, but they make little sense in the modern era when distance disappears over the Internet or telephone,” she said.
The issue isn’t unique to New Jersey. Caleb Trotter, JD, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that 30 states prohibit doctors from conducting telemedicine services in states where they are not licensed.
“Some hospitals instruct doctors and administrators to ask the patient where they are physically located at the beginning of a telehealth appointment, and if it isn’t a state where the physician is licensed, they are instructed to end the appointment immediately,” Mr. Trotter said. “A win in New Jersey would solve a very real problem for these [patients] of not having convenient legal access to specialists.”
Neither Dr. MacDonald nor Dr. Gardner have had any enforcement actions taken against them, said Mr. Trotter. Still, he said the New Jersey attorney general’s office reminded physicians last year that state licensure rules apply to out-of-state doctors using telemedicine to conduct follow-up appointments.
In November, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed telemedicine reforms, including exceptions for the care of established patients and screening for specialty referrals.
Dr. MacDonald hopes the lawsuit will increase awareness of telehealth laws and spur changes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Telemedicine visits skyrocketed during the pandemic, but
In the complaint filed on December 13 in New Jersey District Court, plaintiff Shannon MacDonald, MD, radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that New Jersey’s telehealth rules make it illegal for her and other out-of-state specialists to consult with and treat residents who could benefit from their unique expertise, unless they first obtain licensure through the medical board.
While she currently maintains licenses in six states, New Jersey’s application process can take several months and requires an initial fee of $550, plus additional expenses for a background check and fingerprinting, court documents said.
Physicians providing telehealth services to New Jersey residents without a state-authorized medical license are subject to up to 5 years in prison and criminal and civil fines exceeding $10,000.
“Every day, my ethical obligations to my patients are in direct conflict with the legal framework,” said Dr. MacDonald.
She and coplaintiff Paul Gardner, MD, neurosurgical codirector of the Center for Cranial Base Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, are represented by the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which recently sued Louisiana’s governor over its medical board diversity rules.
The lawsuit names Otto Sabando, DO, president of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. Representatives for Dr. Sabando and the medical board did not respond to a request for comment.
The complaint describes the care Dr. MacDonald provided several years before the pandemic for an out-of-state patient, J.A., also named as a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with pineoblastoma at 18 months old.
After initially undergoing treatment in New York, court documents indicate that J.A.’s medical team referred him to Dr. MacDonald “because of her nationally recognized expertise in proton therapy” targeting rare childhood cancers. Dr. MacDonald remotely reviewed J.A.’s scans and discussed options before his family pursued treatment with her in Boston.
Dr. MacDonald said that allowing more patients like J.A. to use telehealth to access services when specialists are unavailable in their state would go a long way toward achieving health equity. She says it could reduce the financial burden of travel and lodging expenses and provide timely consultations and follow-up care.
Many states, including New Jersey, waived or eased licensing regulations during the pandemic so physicians could temporarily practice in other states. Since those emergency orders have ended, physicians must again seek licensure in the states where their patients are located or potentially be subjected to fines or other penalties by state medical boards.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law in 2022 joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement that offers a streamlined process for physicians already licensed in their home states to obtain licensure in 37 other member states as well as the District of Columbia and Territory of Guam. However, the lawsuit alleges that applications still take weeks and pose significant administrative and financial barriers for physicians.
Telehealth in a Post-COVID World
“Until COVID, we didn’t realize that a telephone call really was practicing medicine,” said Dr. MacDonald. “After being allowed to do telemedicine consultations across state lines for a year and 2 years for follow-ups, I thought it would last forever, but it’s placed a spotlight on what we cannot do.”
Dr. MacDonald, who recently penned a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, said laws regarding interstate practice are outdated.
“They made sense in the preindustrial era when you had to be in the same location as your patient, but they make little sense in the modern era when distance disappears over the Internet or telephone,” she said.
The issue isn’t unique to New Jersey. Caleb Trotter, JD, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that 30 states prohibit doctors from conducting telemedicine services in states where they are not licensed.
“Some hospitals instruct doctors and administrators to ask the patient where they are physically located at the beginning of a telehealth appointment, and if it isn’t a state where the physician is licensed, they are instructed to end the appointment immediately,” Mr. Trotter said. “A win in New Jersey would solve a very real problem for these [patients] of not having convenient legal access to specialists.”
Neither Dr. MacDonald nor Dr. Gardner have had any enforcement actions taken against them, said Mr. Trotter. Still, he said the New Jersey attorney general’s office reminded physicians last year that state licensure rules apply to out-of-state doctors using telemedicine to conduct follow-up appointments.
In November, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed telemedicine reforms, including exceptions for the care of established patients and screening for specialty referrals.
Dr. MacDonald hopes the lawsuit will increase awareness of telehealth laws and spur changes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Mega Malpractice Verdicts Against Physicians on the Rise
In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.
A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.
Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.
“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe.
In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.
From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.
While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.
A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.
“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”
Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.
And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.
“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.
Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?
There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.
One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.
Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.
“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”
“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.
Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.
“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.
Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.
“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.
Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.
“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”
Do High Awards Actually Stick?
Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?
Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.
In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.
A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.
After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.
Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.
“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”
The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.
Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.
Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.
Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.
“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”
However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.
In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.
“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.
A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.
Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.
“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe.
In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.
From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.
While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.
A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.
“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”
Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.
And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.
“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.
Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?
There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.
One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.
Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.
“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”
“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.
Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.
“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.
Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.
“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.
Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.
“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”
Do High Awards Actually Stick?
Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?
Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.
In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.
A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.
After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.
Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.
“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”
The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.
Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.
Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.
Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.
“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”
However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.
In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.
“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.
A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.
Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.
“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe.
In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.
From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.
While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.
A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.
“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”
Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.
And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.
“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.
Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?
There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.
One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.
Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.
“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”
“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.
Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.
“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.
Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.
“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.
Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.
“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”
Do High Awards Actually Stick?
Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?
Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.
In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.
A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.
After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.
Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.
“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”
The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.
Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.
Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.
Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.
“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”
However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.
In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.
“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
US Board Discloses Cheating, Grads Say Problem Is Rampant
The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”
Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue.
, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows.
Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media.
“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”
Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range.
“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.”
Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?”
In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years.
How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?
Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass.
“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”
Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content.
“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.”
Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service.
The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package.
Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”
A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers.
J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk.
The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.”
When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said.
Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal.
In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses.
In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls.
“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’
Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media.
On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”
In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.
When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said.
“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”
Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.”
“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”
USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
Cheat-Proofing the USMLE
The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say.
For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move.
“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X.
The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience.
“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”
Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said.
A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions.
“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.”
Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action.
He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers.
“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”
Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue.
, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows.
Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media.
“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”
Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range.
“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.”
Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?”
In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years.
How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?
Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass.
“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”
Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content.
“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.”
Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service.
The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package.
Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”
A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers.
J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk.
The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.”
When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said.
Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal.
In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses.
In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls.
“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’
Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media.
On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”
In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.
When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said.
“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”
Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.”
“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”
USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
Cheat-Proofing the USMLE
The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say.
For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move.
“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X.
The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience.
“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”
Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said.
A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions.
“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.”
Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action.
He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers.
“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”
Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue.
, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows.
Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media.
“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”
Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range.
“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.”
Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?”
In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years.
How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?
Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass.
“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”
Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content.
“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.”
Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service.
The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package.
Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”
A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers.
J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk.
The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.”
When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said.
Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal.
In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses.
In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls.
“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’
Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media.
On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”
In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.
When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said.
“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”
Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.”
“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”
USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
Cheat-Proofing the USMLE
The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say.
For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move.
“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X.
The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience.
“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”
Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said.
A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions.
“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.”
Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action.
He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers.
“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Federal Bill Seeks AI Tools to Stop Medicare Fraud
A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.
Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.
The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.
The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).
CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.
Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.
“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.
Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.
Concerns Raised
So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.
Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.
Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.
Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.
But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.
The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.
Detecting Medicare Fraud
The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.
A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.
In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.
About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.
Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.
The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.
The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).
CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.
Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.
“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.
Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.
Concerns Raised
So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.
Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.
Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.
Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.
But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.
The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.
Detecting Medicare Fraud
The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.
A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.
In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.
About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.
Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.
The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.
The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).
CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.
Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.
“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.
Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.
Concerns Raised
So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.
Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.
Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.
Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.
But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.
The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.
Detecting Medicare Fraud
The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.
A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.
In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.
About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Working together
Dear Friends,
After 6 months in my first faculty position, I have come to appreciate the term “multidisciplinary approach” more than ever. Not only does this facilitate optimal patient care, but I have personally learned so much from experts in other fields. This theme resonates across this issue of The New Gastroenterologist, from treating complex gallbladder disease, to caring for sexual and gender minorities, and collaborating with the tech industry to advance patient care.
Our “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Andrew Gilman and Dr. Todd Baron, is on endoscopic management of gallbladder disease. They review endoscopic treatment options in patients with benign gallbladder disease, with emphasis on working with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues, as well as relaying endoscopic tips and techniques to achieve success in these complicated procedures.
In the “Short Clinical Reviews” section, Dr. David Chiang and Dr. Victor Chedid highlight the gaps in research and clinical care and competency for sexual and gender minorities, particularly in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. They describe the creation of the Pride in IBD clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., that creates a culturally sensitive space to care for this community.
As trainees transition to early faculty, becoming a mentor is a new role that can be very rewarding and daunting at the same time. Dr. Anna Lok, recipient of the AGA’s Distinguished Mentor Award, and Dr. Vincent Chen share invaluable experiences and advice on being a mentor from senior and early-career perspectives, respectively. Similarly in the transition to early faculty, Erin Anderson, CPA, answers five common financial questions that arise to better understand and manage a significant increase in salary.
Lastly, Dr. Shifa Umar describes her unique experience as part of the AGA’s annual Tech Summit Fellows Program, a cross-section of medicine, technology, and innovation.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Jillian Schweitzer ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The concept of the clinicopathologic conference (CPC) was introduced by Dr. Walter B. Cannon as a medical student at Harvard Medical School.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
After 6 months in my first faculty position, I have come to appreciate the term “multidisciplinary approach” more than ever. Not only does this facilitate optimal patient care, but I have personally learned so much from experts in other fields. This theme resonates across this issue of The New Gastroenterologist, from treating complex gallbladder disease, to caring for sexual and gender minorities, and collaborating with the tech industry to advance patient care.
Our “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Andrew Gilman and Dr. Todd Baron, is on endoscopic management of gallbladder disease. They review endoscopic treatment options in patients with benign gallbladder disease, with emphasis on working with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues, as well as relaying endoscopic tips and techniques to achieve success in these complicated procedures.
In the “Short Clinical Reviews” section, Dr. David Chiang and Dr. Victor Chedid highlight the gaps in research and clinical care and competency for sexual and gender minorities, particularly in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. They describe the creation of the Pride in IBD clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., that creates a culturally sensitive space to care for this community.
As trainees transition to early faculty, becoming a mentor is a new role that can be very rewarding and daunting at the same time. Dr. Anna Lok, recipient of the AGA’s Distinguished Mentor Award, and Dr. Vincent Chen share invaluable experiences and advice on being a mentor from senior and early-career perspectives, respectively. Similarly in the transition to early faculty, Erin Anderson, CPA, answers five common financial questions that arise to better understand and manage a significant increase in salary.
Lastly, Dr. Shifa Umar describes her unique experience as part of the AGA’s annual Tech Summit Fellows Program, a cross-section of medicine, technology, and innovation.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Jillian Schweitzer ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The concept of the clinicopathologic conference (CPC) was introduced by Dr. Walter B. Cannon as a medical student at Harvard Medical School.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
After 6 months in my first faculty position, I have come to appreciate the term “multidisciplinary approach” more than ever. Not only does this facilitate optimal patient care, but I have personally learned so much from experts in other fields. This theme resonates across this issue of The New Gastroenterologist, from treating complex gallbladder disease, to caring for sexual and gender minorities, and collaborating with the tech industry to advance patient care.
Our “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Andrew Gilman and Dr. Todd Baron, is on endoscopic management of gallbladder disease. They review endoscopic treatment options in patients with benign gallbladder disease, with emphasis on working with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues, as well as relaying endoscopic tips and techniques to achieve success in these complicated procedures.
In the “Short Clinical Reviews” section, Dr. David Chiang and Dr. Victor Chedid highlight the gaps in research and clinical care and competency for sexual and gender minorities, particularly in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. They describe the creation of the Pride in IBD clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., that creates a culturally sensitive space to care for this community.
As trainees transition to early faculty, becoming a mentor is a new role that can be very rewarding and daunting at the same time. Dr. Anna Lok, recipient of the AGA’s Distinguished Mentor Award, and Dr. Vincent Chen share invaluable experiences and advice on being a mentor from senior and early-career perspectives, respectively. Similarly in the transition to early faculty, Erin Anderson, CPA, answers five common financial questions that arise to better understand and manage a significant increase in salary.
Lastly, Dr. Shifa Umar describes her unique experience as part of the AGA’s annual Tech Summit Fellows Program, a cross-section of medicine, technology, and innovation.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Jillian Schweitzer ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The concept of the clinicopathologic conference (CPC) was introduced by Dr. Walter B. Cannon as a medical student at Harvard Medical School.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University in St. Louis
Gastroenterologist advocates for fair coverage, reduced physician burden
Faced with an opportunity to advocate for patients, Rajeev Jain, MD, AGAF, is never afraid to speak up. He recently spoke out publicly against a major payer’s new advance notification process for colonoscopy and endoscopy procedures, cautioning it was a glidepath toward far-reaching prior authorization requirements.
UnitedHealthcare plans to collect a larger scope of data for this new policy, “which I fear will disrupt and deny patients’ access to lifesaving care,” Dr. Jain, a gastroenterologist with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants and a member of the American Gastroenterological Association’s (AGA) Prior Authorization Reform Task Force, wrote in an opinion piece in the Dallas Morning News.
Insurance coverage should be fair to the end goal of taking good care of patients, said Dr. Jain. “And if they’re putting processes in place, which are solely to be an impediment to excellent care, then that’s not right.”
Through his extensive participation in AGA panels and other influential groups, Dr. Jain has sought to improve clinical practice and reduce physician burnout. As Director and now Chair of the Board of Directors” of the American Board of Internal Medicine, Dr. Jain participated in conversations to make the maintenance of certification (MOC) process more accessible and less burdensome for doctors.
People spent a lot of time studying for ABIM’s 10-year MOC exam, sometimes even taking a course to help them pass. Now, there’s an option in all specialties to take a 30-question exam every quarter.
On average, it takes someone roughly 2 minutes to answer each question on this short exam. “Per quarter, you’re roughly spending an hour to do that instead of taking a big 10-year exam, where people were spending money and missing work,” said Dr. Jain. This modality enables physicians to meet credentialing requirements “in a way that it meets many of the desires of our practitioners,” he added.
Dr. Jain expounded on his work to advocate for patients and physicians in an interview.
Q: I’d like to discuss your opinion piece on UnitedHealthcare’s advanced notification process. Where does that policy stand now? I’m wondering if your opinion piece led to any changes.
Dr. Jain: There’s not a metric I can use to measure its success. But I will tell you this: I’ve had numerous patients mention to me, “Hey, I saw your article in the Dallas Morning News. That was great.” And that would lead to a conversation.
Q: Why do you think UHC’s policy was a tool for prior authorization?
Dr. Jain: Imagine you go to see a gastroenterologist in clinic, and the GI believes you need a procedure for certain symptoms or abnormal laboratory tests or imaging. It’s not a screening procedure. It’s a diagnostic procedure. Now, the insurance company is going to say, “Well, we can’t schedule that until you do a preauthorization.”
That could take a day. It could take a week. It could take longer. And now, the patient has lost that moment where they can get this settled. It’s not just the schedule for the patient. They’re going to get anesthesia, be it conscious sedation or deeper sedation, and they’re going to need a ride home. They have to coordinate things with family members or friends. Those little logistics add up to a lot of times why patients cancel or don’t show up or don’t follow through, because we couldn’t get it scheduled at that moment.
I feel like we are trying to attack this problem from many different angles, and my opinion piece was one of those tactics. The patients and the rank-and-file gastroenterologists appreciate the AGA being at the forefront of this issue.
Q: Your interests range from colon cancer to Barrett’s esophagus and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Is there an area of focus you feel passionate about?
Dr. Jain: Through AGA, I was the cochair of the IBD Parenthood Project, which convened subject-matter experts outside of GI, including maternal-fetal medicine, lactation experts, and patients. We came up with a care pathway for women in their reproductive years who have inflammatory bowel disease, including how they should think about family planning and what they should do during pregnancy and then the postpartum. Those kinds of things have really kept me energized. It’s sort of an antidote to burnout.
Q: Who are your mentors?
Dr. Jain: I would say the late Dan Foster, MD, who was the chair of medicine at UT Southwestern, and Mark Feldman, MD, AGAF, who held leadership roles at the Dallas VA Medical Center and then Texas Health Dallas. He retired a few years ago. They both expected physicians to understand the knowledge of how we were taking care of the patient and our professionalism. There’s also my senior partner, Peter Loeb, MD, AGAF, who’s now retired. He had an insatiable appetite for knowledge. Every time I’d come back from a meeting, he’d say, “Rajeev, tell me three things you learned.” He always kept patients as the primary North Star; that whatever we did, we were thinking, “Is it best for the patient?”
Lightning Round:
Favorite type of music?
1980s alternative
Favorite movie genre?
Comedy
Cat person or dog person?
Dog
Favorite sport:
College football
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
“I Ran,” by a Flock of Seagulls
Faced with an opportunity to advocate for patients, Rajeev Jain, MD, AGAF, is never afraid to speak up. He recently spoke out publicly against a major payer’s new advance notification process for colonoscopy and endoscopy procedures, cautioning it was a glidepath toward far-reaching prior authorization requirements.
UnitedHealthcare plans to collect a larger scope of data for this new policy, “which I fear will disrupt and deny patients’ access to lifesaving care,” Dr. Jain, a gastroenterologist with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants and a member of the American Gastroenterological Association’s (AGA) Prior Authorization Reform Task Force, wrote in an opinion piece in the Dallas Morning News.
Insurance coverage should be fair to the end goal of taking good care of patients, said Dr. Jain. “And if they’re putting processes in place, which are solely to be an impediment to excellent care, then that’s not right.”
Through his extensive participation in AGA panels and other influential groups, Dr. Jain has sought to improve clinical practice and reduce physician burnout. As Director and now Chair of the Board of Directors” of the American Board of Internal Medicine, Dr. Jain participated in conversations to make the maintenance of certification (MOC) process more accessible and less burdensome for doctors.
People spent a lot of time studying for ABIM’s 10-year MOC exam, sometimes even taking a course to help them pass. Now, there’s an option in all specialties to take a 30-question exam every quarter.
On average, it takes someone roughly 2 minutes to answer each question on this short exam. “Per quarter, you’re roughly spending an hour to do that instead of taking a big 10-year exam, where people were spending money and missing work,” said Dr. Jain. This modality enables physicians to meet credentialing requirements “in a way that it meets many of the desires of our practitioners,” he added.
Dr. Jain expounded on his work to advocate for patients and physicians in an interview.
Q: I’d like to discuss your opinion piece on UnitedHealthcare’s advanced notification process. Where does that policy stand now? I’m wondering if your opinion piece led to any changes.
Dr. Jain: There’s not a metric I can use to measure its success. But I will tell you this: I’ve had numerous patients mention to me, “Hey, I saw your article in the Dallas Morning News. That was great.” And that would lead to a conversation.
Q: Why do you think UHC’s policy was a tool for prior authorization?
Dr. Jain: Imagine you go to see a gastroenterologist in clinic, and the GI believes you need a procedure for certain symptoms or abnormal laboratory tests or imaging. It’s not a screening procedure. It’s a diagnostic procedure. Now, the insurance company is going to say, “Well, we can’t schedule that until you do a preauthorization.”
That could take a day. It could take a week. It could take longer. And now, the patient has lost that moment where they can get this settled. It’s not just the schedule for the patient. They’re going to get anesthesia, be it conscious sedation or deeper sedation, and they’re going to need a ride home. They have to coordinate things with family members or friends. Those little logistics add up to a lot of times why patients cancel or don’t show up or don’t follow through, because we couldn’t get it scheduled at that moment.
I feel like we are trying to attack this problem from many different angles, and my opinion piece was one of those tactics. The patients and the rank-and-file gastroenterologists appreciate the AGA being at the forefront of this issue.
Q: Your interests range from colon cancer to Barrett’s esophagus and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Is there an area of focus you feel passionate about?
Dr. Jain: Through AGA, I was the cochair of the IBD Parenthood Project, which convened subject-matter experts outside of GI, including maternal-fetal medicine, lactation experts, and patients. We came up with a care pathway for women in their reproductive years who have inflammatory bowel disease, including how they should think about family planning and what they should do during pregnancy and then the postpartum. Those kinds of things have really kept me energized. It’s sort of an antidote to burnout.
Q: Who are your mentors?
Dr. Jain: I would say the late Dan Foster, MD, who was the chair of medicine at UT Southwestern, and Mark Feldman, MD, AGAF, who held leadership roles at the Dallas VA Medical Center and then Texas Health Dallas. He retired a few years ago. They both expected physicians to understand the knowledge of how we were taking care of the patient and our professionalism. There’s also my senior partner, Peter Loeb, MD, AGAF, who’s now retired. He had an insatiable appetite for knowledge. Every time I’d come back from a meeting, he’d say, “Rajeev, tell me three things you learned.” He always kept patients as the primary North Star; that whatever we did, we were thinking, “Is it best for the patient?”
Lightning Round:
Favorite type of music?
1980s alternative
Favorite movie genre?
Comedy
Cat person or dog person?
Dog
Favorite sport:
College football
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
“I Ran,” by a Flock of Seagulls
Faced with an opportunity to advocate for patients, Rajeev Jain, MD, AGAF, is never afraid to speak up. He recently spoke out publicly against a major payer’s new advance notification process for colonoscopy and endoscopy procedures, cautioning it was a glidepath toward far-reaching prior authorization requirements.
UnitedHealthcare plans to collect a larger scope of data for this new policy, “which I fear will disrupt and deny patients’ access to lifesaving care,” Dr. Jain, a gastroenterologist with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants and a member of the American Gastroenterological Association’s (AGA) Prior Authorization Reform Task Force, wrote in an opinion piece in the Dallas Morning News.
Insurance coverage should be fair to the end goal of taking good care of patients, said Dr. Jain. “And if they’re putting processes in place, which are solely to be an impediment to excellent care, then that’s not right.”
Through his extensive participation in AGA panels and other influential groups, Dr. Jain has sought to improve clinical practice and reduce physician burnout. As Director and now Chair of the Board of Directors” of the American Board of Internal Medicine, Dr. Jain participated in conversations to make the maintenance of certification (MOC) process more accessible and less burdensome for doctors.
People spent a lot of time studying for ABIM’s 10-year MOC exam, sometimes even taking a course to help them pass. Now, there’s an option in all specialties to take a 30-question exam every quarter.
On average, it takes someone roughly 2 minutes to answer each question on this short exam. “Per quarter, you’re roughly spending an hour to do that instead of taking a big 10-year exam, where people were spending money and missing work,” said Dr. Jain. This modality enables physicians to meet credentialing requirements “in a way that it meets many of the desires of our practitioners,” he added.
Dr. Jain expounded on his work to advocate for patients and physicians in an interview.
Q: I’d like to discuss your opinion piece on UnitedHealthcare’s advanced notification process. Where does that policy stand now? I’m wondering if your opinion piece led to any changes.
Dr. Jain: There’s not a metric I can use to measure its success. But I will tell you this: I’ve had numerous patients mention to me, “Hey, I saw your article in the Dallas Morning News. That was great.” And that would lead to a conversation.
Q: Why do you think UHC’s policy was a tool for prior authorization?
Dr. Jain: Imagine you go to see a gastroenterologist in clinic, and the GI believes you need a procedure for certain symptoms or abnormal laboratory tests or imaging. It’s not a screening procedure. It’s a diagnostic procedure. Now, the insurance company is going to say, “Well, we can’t schedule that until you do a preauthorization.”
That could take a day. It could take a week. It could take longer. And now, the patient has lost that moment where they can get this settled. It’s not just the schedule for the patient. They’re going to get anesthesia, be it conscious sedation or deeper sedation, and they’re going to need a ride home. They have to coordinate things with family members or friends. Those little logistics add up to a lot of times why patients cancel or don’t show up or don’t follow through, because we couldn’t get it scheduled at that moment.
I feel like we are trying to attack this problem from many different angles, and my opinion piece was one of those tactics. The patients and the rank-and-file gastroenterologists appreciate the AGA being at the forefront of this issue.
Q: Your interests range from colon cancer to Barrett’s esophagus and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Is there an area of focus you feel passionate about?
Dr. Jain: Through AGA, I was the cochair of the IBD Parenthood Project, which convened subject-matter experts outside of GI, including maternal-fetal medicine, lactation experts, and patients. We came up with a care pathway for women in their reproductive years who have inflammatory bowel disease, including how they should think about family planning and what they should do during pregnancy and then the postpartum. Those kinds of things have really kept me energized. It’s sort of an antidote to burnout.
Q: Who are your mentors?
Dr. Jain: I would say the late Dan Foster, MD, who was the chair of medicine at UT Southwestern, and Mark Feldman, MD, AGAF, who held leadership roles at the Dallas VA Medical Center and then Texas Health Dallas. He retired a few years ago. They both expected physicians to understand the knowledge of how we were taking care of the patient and our professionalism. There’s also my senior partner, Peter Loeb, MD, AGAF, who’s now retired. He had an insatiable appetite for knowledge. Every time I’d come back from a meeting, he’d say, “Rajeev, tell me three things you learned.” He always kept patients as the primary North Star; that whatever we did, we were thinking, “Is it best for the patient?”
Lightning Round:
Favorite type of music?
1980s alternative
Favorite movie genre?
Comedy
Cat person or dog person?
Dog
Favorite sport:
College football
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
“I Ran,” by a Flock of Seagulls
Doctors With Limited Vacation Have Increased Burnout Risk
A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.
Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.
Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
Limited Vacation Days
A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.
Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
Administrative Tasks
Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.
Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
Lack of Coverage
Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.
Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
Vacation Lowers Risk
Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.
However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
System-Level Interventions
The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.
“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”
This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.
Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.
Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
Limited Vacation Days
A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.
Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
Administrative Tasks
Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.
Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
Lack of Coverage
Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.
Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
Vacation Lowers Risk
Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.
However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
System-Level Interventions
The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.
“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”
This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.
Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.
Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
Limited Vacation Days
A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.
Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
Administrative Tasks
Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.
Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
Lack of Coverage
Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.
Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
Vacation Lowers Risk
Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.
However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
System-Level Interventions
The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.
“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”
This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.