Practice Management

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

On Nov. 22, three Food and Drug Administration inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck. Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.

Seven months later, doctors and their patients are facing the unimaginable: In California, Virginia, and everywhere in between, they are being forced into grim contemplation of untested rationing plans for breast, cervical, bladder, ovarian, lung, testicular, and other cancers. Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, ADHD pills, blood thinners, and antibiotics. COVID-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry. Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.

The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures – undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?

“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, MD, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”

“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, MD, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Ark., who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin. Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.

“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, MD, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during COVID; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”

The cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives – though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects – are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.

Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.

“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”

Mr. McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family – his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight – were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.

At Dr. Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.

On June 2, Dr. Moore and colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale – only with mortal consequences at stake.

She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”

Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.
 

Generics manufacturers are pulling out

The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big negotiators of such purchases, such as Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February. Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Lannett, with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.

The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Mr. Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said. Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market. Mr. Sardella testified in May that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions.

The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.

Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.

Asked why it waited 2 months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”

Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-mg bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at dr. Moore’s clinic.

“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients – ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
 

Should government step in?

Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.

As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.

Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”

More lasting solutions are under discussion. Mr. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.

“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Va., that will produce dozens more, Mr. Coukell said.

Dr. Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri, MD, recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.

In fact, Dr. Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store 2 years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.

“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”

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

On Nov. 22, three Food and Drug Administration inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck. Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.

Seven months later, doctors and their patients are facing the unimaginable: In California, Virginia, and everywhere in between, they are being forced into grim contemplation of untested rationing plans for breast, cervical, bladder, ovarian, lung, testicular, and other cancers. Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, ADHD pills, blood thinners, and antibiotics. COVID-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry. Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.

The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures – undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?

“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, MD, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”

“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, MD, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Ark., who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin. Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.

“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, MD, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during COVID; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”

The cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives – though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects – are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.

Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.

“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”

Mr. McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family – his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight – were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.

At Dr. Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.

On June 2, Dr. Moore and colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale – only with mortal consequences at stake.

She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”

Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.
 

Generics manufacturers are pulling out

The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big negotiators of such purchases, such as Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February. Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Lannett, with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.

The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Mr. Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said. Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market. Mr. Sardella testified in May that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions.

The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.

Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.

Asked why it waited 2 months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”

Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-mg bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at dr. Moore’s clinic.

“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients – ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
 

Should government step in?

Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.

As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.

Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”

More lasting solutions are under discussion. Mr. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.

“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Va., that will produce dozens more, Mr. Coukell said.

Dr. Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri, MD, recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.

In fact, Dr. Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store 2 years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.

“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”

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

On Nov. 22, three Food and Drug Administration inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck. Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.

Seven months later, doctors and their patients are facing the unimaginable: In California, Virginia, and everywhere in between, they are being forced into grim contemplation of untested rationing plans for breast, cervical, bladder, ovarian, lung, testicular, and other cancers. Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, ADHD pills, blood thinners, and antibiotics. COVID-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry. Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.

The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures – undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?

“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, MD, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”

“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, MD, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Ark., who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin. Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.

“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, MD, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during COVID; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”

The cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives – though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects – are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.

Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.

“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”

Mr. McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family – his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight – were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.

At Dr. Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.

On June 2, Dr. Moore and colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale – only with mortal consequences at stake.

She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”

Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.
 

Generics manufacturers are pulling out

The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big negotiators of such purchases, such as Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February. Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Lannett, with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.

The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Mr. Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said. Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market. Mr. Sardella testified in May that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions.

The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.

Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.

Asked why it waited 2 months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”

Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-mg bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at dr. Moore’s clinic.

“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients – ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, MD, chair of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
 

Should government step in?

Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.

As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.

Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”

More lasting solutions are under discussion. Mr. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.

“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Va., that will produce dozens more, Mr. Coukell said.

Dr. Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri, MD, recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.

In fact, Dr. Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store 2 years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.

“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

An influential panel proposed capping Medicare Part B pay for some drugs, arguing this would remove financial incentives to use more costly medicines when there are less expensive equivalents.

Medical groups have objected to both this recommendation from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the panel’s underlying premise. MedPAC said financial as well as clinical factors can come into play in clinicians’ choices of drugs for patients.

In an interview, Christina Downey, MD, chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the American College of Rheumatology, said physicians in her field cannot switch patients’ medicines to try to make a profit.

“Patients only respond to the drugs that they respond to,” Dr. Downey said. “It’s frankly very insulting to say that physicians just force patients to go on medicines that are going to make them a bunch of money.”

In a June report to Congress, MedPAC recommended reducing the add-on payment for many drugs given in hospitals and clinics, which are thus covered by Part B, as part of a package of suggestions for addressing rising costs. Part B drug spending grew about 9% annually between 2009 and 2021, rising from $15.4 billion to $42.9 billion, MedPAC said.

Medicare’s current Part B drug pricing model starts with the reported average sales price (ASP) and then adds about 4.3% or 6%, depending on current budget-sequester law, to the cost of medicines.

MedPAC members voted 17-0 in April in favor of a general recommendation to revise the Part B payment approach. In the June report, MedPAC fleshes out this idea. It mentions a model in which the add-on Part B payment would be the lesser of either 6% of the ASP, 3% plus $24, or $220.

The majority of Part B drug administrations are for very low-priced drugs, MedPAC said. But for some of the more costly ones, annual prices can be more than $400,000 per patient, and future launch prices may be even higher for certain types of products, such as gene therapies, MedPAC said.

“There is no evidence that the costs of a drug’s administration are proportionate to the price of the drug,” MedPAC said.

Concerns about how well Medicare covers the cost of drug administration should be addressed through other pathways, such as the American Medical

Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), MedPAC said. AMA’s RUC advises the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the physician fee schedule.

Congress is not obliged to act on or to even consider MedPAC’s work. In general, lawmakers and CMS often pay heed to the panel’s recommendations, sometimes incorporating them into new policy.

But this new MedPAC Part B recommendation has drawn strong opposition, similar to the response to a 2016 CMS plan to cut the Part B add-on payment. That plan, which CMS later abandoned, would have cut the markup on Part B drugs to 2.5% and added a flat fee to cover administration costs.
 

Why not focus on PBMs instead?

The timing of the MedPAC recommendation is poor, given that CMS already is trying to implement the Inflation Reduction Act and create a new system of direct Medicare drug price negotiations, as ordered by Congress, said Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist based in New Orleans.

A better approach for lowering drug prices would be to focus more on the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), said Dr. Feldman, who also is vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations. A pending bipartisan Senate bill, for example, would prohibit PBM compensation based on the price of a drug as a condition of entering into a contract with a Medicare Part D plan.

Congress needs to take steps to unlink the profits of PBMs from higher drug prices, Dr. Feldman said.

“Until that happens, we can put all the lipstick we want on this big pig, but it’s not going to really fix the problem,” she said.
 

Reduced pay for drugs acquired through 340B program?

In an interview about the new MedPAC proposal, Ted Okon, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, urged renewed attention to what he sees as unintended consequences of the 340B discount drug program.

Under this program, certain hospitals can acquire drugs at steeply reduced prices, but they are not obliged to share those discounts with patients. Hospitals that participate in the 340B program can gain funds when patients and their insurers, including Medicare, pay more for the medicines hospitals and other organizations acquired with the 340B discount. Hospitals say they use the money from the 340B program to expand resources in their communities.

But rapid growth of the program in recent years has led to questions, especially about the role of contract pharmacies that manage the program. Congress created the 340B program in 1992 as a workaround to then new rules on Medicaid drug coverage.

In 2021, participating hospitals and clinics and organizations purchased about $44 billion worth of medicines through the 340B drug program. This was an increase of 16% from the previous year, according to a report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. The number of sites, including hospitals and pharmacies, enrolled in the 340B program rose from 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 by 2020, the report said.

MedPAC in 2016 urged CMS to reduce the amount Medicare pays for drugs acquired through the 340B program. CMS did so during the Trump administration, a policy later defended by the Biden administration.

But the U.S. Supreme Court last year said Medicare erred in its approach to making this cut, as earlier reported. Federal law required that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a survey to support such a step, and HHS did not do this, the court said. CMS thus was ordered to return Medicare to the ASP+6% payment model for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program.

In the June report, though, MedPAC stuck by its 2016 recommendation that Medicare reduce its payments for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program despite this setback.

“We continue to believe that this approach is appropriate, and the specific level of payment reduction could be considered further as newer data become available,” MedPAC said.
 

Hospital, PhRMA split

Hospitals would certainly contest any renewed bid by CMS to drop Medicare’s pay for drugs purchased through the 340B program. The American Hospital Association objected to the MedPAC proposal regarding the add-on payment in Part B drug pricing.

MedPAC commissioners discussed this idea at a January meeting, prompting a February letter from the AHA to the panel. Like Dr. Feldman, AHA said it would be “premature” to launch into a revision of Part B drug pricing while the impact of the IRA on drug prices was still unclear.

AHA also noted that a reduction in Part B drug reimbursement would “shift the responsibility for the rapid increase in drug prices away from drug manufacturers, and instead places the burden on hospitals and patients.”

But the AHA gave a much warmer reception to another proposal MedPAC considered this year and that it included in its June report, which is a plan to address the high cost of certain drugs of as yet unconfirmed clinical benefit.

In April, the AHA said it supports a move toward a “value-based approach” in certain cases in which first-in-class medicines are sold under U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approvals. Medicare could then cap payment for such drugs that have excessively high launch prices and uncertain clinical benefit, AHA said.

In the June report, MedPAC recommended that Medicare be able to place such a limit on Part B payments in certain cases, including ones in which companies do not meet FDA deadlines for postmarketing confirmatory trials.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) objected to this proposed change. The trade group for drugmakers said the FDA often revises and extends enrollment milestones for pending confirmatory trials when companies hit snags, such as challenges in enrolling patients, PhRMA said.

Reducing Part B payment for drugs for which confirmatory trials have been delayed would have a “disproportionate impact” on smaller and rural communities, where independent practices struggle to keep their doors open as it is, PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo wrote in a blog post.

“If physicians can’t afford to administer a medicine, then they won’t and that means their patients won’t have access to them either,” Ms. Longo wrote.

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

An influential panel proposed capping Medicare Part B pay for some drugs, arguing this would remove financial incentives to use more costly medicines when there are less expensive equivalents.

Medical groups have objected to both this recommendation from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the panel’s underlying premise. MedPAC said financial as well as clinical factors can come into play in clinicians’ choices of drugs for patients.

In an interview, Christina Downey, MD, chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the American College of Rheumatology, said physicians in her field cannot switch patients’ medicines to try to make a profit.

“Patients only respond to the drugs that they respond to,” Dr. Downey said. “It’s frankly very insulting to say that physicians just force patients to go on medicines that are going to make them a bunch of money.”

In a June report to Congress, MedPAC recommended reducing the add-on payment for many drugs given in hospitals and clinics, which are thus covered by Part B, as part of a package of suggestions for addressing rising costs. Part B drug spending grew about 9% annually between 2009 and 2021, rising from $15.4 billion to $42.9 billion, MedPAC said.

Medicare’s current Part B drug pricing model starts with the reported average sales price (ASP) and then adds about 4.3% or 6%, depending on current budget-sequester law, to the cost of medicines.

MedPAC members voted 17-0 in April in favor of a general recommendation to revise the Part B payment approach. In the June report, MedPAC fleshes out this idea. It mentions a model in which the add-on Part B payment would be the lesser of either 6% of the ASP, 3% plus $24, or $220.

The majority of Part B drug administrations are for very low-priced drugs, MedPAC said. But for some of the more costly ones, annual prices can be more than $400,000 per patient, and future launch prices may be even higher for certain types of products, such as gene therapies, MedPAC said.

“There is no evidence that the costs of a drug’s administration are proportionate to the price of the drug,” MedPAC said.

Concerns about how well Medicare covers the cost of drug administration should be addressed through other pathways, such as the American Medical

Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), MedPAC said. AMA’s RUC advises the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the physician fee schedule.

Congress is not obliged to act on or to even consider MedPAC’s work. In general, lawmakers and CMS often pay heed to the panel’s recommendations, sometimes incorporating them into new policy.

But this new MedPAC Part B recommendation has drawn strong opposition, similar to the response to a 2016 CMS plan to cut the Part B add-on payment. That plan, which CMS later abandoned, would have cut the markup on Part B drugs to 2.5% and added a flat fee to cover administration costs.
 

Why not focus on PBMs instead?

The timing of the MedPAC recommendation is poor, given that CMS already is trying to implement the Inflation Reduction Act and create a new system of direct Medicare drug price negotiations, as ordered by Congress, said Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist based in New Orleans.

A better approach for lowering drug prices would be to focus more on the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), said Dr. Feldman, who also is vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations. A pending bipartisan Senate bill, for example, would prohibit PBM compensation based on the price of a drug as a condition of entering into a contract with a Medicare Part D plan.

Congress needs to take steps to unlink the profits of PBMs from higher drug prices, Dr. Feldman said.

“Until that happens, we can put all the lipstick we want on this big pig, but it’s not going to really fix the problem,” she said.
 

Reduced pay for drugs acquired through 340B program?

In an interview about the new MedPAC proposal, Ted Okon, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, urged renewed attention to what he sees as unintended consequences of the 340B discount drug program.

Under this program, certain hospitals can acquire drugs at steeply reduced prices, but they are not obliged to share those discounts with patients. Hospitals that participate in the 340B program can gain funds when patients and their insurers, including Medicare, pay more for the medicines hospitals and other organizations acquired with the 340B discount. Hospitals say they use the money from the 340B program to expand resources in their communities.

But rapid growth of the program in recent years has led to questions, especially about the role of contract pharmacies that manage the program. Congress created the 340B program in 1992 as a workaround to then new rules on Medicaid drug coverage.

In 2021, participating hospitals and clinics and organizations purchased about $44 billion worth of medicines through the 340B drug program. This was an increase of 16% from the previous year, according to a report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. The number of sites, including hospitals and pharmacies, enrolled in the 340B program rose from 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 by 2020, the report said.

MedPAC in 2016 urged CMS to reduce the amount Medicare pays for drugs acquired through the 340B program. CMS did so during the Trump administration, a policy later defended by the Biden administration.

But the U.S. Supreme Court last year said Medicare erred in its approach to making this cut, as earlier reported. Federal law required that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a survey to support such a step, and HHS did not do this, the court said. CMS thus was ordered to return Medicare to the ASP+6% payment model for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program.

In the June report, though, MedPAC stuck by its 2016 recommendation that Medicare reduce its payments for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program despite this setback.

“We continue to believe that this approach is appropriate, and the specific level of payment reduction could be considered further as newer data become available,” MedPAC said.
 

Hospital, PhRMA split

Hospitals would certainly contest any renewed bid by CMS to drop Medicare’s pay for drugs purchased through the 340B program. The American Hospital Association objected to the MedPAC proposal regarding the add-on payment in Part B drug pricing.

MedPAC commissioners discussed this idea at a January meeting, prompting a February letter from the AHA to the panel. Like Dr. Feldman, AHA said it would be “premature” to launch into a revision of Part B drug pricing while the impact of the IRA on drug prices was still unclear.

AHA also noted that a reduction in Part B drug reimbursement would “shift the responsibility for the rapid increase in drug prices away from drug manufacturers, and instead places the burden on hospitals and patients.”

But the AHA gave a much warmer reception to another proposal MedPAC considered this year and that it included in its June report, which is a plan to address the high cost of certain drugs of as yet unconfirmed clinical benefit.

In April, the AHA said it supports a move toward a “value-based approach” in certain cases in which first-in-class medicines are sold under U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approvals. Medicare could then cap payment for such drugs that have excessively high launch prices and uncertain clinical benefit, AHA said.

In the June report, MedPAC recommended that Medicare be able to place such a limit on Part B payments in certain cases, including ones in which companies do not meet FDA deadlines for postmarketing confirmatory trials.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) objected to this proposed change. The trade group for drugmakers said the FDA often revises and extends enrollment milestones for pending confirmatory trials when companies hit snags, such as challenges in enrolling patients, PhRMA said.

Reducing Part B payment for drugs for which confirmatory trials have been delayed would have a “disproportionate impact” on smaller and rural communities, where independent practices struggle to keep their doors open as it is, PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo wrote in a blog post.

“If physicians can’t afford to administer a medicine, then they won’t and that means their patients won’t have access to them either,” Ms. Longo wrote.

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

An influential panel proposed capping Medicare Part B pay for some drugs, arguing this would remove financial incentives to use more costly medicines when there are less expensive equivalents.

Medical groups have objected to both this recommendation from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the panel’s underlying premise. MedPAC said financial as well as clinical factors can come into play in clinicians’ choices of drugs for patients.

In an interview, Christina Downey, MD, chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the American College of Rheumatology, said physicians in her field cannot switch patients’ medicines to try to make a profit.

“Patients only respond to the drugs that they respond to,” Dr. Downey said. “It’s frankly very insulting to say that physicians just force patients to go on medicines that are going to make them a bunch of money.”

In a June report to Congress, MedPAC recommended reducing the add-on payment for many drugs given in hospitals and clinics, which are thus covered by Part B, as part of a package of suggestions for addressing rising costs. Part B drug spending grew about 9% annually between 2009 and 2021, rising from $15.4 billion to $42.9 billion, MedPAC said.

Medicare’s current Part B drug pricing model starts with the reported average sales price (ASP) and then adds about 4.3% or 6%, depending on current budget-sequester law, to the cost of medicines.

MedPAC members voted 17-0 in April in favor of a general recommendation to revise the Part B payment approach. In the June report, MedPAC fleshes out this idea. It mentions a model in which the add-on Part B payment would be the lesser of either 6% of the ASP, 3% plus $24, or $220.

The majority of Part B drug administrations are for very low-priced drugs, MedPAC said. But for some of the more costly ones, annual prices can be more than $400,000 per patient, and future launch prices may be even higher for certain types of products, such as gene therapies, MedPAC said.

“There is no evidence that the costs of a drug’s administration are proportionate to the price of the drug,” MedPAC said.

Concerns about how well Medicare covers the cost of drug administration should be addressed through other pathways, such as the American Medical

Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), MedPAC said. AMA’s RUC advises the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the physician fee schedule.

Congress is not obliged to act on or to even consider MedPAC’s work. In general, lawmakers and CMS often pay heed to the panel’s recommendations, sometimes incorporating them into new policy.

But this new MedPAC Part B recommendation has drawn strong opposition, similar to the response to a 2016 CMS plan to cut the Part B add-on payment. That plan, which CMS later abandoned, would have cut the markup on Part B drugs to 2.5% and added a flat fee to cover administration costs.
 

Why not focus on PBMs instead?

The timing of the MedPAC recommendation is poor, given that CMS already is trying to implement the Inflation Reduction Act and create a new system of direct Medicare drug price negotiations, as ordered by Congress, said Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist based in New Orleans.

A better approach for lowering drug prices would be to focus more on the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), said Dr. Feldman, who also is vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations. A pending bipartisan Senate bill, for example, would prohibit PBM compensation based on the price of a drug as a condition of entering into a contract with a Medicare Part D plan.

Congress needs to take steps to unlink the profits of PBMs from higher drug prices, Dr. Feldman said.

“Until that happens, we can put all the lipstick we want on this big pig, but it’s not going to really fix the problem,” she said.
 

Reduced pay for drugs acquired through 340B program?

In an interview about the new MedPAC proposal, Ted Okon, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, urged renewed attention to what he sees as unintended consequences of the 340B discount drug program.

Under this program, certain hospitals can acquire drugs at steeply reduced prices, but they are not obliged to share those discounts with patients. Hospitals that participate in the 340B program can gain funds when patients and their insurers, including Medicare, pay more for the medicines hospitals and other organizations acquired with the 340B discount. Hospitals say they use the money from the 340B program to expand resources in their communities.

But rapid growth of the program in recent years has led to questions, especially about the role of contract pharmacies that manage the program. Congress created the 340B program in 1992 as a workaround to then new rules on Medicaid drug coverage.

In 2021, participating hospitals and clinics and organizations purchased about $44 billion worth of medicines through the 340B drug program. This was an increase of 16% from the previous year, according to a report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. The number of sites, including hospitals and pharmacies, enrolled in the 340B program rose from 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 by 2020, the report said.

MedPAC in 2016 urged CMS to reduce the amount Medicare pays for drugs acquired through the 340B program. CMS did so during the Trump administration, a policy later defended by the Biden administration.

But the U.S. Supreme Court last year said Medicare erred in its approach to making this cut, as earlier reported. Federal law required that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a survey to support such a step, and HHS did not do this, the court said. CMS thus was ordered to return Medicare to the ASP+6% payment model for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program.

In the June report, though, MedPAC stuck by its 2016 recommendation that Medicare reduce its payments for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program despite this setback.

“We continue to believe that this approach is appropriate, and the specific level of payment reduction could be considered further as newer data become available,” MedPAC said.
 

Hospital, PhRMA split

Hospitals would certainly contest any renewed bid by CMS to drop Medicare’s pay for drugs purchased through the 340B program. The American Hospital Association objected to the MedPAC proposal regarding the add-on payment in Part B drug pricing.

MedPAC commissioners discussed this idea at a January meeting, prompting a February letter from the AHA to the panel. Like Dr. Feldman, AHA said it would be “premature” to launch into a revision of Part B drug pricing while the impact of the IRA on drug prices was still unclear.

AHA also noted that a reduction in Part B drug reimbursement would “shift the responsibility for the rapid increase in drug prices away from drug manufacturers, and instead places the burden on hospitals and patients.”

But the AHA gave a much warmer reception to another proposal MedPAC considered this year and that it included in its June report, which is a plan to address the high cost of certain drugs of as yet unconfirmed clinical benefit.

In April, the AHA said it supports a move toward a “value-based approach” in certain cases in which first-in-class medicines are sold under U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approvals. Medicare could then cap payment for such drugs that have excessively high launch prices and uncertain clinical benefit, AHA said.

In the June report, MedPAC recommended that Medicare be able to place such a limit on Part B payments in certain cases, including ones in which companies do not meet FDA deadlines for postmarketing confirmatory trials.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) objected to this proposed change. The trade group for drugmakers said the FDA often revises and extends enrollment milestones for pending confirmatory trials when companies hit snags, such as challenges in enrolling patients, PhRMA said.

Reducing Part B payment for drugs for which confirmatory trials have been delayed would have a “disproportionate impact” on smaller and rural communities, where independent practices struggle to keep their doors open as it is, PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo wrote in a blog post.

“If physicians can’t afford to administer a medicine, then they won’t and that means their patients won’t have access to them either,” Ms. Longo wrote.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

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

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

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

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

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

Oncologists commonly suffer “professional grief” when a patient dies – in fact, it is a “familiar, daily reality for the oncology clinician,” says one – but when it is also accompanied by a sense of emotional isolation, it can lead to reduced well-being and burnout.

The issue was discussed at a special session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and several speakers offered solutions.  

Laurie Jean Lyckholm, MD, professor, Hematology/Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, polled the audience to ask how they deal with patient-related loss and grief.

The responses showed that 44.4% said they talk with their colleagues, 16.7% said they talk about it with family and friends, but 22.2% said that they simply move on to the next patient.

Dr. Lyckholm noted that there are positive and negative ways of dealing with grief.

One example of a positive way comes from an oncologist who attended one of her talks and shared with her how his practice deals with the issue.

“At the end of every fourth Friday, he closes his community practice office early and all the oncologists, everyone, stays for a while, and they have a list of the people who have died,” Dr. Lyckholm explained. As a group, they go through the list and reminisce about the patients who died, recalling funny incidents or things that person had said.

“I love this idea,” she said. “The most important thing is to commemorate that person.”
 

Amplified during pandemic

Like many other issues, the problem of how to deal with “professional grief” was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people were unable to see their dying relatives because of the restricted access to sealed-off, dedicated COVID-19 units. One oncologist who had developed a friendly relationship with a patient while treating them for cancer over several years was unable to visit the patient once they were ill with the disease and was left to communicate via an iPad. “It was the only way I could say ‘goodbye’ before she died. ... It still haunts me today, 2 years later,” the clinician recalled.

This anecdote illustrates “disenfranchised grief,” which occurs when an individual experiences a “significant loss and the resultant grief is not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned,” Dr. Lyckholm explained.

If this goes unrecognized, it can lead to shame, guilt, and organizational mistrust, resulting in reduced well-being and clinician burnout, she warned.

The pandemic also had an impact on clinicians directly. Dr. Lyckholm quoted one nurse practitioner who talked about coming back to a new “lonely normal” when returning to a Veterans Affairs hospital.

“I am still getting used to calling colleagues, and paging colleagues, and realizing that they just aren’t there,” the nurse practitioner said. “They aren’t there because they either left or died. I just didn’t expect that.”

Dr. Lyckholm said, “I don’t think we can ever stop acknowledging COVID, because it just had such a terrible impact on all of us.”
 

Teamwork intervention

The next speaker also polled the audience. Christopher Ryan Friese, PhD, RN, AOCN, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked the audience what strategy they would prioritize to reduce burnout, from the perspective of the entire cancer care team.

The response indicated that many (43.6%) would like to see team-based grief and bereavement sessions, while 31.1% thought it best to tackle low-value administrative work.

Dr. Friese drew on a teamwork intervention that researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, with support from the National Cancer Institute, implemented to help identify opportunities to improve cancer care delivery services.

It began with a focus group of nurses who were invited to identify practice pain points, then six 2-hour sessions with all members of the clinical team to identify and develop service expectations and commitments across the various roles.

After these sessions, the researchers saw a decrease in missing orders from 30% to 2%, while patient satisfaction increased from 93% to 97% as a result. Interestingly, there was also a reported rise in efficiency, practice quality and safety, and respectful professional behaviors.

The pilot was then rolled out across the whole institution, and Dr. Friese and colleagues also implemented a version of the program at their community medical oncology practice.

They had a huge response from patients and clinicians alike (with participation rates of 90% and 78%, respectively), and the survey results led to changes in workflow and the standardization of communications.

Importantly for Dr. Friese, the clinicians who took part wanted to repeat the survey to evaluate any practice changes, which was not part of the study protocol and had not been envisaged by the researchers.

So they developed a survey for clinicians, using as an inspiration the Choosing Wisely campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to identify the best treatments to improve patient outcomes and those to deprioritize.

They used the survey on 373 clinicians at the University of Michigan Health System and found that “the number one thing was getting rid of the administrative work” – that it doesn’t have to be done specifically by physicians or other providers and that other people can do it.

The second was time-consuming electronic health record tasks.

Both of these have since been the focus of an elimination and reduction process to give clinicians more time to do what matters most to them and their patients.

“We have the opportunity to do this in a different way,” Dr. Friese said, “and I think it’s a really powerful opportunity.”

“We can retrofit the solution, which is the pizza parties, and the yoga apps, and the T-shirts ... [or] we could actually redesign the work that we’re asking clinicians to do on a daily basis,” he commented.

“We could make the work easier to do so that you have more time with patients and less time with administrative work and have more time to process grief or to celebrate successes,” he concluded.
 

Tackling burnout

The final speaker, Vicki A. Jackson, MD, MPH, chief of palliative care, Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that the recognition of grief by a cancer care provider is “imperative” for physician well-being and pointed out that that interventions to help “do exist,” including ASCO’s SafeHaven collection of physician well-being resources.

Oncology inherently carries with it “threats” to well-being, including uncertainty and doubt, isolation, fears over one’s usefulness, exhaustion, the witnessing of suffering, and moral distress, she noted.

Things that are necessary for well-being, in contrast, include a sense of connection and community, having boundaries between work and personal life, self-awareness, compassion, and empowerment, among others.

Dr. Jackson believes that in the current era community building within oncology must be “intentional” and not just based around “water cooler moments,” as the sense of isolation experienced by clinicians is “not fluff; this is critical.”

Initiatives such as virtual happy hours and game nights may be helpful, she suggested.

A colleague of hers likes to send out the dad joke of the day, “which made everybody groan, but let me tell you, it changed the affective tone before they started seeing all these really hard, sad patients.”

Setting boundaries, which was the topic of another session at ASCO 2023, is also an important way to address the “emotionally powerful” work of oncology, Dr. Jackson commented.

She underlined the need to channel or be “fully present when you are in the room” but emphasized the need to detach at the end of the day, commenting that “when you leave, you leave.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Friese reported relationships with Merck, NCCN/Pfizer, National Cancer Institute, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Simms/Mann Foundation. No other speakers reported relevant financial relationships.

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

Oncologists commonly suffer “professional grief” when a patient dies – in fact, it is a “familiar, daily reality for the oncology clinician,” says one – but when it is also accompanied by a sense of emotional isolation, it can lead to reduced well-being and burnout.

The issue was discussed at a special session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and several speakers offered solutions.  

Laurie Jean Lyckholm, MD, professor, Hematology/Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, polled the audience to ask how they deal with patient-related loss and grief.

The responses showed that 44.4% said they talk with their colleagues, 16.7% said they talk about it with family and friends, but 22.2% said that they simply move on to the next patient.

Dr. Lyckholm noted that there are positive and negative ways of dealing with grief.

One example of a positive way comes from an oncologist who attended one of her talks and shared with her how his practice deals with the issue.

“At the end of every fourth Friday, he closes his community practice office early and all the oncologists, everyone, stays for a while, and they have a list of the people who have died,” Dr. Lyckholm explained. As a group, they go through the list and reminisce about the patients who died, recalling funny incidents or things that person had said.

“I love this idea,” she said. “The most important thing is to commemorate that person.”
 

Amplified during pandemic

Like many other issues, the problem of how to deal with “professional grief” was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people were unable to see their dying relatives because of the restricted access to sealed-off, dedicated COVID-19 units. One oncologist who had developed a friendly relationship with a patient while treating them for cancer over several years was unable to visit the patient once they were ill with the disease and was left to communicate via an iPad. “It was the only way I could say ‘goodbye’ before she died. ... It still haunts me today, 2 years later,” the clinician recalled.

This anecdote illustrates “disenfranchised grief,” which occurs when an individual experiences a “significant loss and the resultant grief is not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned,” Dr. Lyckholm explained.

If this goes unrecognized, it can lead to shame, guilt, and organizational mistrust, resulting in reduced well-being and clinician burnout, she warned.

The pandemic also had an impact on clinicians directly. Dr. Lyckholm quoted one nurse practitioner who talked about coming back to a new “lonely normal” when returning to a Veterans Affairs hospital.

“I am still getting used to calling colleagues, and paging colleagues, and realizing that they just aren’t there,” the nurse practitioner said. “They aren’t there because they either left or died. I just didn’t expect that.”

Dr. Lyckholm said, “I don’t think we can ever stop acknowledging COVID, because it just had such a terrible impact on all of us.”
 

Teamwork intervention

The next speaker also polled the audience. Christopher Ryan Friese, PhD, RN, AOCN, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked the audience what strategy they would prioritize to reduce burnout, from the perspective of the entire cancer care team.

The response indicated that many (43.6%) would like to see team-based grief and bereavement sessions, while 31.1% thought it best to tackle low-value administrative work.

Dr. Friese drew on a teamwork intervention that researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, with support from the National Cancer Institute, implemented to help identify opportunities to improve cancer care delivery services.

It began with a focus group of nurses who were invited to identify practice pain points, then six 2-hour sessions with all members of the clinical team to identify and develop service expectations and commitments across the various roles.

After these sessions, the researchers saw a decrease in missing orders from 30% to 2%, while patient satisfaction increased from 93% to 97% as a result. Interestingly, there was also a reported rise in efficiency, practice quality and safety, and respectful professional behaviors.

The pilot was then rolled out across the whole institution, and Dr. Friese and colleagues also implemented a version of the program at their community medical oncology practice.

They had a huge response from patients and clinicians alike (with participation rates of 90% and 78%, respectively), and the survey results led to changes in workflow and the standardization of communications.

Importantly for Dr. Friese, the clinicians who took part wanted to repeat the survey to evaluate any practice changes, which was not part of the study protocol and had not been envisaged by the researchers.

So they developed a survey for clinicians, using as an inspiration the Choosing Wisely campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to identify the best treatments to improve patient outcomes and those to deprioritize.

They used the survey on 373 clinicians at the University of Michigan Health System and found that “the number one thing was getting rid of the administrative work” – that it doesn’t have to be done specifically by physicians or other providers and that other people can do it.

The second was time-consuming electronic health record tasks.

Both of these have since been the focus of an elimination and reduction process to give clinicians more time to do what matters most to them and their patients.

“We have the opportunity to do this in a different way,” Dr. Friese said, “and I think it’s a really powerful opportunity.”

“We can retrofit the solution, which is the pizza parties, and the yoga apps, and the T-shirts ... [or] we could actually redesign the work that we’re asking clinicians to do on a daily basis,” he commented.

“We could make the work easier to do so that you have more time with patients and less time with administrative work and have more time to process grief or to celebrate successes,” he concluded.
 

Tackling burnout

The final speaker, Vicki A. Jackson, MD, MPH, chief of palliative care, Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that the recognition of grief by a cancer care provider is “imperative” for physician well-being and pointed out that that interventions to help “do exist,” including ASCO’s SafeHaven collection of physician well-being resources.

Oncology inherently carries with it “threats” to well-being, including uncertainty and doubt, isolation, fears over one’s usefulness, exhaustion, the witnessing of suffering, and moral distress, she noted.

Things that are necessary for well-being, in contrast, include a sense of connection and community, having boundaries between work and personal life, self-awareness, compassion, and empowerment, among others.

Dr. Jackson believes that in the current era community building within oncology must be “intentional” and not just based around “water cooler moments,” as the sense of isolation experienced by clinicians is “not fluff; this is critical.”

Initiatives such as virtual happy hours and game nights may be helpful, she suggested.

A colleague of hers likes to send out the dad joke of the day, “which made everybody groan, but let me tell you, it changed the affective tone before they started seeing all these really hard, sad patients.”

Setting boundaries, which was the topic of another session at ASCO 2023, is also an important way to address the “emotionally powerful” work of oncology, Dr. Jackson commented.

She underlined the need to channel or be “fully present when you are in the room” but emphasized the need to detach at the end of the day, commenting that “when you leave, you leave.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Friese reported relationships with Merck, NCCN/Pfizer, National Cancer Institute, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Simms/Mann Foundation. No other speakers reported relevant financial relationships.

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

Oncologists commonly suffer “professional grief” when a patient dies – in fact, it is a “familiar, daily reality for the oncology clinician,” says one – but when it is also accompanied by a sense of emotional isolation, it can lead to reduced well-being and burnout.

The issue was discussed at a special session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and several speakers offered solutions.  

Laurie Jean Lyckholm, MD, professor, Hematology/Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, polled the audience to ask how they deal with patient-related loss and grief.

The responses showed that 44.4% said they talk with their colleagues, 16.7% said they talk about it with family and friends, but 22.2% said that they simply move on to the next patient.

Dr. Lyckholm noted that there are positive and negative ways of dealing with grief.

One example of a positive way comes from an oncologist who attended one of her talks and shared with her how his practice deals with the issue.

“At the end of every fourth Friday, he closes his community practice office early and all the oncologists, everyone, stays for a while, and they have a list of the people who have died,” Dr. Lyckholm explained. As a group, they go through the list and reminisce about the patients who died, recalling funny incidents or things that person had said.

“I love this idea,” she said. “The most important thing is to commemorate that person.”
 

Amplified during pandemic

Like many other issues, the problem of how to deal with “professional grief” was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people were unable to see their dying relatives because of the restricted access to sealed-off, dedicated COVID-19 units. One oncologist who had developed a friendly relationship with a patient while treating them for cancer over several years was unable to visit the patient once they were ill with the disease and was left to communicate via an iPad. “It was the only way I could say ‘goodbye’ before she died. ... It still haunts me today, 2 years later,” the clinician recalled.

This anecdote illustrates “disenfranchised grief,” which occurs when an individual experiences a “significant loss and the resultant grief is not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned,” Dr. Lyckholm explained.

If this goes unrecognized, it can lead to shame, guilt, and organizational mistrust, resulting in reduced well-being and clinician burnout, she warned.

The pandemic also had an impact on clinicians directly. Dr. Lyckholm quoted one nurse practitioner who talked about coming back to a new “lonely normal” when returning to a Veterans Affairs hospital.

“I am still getting used to calling colleagues, and paging colleagues, and realizing that they just aren’t there,” the nurse practitioner said. “They aren’t there because they either left or died. I just didn’t expect that.”

Dr. Lyckholm said, “I don’t think we can ever stop acknowledging COVID, because it just had such a terrible impact on all of us.”
 

Teamwork intervention

The next speaker also polled the audience. Christopher Ryan Friese, PhD, RN, AOCN, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked the audience what strategy they would prioritize to reduce burnout, from the perspective of the entire cancer care team.

The response indicated that many (43.6%) would like to see team-based grief and bereavement sessions, while 31.1% thought it best to tackle low-value administrative work.

Dr. Friese drew on a teamwork intervention that researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, with support from the National Cancer Institute, implemented to help identify opportunities to improve cancer care delivery services.

It began with a focus group of nurses who were invited to identify practice pain points, then six 2-hour sessions with all members of the clinical team to identify and develop service expectations and commitments across the various roles.

After these sessions, the researchers saw a decrease in missing orders from 30% to 2%, while patient satisfaction increased from 93% to 97% as a result. Interestingly, there was also a reported rise in efficiency, practice quality and safety, and respectful professional behaviors.

The pilot was then rolled out across the whole institution, and Dr. Friese and colleagues also implemented a version of the program at their community medical oncology practice.

They had a huge response from patients and clinicians alike (with participation rates of 90% and 78%, respectively), and the survey results led to changes in workflow and the standardization of communications.

Importantly for Dr. Friese, the clinicians who took part wanted to repeat the survey to evaluate any practice changes, which was not part of the study protocol and had not been envisaged by the researchers.

So they developed a survey for clinicians, using as an inspiration the Choosing Wisely campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to identify the best treatments to improve patient outcomes and those to deprioritize.

They used the survey on 373 clinicians at the University of Michigan Health System and found that “the number one thing was getting rid of the administrative work” – that it doesn’t have to be done specifically by physicians or other providers and that other people can do it.

The second was time-consuming electronic health record tasks.

Both of these have since been the focus of an elimination and reduction process to give clinicians more time to do what matters most to them and their patients.

“We have the opportunity to do this in a different way,” Dr. Friese said, “and I think it’s a really powerful opportunity.”

“We can retrofit the solution, which is the pizza parties, and the yoga apps, and the T-shirts ... [or] we could actually redesign the work that we’re asking clinicians to do on a daily basis,” he commented.

“We could make the work easier to do so that you have more time with patients and less time with administrative work and have more time to process grief or to celebrate successes,” he concluded.
 

Tackling burnout

The final speaker, Vicki A. Jackson, MD, MPH, chief of palliative care, Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that the recognition of grief by a cancer care provider is “imperative” for physician well-being and pointed out that that interventions to help “do exist,” including ASCO’s SafeHaven collection of physician well-being resources.

Oncology inherently carries with it “threats” to well-being, including uncertainty and doubt, isolation, fears over one’s usefulness, exhaustion, the witnessing of suffering, and moral distress, she noted.

Things that are necessary for well-being, in contrast, include a sense of connection and community, having boundaries between work and personal life, self-awareness, compassion, and empowerment, among others.

Dr. Jackson believes that in the current era community building within oncology must be “intentional” and not just based around “water cooler moments,” as the sense of isolation experienced by clinicians is “not fluff; this is critical.”

Initiatives such as virtual happy hours and game nights may be helpful, she suggested.

A colleague of hers likes to send out the dad joke of the day, “which made everybody groan, but let me tell you, it changed the affective tone before they started seeing all these really hard, sad patients.”

Setting boundaries, which was the topic of another session at ASCO 2023, is also an important way to address the “emotionally powerful” work of oncology, Dr. Jackson commented.

She underlined the need to channel or be “fully present when you are in the room” but emphasized the need to detach at the end of the day, commenting that “when you leave, you leave.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Friese reported relationships with Merck, NCCN/Pfizer, National Cancer Institute, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Simms/Mann Foundation. No other speakers reported relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – For the chief patient officer of the American Cancer Society, this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology was a gem. And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.

Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.

Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:



Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?

Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.

For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).



Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?

A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.

Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.



Q: What else struck you as especially important research?

A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.

This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.

Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.



Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?

A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.

If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.

That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.



Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?

A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.



Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?

A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.



Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?

A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.

Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.

CHICAGO – For the chief patient officer of the American Cancer Society, this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology was a gem. And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.

Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.

Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:



Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?

Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.

For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).



Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?

A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.

Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.



Q: What else struck you as especially important research?

A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.

This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.

Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.



Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?

A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.

If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.

That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.



Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?

A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.



Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?

A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.



Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?

A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.

Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.

CHICAGO – For the chief patient officer of the American Cancer Society, this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology was a gem. And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.

Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.

Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:



Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?

Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.

For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).



Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?

A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.

Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.



Q: What else struck you as especially important research?

A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.

This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.

Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.



Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?

A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.

If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.

That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.



Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?

A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.



Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?

A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.



Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?

A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.

Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Oncologists need to learn how to set boundaries in their professional lives and how to address their fear of saying “no” to sometimes illusory career opportunities in order to protect their well-being and reduce their risk of burnout.

This was the message from speakers at a special session on “Setting Boundaries” during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Monica Sheila Chatwal, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., suggested that, like a painting in a museum, physicians should have “some level of guardrail” to protect their knowledge and expertise, and also their ability to be able to continue to care for patients.

Having set boundaries “provides more emotional and cognitive flexibility, and less uncertainty, in the relationships that we have with our colleagues, with our patients, with everyone around us,” she argued.

“More importantly, boundaries acknowledge that, as humans, we are multifaceted, multidimensional people,” and that “we have lives outside of medicine, much as we may or may not want to admit that.

“It’s great to be devoted to what we do, but there are so many other aspects of ourselves that make us who we are, and that is wonderful,” she said.
 

A calling, not a job

However, the idea of demarcating one’s professional and personal life can go against the still-persistent idea that being a doctor is a calling rather than a job.

“I don’t think it matters whether you call it a job or a calling,” commented another speaker at the session, Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer.

But even if it is a calling, which implies that “you are supposed to devote all of yourself to the work and not to anything else,” there is still a need for setting boundaries, he argued. Saying “no” and allowing “yourself to be yourself” are important measures, Dr. Marron emphasized, as taking time out can make you a better clinician.

Crucial to that is being able to communicate with colleagues and share a degree of “vulnerability,” added Dr. Chatwal. “Showing that you’re vulnerable not only to your trainees, but also to your staff and to your patients really normalizes everything.”

“I have nurses who are feeling like they have to work 24/7 and manage their inbox to answer all of their messages, because they feel like they have to keep up.

“But it’s nice for me to be able to model that and say: ‘Listen, I want you to know it’s not urgent, please take 24 hours and we’ll come back to it.’ ”
 

Communicating with patients

Dr. Chatwal noted that, while there are clear boundaries related to sexual or physical relationships between doctors and patients and around not treating family members or friends, the boundaries pertaining to communication, and “how frequently [patients] have access to us ... are not so clearly defined.”

The advent of telemedicine has added to that, she believes, as it offers a “patient portal that can allow access 24/7.”

“Does that mean we as physicians or providers also give that level of access? Are we supposed to check messages at all periods of time?”

“More and more people are becoming more cognizant of this,” she commented, noting that the issue has taken on greater import with the rise of social media and the “ability for our patients to request us as friends.”

She pointed out that former president of the American College of Physicians Wayne J. Riley, MD, MPH, MBA, suggested doctors should maintain an air of detachment with their patients, as “it allows us to protect ourselves and continue to provide that great level of care.”

On the other hand, she noted that there has been a sea change in how patients see doctors. Whereas in the past, medicine “was very paternalistic” with doctors seen as the “be all and end all,” now patients tend to be more knowledgeable and Dr. Google “makes them much more engaged in their care.”

But this can also cause problems when patients become “demanding for certain treatments,” she said.
 

Limits to ethical care?

Dr. Marron posed the question: “Is there a limit to my ethical obligations to ethical care?”

He described a hypothetical scenario where a patient has found their doctor’s email address online and they now sends “frequent emails, despite very clear instructions to use the on-call paging system for something that’s urgent, and the electronic health record messaging system otherwise.”

This patient’s behavior is “causing a huge amount of stress” for the doctor, and this is affecting their care of other patients, as well as their academic work and home life.

Dr. Marron asked the audience: Would it be ethically acceptable to stop seeing such a patient?

Taking a quick straw poll of the audience, Dr. Marron noted that there were “not a lot of hands” raised in favor.

He suggested this is because the notion of nonabandonment comes into play, in which there is an obligation to not let patients go without providing adequate time for them to find an alternative clinician.

In this scenario, for example, the doctor could find “several local oncologists who are willing to accept the patient,” as well as talk the situation through with a trusted colleagues, and only then “compassionately but resolutely” tell the patient that they will be transferred.

Dr. Marron acknowledged that this may seem at odds with the theme of this year’s ASCO annual meeting, which emphasizes “partnering with patients.” But he argued that “it doesn’t have to be.”

When thoughtfully done, setting boundaries “can ethically allow us to give more to, and partner more with, our patients, while supporting our well-being, sense of purpose, and job satisfaction,” he argued.
 

Goldilocks situation

Speaking more broadly, Dr. Marron said that boundaries might be considered on a spectrum.

Too few boundaries can lead to conflicts of interest, loss of balance in the patient-physician relationship, and overengagement, while too many boundaries may result in insufficient connection with patients, thus reducing the “human element” and increasing a sense of disengagement.

Either way, “we run the risk of having decreased satisfaction what with what we’re doing, and decreasing the quality of patient care.”

“It’s a little bit of a Goldilocks situation: You want to find just the right balance, somewhere in the middle,” he said.

In the past, issues around having too few boundaries related to conflicts of interest. This reduced trust in the medical profession, he commented, which may have affected patient outcomes, and certainly increased the risk of reduced well-being and burnout.

“Today, we probably still lie on the end of the spectrum with too few boundaries,” Dr. Marron said, “but in a very different way, as we worry about limited work-life balance, and always being connected.”

“I don’t think there’s anybody in the room who doesn’t have some kind of electronic device, either in their hand or not too far from their hand,” he continued.

Moreover, “the patients that we’re taking care of have a greater amount of complexity than they’ve ever had before ... [with] greater numbers of needs than ever before,” and as a result, they require “a greater amount of our time as clinicians.”

Just as with the lack of boundaries in the past, this “runs the risk of us having decreased well-being and an increased risk of burnout,” he suggested.
 

Wearing several hats

The third speaker, Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, associate professor of medicine and population health, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said that every oncologist wears several “hats” in addition to being a clinician.

These may include, in his case, being “a father, a husband, and a brother, and a soccer coach, and a lot of different things.”

Dr. Kamal underlined that recognizing these various roles is “really important,” especially when it comes to the “moment of comparison with others,” as there is a temptation to see one’s own complexity but not that of a colleague.

“The question is: What are all the other competing priorities that a person faces?”

For example, a person’s tally of publications is “just one of many metrics” when it comes to measuring the “success of a career, and, frankly, I’m not sure that’s one of the good ones,” Dr. Kamal said.

He recalled how a mentor of his when he was at the Mayo Clinic had a “remarkable dip” in the number of publications at a certain point in his career, and he explained to Dr. Kamal that this was the time “when my kids needed me the most.”

“That was really important,” Dr. Kamal said, “because it taught me a lesson about having mentors in your life that are not only focused on your career and academic success, but also those who are very interested in the other hats that you wear.”
 

Fear of saying no

One way of setting boundaries is saying no to certain requests, Dr. Kamal commented.

He gave an example from his own life – when he was at a soccer game and received  a call on his cell from a patient who has seen test results before he has had a chance to review them.

Dr. Kamal also painted a hypothetical scenario, where a doctor on junior faculty, staffing a GI oncology clinic 4 days a week, is also volunteering to collect and organize new cases for the tumor board, and is writing several letters of intent for pharmaceutical trials. They are saying “yes” to 90% of the requests for their time, he said, and the result is they go home “most days feeling like their tank is on empty.”

“Then this person gets asked by the division chief to serve on the hospital’s pain committee,” he said, “regardless of the fact that this is not necessarily in their clinical or research interests.”

“So this is really a bit of an [out of] left field request, and how does this person address this?”

Dr. Kamal said that a useful concept to consider is something commonly ascribed to teenagers, that of the fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The problem is that, “due to this concept of FOMO, when opportunities come your way, saying ‘no’ to them gives rise to the question: What if the opportunity never comes back?”

But Dr. Kamal also reminded the audience that “without being able to say no to things ... your capacity will go down.”

“That’s really important to recognize, because for a long time, healing professions have been thought of as [having] people that can continue to expand and expand and expand, without calling out this concept of inflation.”

This is really about “being true to yourself,” and acknowledging that “no one is going to set boundaries for you.”

“That was a tough lesson I learned in my career,” Dr. Kamal commented, and when he looked for guidance, he found that “everyone is struggling with this.”

Setting boundaries, he emphasized, requires “a certain amount of looking inward ... and it requires some bravery.”

“You just have to ask yourself: Is the only reason you’re going to do something because of FOMO?” Dr. Kamal commented. “Maybe that’s okay, but you have to acknowledge that’s the case.”

Dr. Chatwal reported a relationship with Merck. Dr. Marron reported relationships with Genzyme, Partner Therapeutics, ROM Technologies, Arnett, Draper, & Hagood, and Trentalange & Kelley. Dr. Kamal reported relationships with Acclivity Health, Prepped Health, Private Diagnostic Clinic, AstraZeneca, Care4ward, Compassus, HERON, Janssen Oncology, Medtronic, New Century Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Janssen Oncology.

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

CHICAGO – Oncologists need to learn how to set boundaries in their professional lives and how to address their fear of saying “no” to sometimes illusory career opportunities in order to protect their well-being and reduce their risk of burnout.

This was the message from speakers at a special session on “Setting Boundaries” during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Monica Sheila Chatwal, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., suggested that, like a painting in a museum, physicians should have “some level of guardrail” to protect their knowledge and expertise, and also their ability to be able to continue to care for patients.

Having set boundaries “provides more emotional and cognitive flexibility, and less uncertainty, in the relationships that we have with our colleagues, with our patients, with everyone around us,” she argued.

“More importantly, boundaries acknowledge that, as humans, we are multifaceted, multidimensional people,” and that “we have lives outside of medicine, much as we may or may not want to admit that.

“It’s great to be devoted to what we do, but there are so many other aspects of ourselves that make us who we are, and that is wonderful,” she said.
 

A calling, not a job

However, the idea of demarcating one’s professional and personal life can go against the still-persistent idea that being a doctor is a calling rather than a job.

“I don’t think it matters whether you call it a job or a calling,” commented another speaker at the session, Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer.

But even if it is a calling, which implies that “you are supposed to devote all of yourself to the work and not to anything else,” there is still a need for setting boundaries, he argued. Saying “no” and allowing “yourself to be yourself” are important measures, Dr. Marron emphasized, as taking time out can make you a better clinician.

Crucial to that is being able to communicate with colleagues and share a degree of “vulnerability,” added Dr. Chatwal. “Showing that you’re vulnerable not only to your trainees, but also to your staff and to your patients really normalizes everything.”

“I have nurses who are feeling like they have to work 24/7 and manage their inbox to answer all of their messages, because they feel like they have to keep up.

“But it’s nice for me to be able to model that and say: ‘Listen, I want you to know it’s not urgent, please take 24 hours and we’ll come back to it.’ ”
 

Communicating with patients

Dr. Chatwal noted that, while there are clear boundaries related to sexual or physical relationships between doctors and patients and around not treating family members or friends, the boundaries pertaining to communication, and “how frequently [patients] have access to us ... are not so clearly defined.”

The advent of telemedicine has added to that, she believes, as it offers a “patient portal that can allow access 24/7.”

“Does that mean we as physicians or providers also give that level of access? Are we supposed to check messages at all periods of time?”

“More and more people are becoming more cognizant of this,” she commented, noting that the issue has taken on greater import with the rise of social media and the “ability for our patients to request us as friends.”

She pointed out that former president of the American College of Physicians Wayne J. Riley, MD, MPH, MBA, suggested doctors should maintain an air of detachment with their patients, as “it allows us to protect ourselves and continue to provide that great level of care.”

On the other hand, she noted that there has been a sea change in how patients see doctors. Whereas in the past, medicine “was very paternalistic” with doctors seen as the “be all and end all,” now patients tend to be more knowledgeable and Dr. Google “makes them much more engaged in their care.”

But this can also cause problems when patients become “demanding for certain treatments,” she said.
 

Limits to ethical care?

Dr. Marron posed the question: “Is there a limit to my ethical obligations to ethical care?”

He described a hypothetical scenario where a patient has found their doctor’s email address online and they now sends “frequent emails, despite very clear instructions to use the on-call paging system for something that’s urgent, and the electronic health record messaging system otherwise.”

This patient’s behavior is “causing a huge amount of stress” for the doctor, and this is affecting their care of other patients, as well as their academic work and home life.

Dr. Marron asked the audience: Would it be ethically acceptable to stop seeing such a patient?

Taking a quick straw poll of the audience, Dr. Marron noted that there were “not a lot of hands” raised in favor.

He suggested this is because the notion of nonabandonment comes into play, in which there is an obligation to not let patients go without providing adequate time for them to find an alternative clinician.

In this scenario, for example, the doctor could find “several local oncologists who are willing to accept the patient,” as well as talk the situation through with a trusted colleagues, and only then “compassionately but resolutely” tell the patient that they will be transferred.

Dr. Marron acknowledged that this may seem at odds with the theme of this year’s ASCO annual meeting, which emphasizes “partnering with patients.” But he argued that “it doesn’t have to be.”

When thoughtfully done, setting boundaries “can ethically allow us to give more to, and partner more with, our patients, while supporting our well-being, sense of purpose, and job satisfaction,” he argued.
 

Goldilocks situation

Speaking more broadly, Dr. Marron said that boundaries might be considered on a spectrum.

Too few boundaries can lead to conflicts of interest, loss of balance in the patient-physician relationship, and overengagement, while too many boundaries may result in insufficient connection with patients, thus reducing the “human element” and increasing a sense of disengagement.

Either way, “we run the risk of having decreased satisfaction what with what we’re doing, and decreasing the quality of patient care.”

“It’s a little bit of a Goldilocks situation: You want to find just the right balance, somewhere in the middle,” he said.

In the past, issues around having too few boundaries related to conflicts of interest. This reduced trust in the medical profession, he commented, which may have affected patient outcomes, and certainly increased the risk of reduced well-being and burnout.

“Today, we probably still lie on the end of the spectrum with too few boundaries,” Dr. Marron said, “but in a very different way, as we worry about limited work-life balance, and always being connected.”

“I don’t think there’s anybody in the room who doesn’t have some kind of electronic device, either in their hand or not too far from their hand,” he continued.

Moreover, “the patients that we’re taking care of have a greater amount of complexity than they’ve ever had before ... [with] greater numbers of needs than ever before,” and as a result, they require “a greater amount of our time as clinicians.”

Just as with the lack of boundaries in the past, this “runs the risk of us having decreased well-being and an increased risk of burnout,” he suggested.
 

Wearing several hats

The third speaker, Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, associate professor of medicine and population health, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said that every oncologist wears several “hats” in addition to being a clinician.

These may include, in his case, being “a father, a husband, and a brother, and a soccer coach, and a lot of different things.”

Dr. Kamal underlined that recognizing these various roles is “really important,” especially when it comes to the “moment of comparison with others,” as there is a temptation to see one’s own complexity but not that of a colleague.

“The question is: What are all the other competing priorities that a person faces?”

For example, a person’s tally of publications is “just one of many metrics” when it comes to measuring the “success of a career, and, frankly, I’m not sure that’s one of the good ones,” Dr. Kamal said.

He recalled how a mentor of his when he was at the Mayo Clinic had a “remarkable dip” in the number of publications at a certain point in his career, and he explained to Dr. Kamal that this was the time “when my kids needed me the most.”

“That was really important,” Dr. Kamal said, “because it taught me a lesson about having mentors in your life that are not only focused on your career and academic success, but also those who are very interested in the other hats that you wear.”
 

Fear of saying no

One way of setting boundaries is saying no to certain requests, Dr. Kamal commented.

He gave an example from his own life – when he was at a soccer game and received  a call on his cell from a patient who has seen test results before he has had a chance to review them.

Dr. Kamal also painted a hypothetical scenario, where a doctor on junior faculty, staffing a GI oncology clinic 4 days a week, is also volunteering to collect and organize new cases for the tumor board, and is writing several letters of intent for pharmaceutical trials. They are saying “yes” to 90% of the requests for their time, he said, and the result is they go home “most days feeling like their tank is on empty.”

“Then this person gets asked by the division chief to serve on the hospital’s pain committee,” he said, “regardless of the fact that this is not necessarily in their clinical or research interests.”

“So this is really a bit of an [out of] left field request, and how does this person address this?”

Dr. Kamal said that a useful concept to consider is something commonly ascribed to teenagers, that of the fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The problem is that, “due to this concept of FOMO, when opportunities come your way, saying ‘no’ to them gives rise to the question: What if the opportunity never comes back?”

But Dr. Kamal also reminded the audience that “without being able to say no to things ... your capacity will go down.”

“That’s really important to recognize, because for a long time, healing professions have been thought of as [having] people that can continue to expand and expand and expand, without calling out this concept of inflation.”

This is really about “being true to yourself,” and acknowledging that “no one is going to set boundaries for you.”

“That was a tough lesson I learned in my career,” Dr. Kamal commented, and when he looked for guidance, he found that “everyone is struggling with this.”

Setting boundaries, he emphasized, requires “a certain amount of looking inward ... and it requires some bravery.”

“You just have to ask yourself: Is the only reason you’re going to do something because of FOMO?” Dr. Kamal commented. “Maybe that’s okay, but you have to acknowledge that’s the case.”

Dr. Chatwal reported a relationship with Merck. Dr. Marron reported relationships with Genzyme, Partner Therapeutics, ROM Technologies, Arnett, Draper, & Hagood, and Trentalange & Kelley. Dr. Kamal reported relationships with Acclivity Health, Prepped Health, Private Diagnostic Clinic, AstraZeneca, Care4ward, Compassus, HERON, Janssen Oncology, Medtronic, New Century Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Janssen Oncology.

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

CHICAGO – Oncologists need to learn how to set boundaries in their professional lives and how to address their fear of saying “no” to sometimes illusory career opportunities in order to protect their well-being and reduce their risk of burnout.

This was the message from speakers at a special session on “Setting Boundaries” during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Monica Sheila Chatwal, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., suggested that, like a painting in a museum, physicians should have “some level of guardrail” to protect their knowledge and expertise, and also their ability to be able to continue to care for patients.

Having set boundaries “provides more emotional and cognitive flexibility, and less uncertainty, in the relationships that we have with our colleagues, with our patients, with everyone around us,” she argued.

“More importantly, boundaries acknowledge that, as humans, we are multifaceted, multidimensional people,” and that “we have lives outside of medicine, much as we may or may not want to admit that.

“It’s great to be devoted to what we do, but there are so many other aspects of ourselves that make us who we are, and that is wonderful,” she said.
 

A calling, not a job

However, the idea of demarcating one’s professional and personal life can go against the still-persistent idea that being a doctor is a calling rather than a job.

“I don’t think it matters whether you call it a job or a calling,” commented another speaker at the session, Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer.

But even if it is a calling, which implies that “you are supposed to devote all of yourself to the work and not to anything else,” there is still a need for setting boundaries, he argued. Saying “no” and allowing “yourself to be yourself” are important measures, Dr. Marron emphasized, as taking time out can make you a better clinician.

Crucial to that is being able to communicate with colleagues and share a degree of “vulnerability,” added Dr. Chatwal. “Showing that you’re vulnerable not only to your trainees, but also to your staff and to your patients really normalizes everything.”

“I have nurses who are feeling like they have to work 24/7 and manage their inbox to answer all of their messages, because they feel like they have to keep up.

“But it’s nice for me to be able to model that and say: ‘Listen, I want you to know it’s not urgent, please take 24 hours and we’ll come back to it.’ ”
 

Communicating with patients

Dr. Chatwal noted that, while there are clear boundaries related to sexual or physical relationships between doctors and patients and around not treating family members or friends, the boundaries pertaining to communication, and “how frequently [patients] have access to us ... are not so clearly defined.”

The advent of telemedicine has added to that, she believes, as it offers a “patient portal that can allow access 24/7.”

“Does that mean we as physicians or providers also give that level of access? Are we supposed to check messages at all periods of time?”

“More and more people are becoming more cognizant of this,” she commented, noting that the issue has taken on greater import with the rise of social media and the “ability for our patients to request us as friends.”

She pointed out that former president of the American College of Physicians Wayne J. Riley, MD, MPH, MBA, suggested doctors should maintain an air of detachment with their patients, as “it allows us to protect ourselves and continue to provide that great level of care.”

On the other hand, she noted that there has been a sea change in how patients see doctors. Whereas in the past, medicine “was very paternalistic” with doctors seen as the “be all and end all,” now patients tend to be more knowledgeable and Dr. Google “makes them much more engaged in their care.”

But this can also cause problems when patients become “demanding for certain treatments,” she said.
 

Limits to ethical care?

Dr. Marron posed the question: “Is there a limit to my ethical obligations to ethical care?”

He described a hypothetical scenario where a patient has found their doctor’s email address online and they now sends “frequent emails, despite very clear instructions to use the on-call paging system for something that’s urgent, and the electronic health record messaging system otherwise.”

This patient’s behavior is “causing a huge amount of stress” for the doctor, and this is affecting their care of other patients, as well as their academic work and home life.

Dr. Marron asked the audience: Would it be ethically acceptable to stop seeing such a patient?

Taking a quick straw poll of the audience, Dr. Marron noted that there were “not a lot of hands” raised in favor.

He suggested this is because the notion of nonabandonment comes into play, in which there is an obligation to not let patients go without providing adequate time for them to find an alternative clinician.

In this scenario, for example, the doctor could find “several local oncologists who are willing to accept the patient,” as well as talk the situation through with a trusted colleagues, and only then “compassionately but resolutely” tell the patient that they will be transferred.

Dr. Marron acknowledged that this may seem at odds with the theme of this year’s ASCO annual meeting, which emphasizes “partnering with patients.” But he argued that “it doesn’t have to be.”

When thoughtfully done, setting boundaries “can ethically allow us to give more to, and partner more with, our patients, while supporting our well-being, sense of purpose, and job satisfaction,” he argued.
 

Goldilocks situation

Speaking more broadly, Dr. Marron said that boundaries might be considered on a spectrum.

Too few boundaries can lead to conflicts of interest, loss of balance in the patient-physician relationship, and overengagement, while too many boundaries may result in insufficient connection with patients, thus reducing the “human element” and increasing a sense of disengagement.

Either way, “we run the risk of having decreased satisfaction what with what we’re doing, and decreasing the quality of patient care.”

“It’s a little bit of a Goldilocks situation: You want to find just the right balance, somewhere in the middle,” he said.

In the past, issues around having too few boundaries related to conflicts of interest. This reduced trust in the medical profession, he commented, which may have affected patient outcomes, and certainly increased the risk of reduced well-being and burnout.

“Today, we probably still lie on the end of the spectrum with too few boundaries,” Dr. Marron said, “but in a very different way, as we worry about limited work-life balance, and always being connected.”

“I don’t think there’s anybody in the room who doesn’t have some kind of electronic device, either in their hand or not too far from their hand,” he continued.

Moreover, “the patients that we’re taking care of have a greater amount of complexity than they’ve ever had before ... [with] greater numbers of needs than ever before,” and as a result, they require “a greater amount of our time as clinicians.”

Just as with the lack of boundaries in the past, this “runs the risk of us having decreased well-being and an increased risk of burnout,” he suggested.
 

Wearing several hats

The third speaker, Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, associate professor of medicine and population health, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said that every oncologist wears several “hats” in addition to being a clinician.

These may include, in his case, being “a father, a husband, and a brother, and a soccer coach, and a lot of different things.”

Dr. Kamal underlined that recognizing these various roles is “really important,” especially when it comes to the “moment of comparison with others,” as there is a temptation to see one’s own complexity but not that of a colleague.

“The question is: What are all the other competing priorities that a person faces?”

For example, a person’s tally of publications is “just one of many metrics” when it comes to measuring the “success of a career, and, frankly, I’m not sure that’s one of the good ones,” Dr. Kamal said.

He recalled how a mentor of his when he was at the Mayo Clinic had a “remarkable dip” in the number of publications at a certain point in his career, and he explained to Dr. Kamal that this was the time “when my kids needed me the most.”

“That was really important,” Dr. Kamal said, “because it taught me a lesson about having mentors in your life that are not only focused on your career and academic success, but also those who are very interested in the other hats that you wear.”
 

Fear of saying no

One way of setting boundaries is saying no to certain requests, Dr. Kamal commented.

He gave an example from his own life – when he was at a soccer game and received  a call on his cell from a patient who has seen test results before he has had a chance to review them.

Dr. Kamal also painted a hypothetical scenario, where a doctor on junior faculty, staffing a GI oncology clinic 4 days a week, is also volunteering to collect and organize new cases for the tumor board, and is writing several letters of intent for pharmaceutical trials. They are saying “yes” to 90% of the requests for their time, he said, and the result is they go home “most days feeling like their tank is on empty.”

“Then this person gets asked by the division chief to serve on the hospital’s pain committee,” he said, “regardless of the fact that this is not necessarily in their clinical or research interests.”

“So this is really a bit of an [out of] left field request, and how does this person address this?”

Dr. Kamal said that a useful concept to consider is something commonly ascribed to teenagers, that of the fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The problem is that, “due to this concept of FOMO, when opportunities come your way, saying ‘no’ to them gives rise to the question: What if the opportunity never comes back?”

But Dr. Kamal also reminded the audience that “without being able to say no to things ... your capacity will go down.”

“That’s really important to recognize, because for a long time, healing professions have been thought of as [having] people that can continue to expand and expand and expand, without calling out this concept of inflation.”

This is really about “being true to yourself,” and acknowledging that “no one is going to set boundaries for you.”

“That was a tough lesson I learned in my career,” Dr. Kamal commented, and when he looked for guidance, he found that “everyone is struggling with this.”

Setting boundaries, he emphasized, requires “a certain amount of looking inward ... and it requires some bravery.”

“You just have to ask yourself: Is the only reason you’re going to do something because of FOMO?” Dr. Kamal commented. “Maybe that’s okay, but you have to acknowledge that’s the case.”

Dr. Chatwal reported a relationship with Merck. Dr. Marron reported relationships with Genzyme, Partner Therapeutics, ROM Technologies, Arnett, Draper, & Hagood, and Trentalange & Kelley. Dr. Kamal reported relationships with Acclivity Health, Prepped Health, Private Diagnostic Clinic, AstraZeneca, Care4ward, Compassus, HERON, Janssen Oncology, Medtronic, New Century Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Janssen Oncology.

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

A bill in the Maine legislature would have the medical malpractice statute of limitations clock start running when a patient discovers the negligence, which could be years after treatment took place. And other states could follow suit with similar bills. What danger does this pose for doctors?

As it stands, the time limit for patients to be able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit varies by state. The bill that was introduced in Maine would enable patients to bring suits many years after treatment took place. For physicians, this extends their period of liability and could potentially increase the number of lawsuits against them.

“The theory behind a statute of limitations is that states want to provide a reasonable, but not indefinite, amount of time for someone to bring a case to court,” says Patrick T. O’Rourke, Esq., adjunct professor at University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder.

Without a statute of limitations, people could bring claims many years after the fact, which makes it harder to obtain and preserve evidence, Mr. O’Rourke says.

In most cases, it isn’t necessary for a patient to know the full extent of their injury or that their physician acted wrongfully or negligently for the statute of limitations to begin running.
 

Time of injury versus time of discovery

Most states’ laws dictate that the statute of limitations begins at a set time “after the cause of action accrues.” That means that the clock starts ticking from the date of the procedure, surgery, or treatment. In most states, that time is 2 or 3 years.

This can bar some patients from taking any action at all because the statute of limitations ran out. Because of these hurdles, the proposed bill in Maine would extend the statute of limitations.

Proponents of the bill say that patients would still have 3 years to file suit; it just changes when the clock starts. But opponents feel it could open the door to a limitless system in which people have an indefinite time to sue.

Many states already have discovery rules that extend the statute of limitations when the harm was not immediately obvious to the patient. The legal expectation is that patients who have significant pain or unexpected health conditions will seek medical treatment to investigate what’s wrong. Patients who don’t address the situation promptly are not protected by the discovery rule.

“It is the injured person’s obligation, once learning of the injury, to take action to protect their rights,” says Mr. O’Rourke.

Some states have also enacted other claims requirements in medical malpractice cases that are prerequisites for bringing lawsuits that have periods attached to them. For instance, in Florida, parties have 10 days to provide relevant medical records during the investigation period for a malpractice suit, and in Maine, before filing any malpractice action, a plaintiff must file a complaint with a prelitigation screening panel.
 

Medical malpractice statutes of limitations by state

Although each state has a basic statute of limitations, many states also include clauses for discovery rules. For example, in Vermont, in addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, a patient can pursue legal recourse “2 years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than 7 years from the date of the incident.”

In some states, such as Virginia, special extensions apply in cases in which fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the statute of limitations. And in most states, the statute of limitations is much longer for cases in which medical malpractice involves a child, usually at least until the child turns 18.
 

Statutes of limitations by state

1 Year: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee

2 Years: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

2.5 Years: New York

3 Years: Washington D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

4 Years: Minnesota
 

To protect yourself

Mr. O’Rourke says that if your state enacts a law that extends the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, there aren’t any proactive changes you need to make in terms of your day-to-day practice of medicine.

“Physicians should continue to provide care that is consistent with the standards of care for their specialty and ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the care they rendered,” he says.

Always be candid and up-front about a patient’s condition, Mr. O’Rourke says, especially if malpractice is on the table.

“If a physician misleads a patient about the nature or extent of an injury, that could prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run,” he says. “Being open and honest about an injury doesn’t mean that a physician must admit any fault. The patient is owed timely, accurate, and candid information about their condition.”
 

Keep good records

If the statute of limitations increases, you’ll need to have access to the medical records for as long as the statute is in place, but this shouldn’t have an effect on your records keeping if you’re up to date with HIPAA compliance, says Mr. O’Rourke.

“I don’t think an extension of the statute should cause physicians to change their practices, particularly with the retention of medical records, which should be maintained consistently with HIPAA requirements irrespective of the limitations period in a particular state,” he adds.
 

Keep an eye on malpractice insurance rates

It’s possible that your malpractice insurance could go up as a result of laws that increase the statute of limitations. But Mr. O’Rourke thinks it likely won’t be a significant amount.

He says it’s “theoretically possible” that an increase in a limitations period could result in an increase in your malpractice insurance, since some claims that would otherwise have been barred because of time could then proceed, but the increase would be nominal.

“I would expect any increase to be fairly marginal because the majority of claims will already be accounted for on an actuarial basis,” he says. “I also don’t think that the extension of a limitations period would increase the award of damages in a particular case. The injuries should be the same under either limitations period, so the compensable loss should not increase.”

Anything that makes it easier for patients to recover should increase the cost of professional liability insurance, and vice versa, says Charles Silver, McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at University of Texas at Austin School of Law and coauthor of “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works – Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” But the long-term trend across the country is toward declining rates of liability and declining payouts on claims.

“The likelihood of being sued successfully by a former patient is low, as is the risk of having to pay out of pocket to settle a claim,” he says. In 2022, the number of adverse reports nationally was 38,938, and out of those, 10,807 resulted in a payout.

In his research on medical malpractice in Texas, Mr. Silver says physicians who carried $1 million in coverage essentially never faced any personal liability on medical malpractice claims. “[This means] that they never had to write a check to a victim,” he says. “Insurers provided all the money. I suspect that the same is true nationwide.”
 

Key takeaways

Ultimately, to protect yourself and your practice, you can do the following:

• Know the statute of limitations and discovery rules for your state.
• Review your coverage with your insurer to better understand your liability.
• Keep accurate records for as long as your statute requires.
• Notify your insurer or risk management department as soon as possible in the event of an adverse outcome with a patient, Mr. O’Rourke advises.

“The most important thing a physician can do to avoid being sued, even when negligent, is to treat patients with kindness and respect,” says Mr. Silver. “Patients don’t expect doctors to be perfect, and they rarely sue doctors they like.”

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

A bill in the Maine legislature would have the medical malpractice statute of limitations clock start running when a patient discovers the negligence, which could be years after treatment took place. And other states could follow suit with similar bills. What danger does this pose for doctors?

As it stands, the time limit for patients to be able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit varies by state. The bill that was introduced in Maine would enable patients to bring suits many years after treatment took place. For physicians, this extends their period of liability and could potentially increase the number of lawsuits against them.

“The theory behind a statute of limitations is that states want to provide a reasonable, but not indefinite, amount of time for someone to bring a case to court,” says Patrick T. O’Rourke, Esq., adjunct professor at University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder.

Without a statute of limitations, people could bring claims many years after the fact, which makes it harder to obtain and preserve evidence, Mr. O’Rourke says.

In most cases, it isn’t necessary for a patient to know the full extent of their injury or that their physician acted wrongfully or negligently for the statute of limitations to begin running.
 

Time of injury versus time of discovery

Most states’ laws dictate that the statute of limitations begins at a set time “after the cause of action accrues.” That means that the clock starts ticking from the date of the procedure, surgery, or treatment. In most states, that time is 2 or 3 years.

This can bar some patients from taking any action at all because the statute of limitations ran out. Because of these hurdles, the proposed bill in Maine would extend the statute of limitations.

Proponents of the bill say that patients would still have 3 years to file suit; it just changes when the clock starts. But opponents feel it could open the door to a limitless system in which people have an indefinite time to sue.

Many states already have discovery rules that extend the statute of limitations when the harm was not immediately obvious to the patient. The legal expectation is that patients who have significant pain or unexpected health conditions will seek medical treatment to investigate what’s wrong. Patients who don’t address the situation promptly are not protected by the discovery rule.

“It is the injured person’s obligation, once learning of the injury, to take action to protect their rights,” says Mr. O’Rourke.

Some states have also enacted other claims requirements in medical malpractice cases that are prerequisites for bringing lawsuits that have periods attached to them. For instance, in Florida, parties have 10 days to provide relevant medical records during the investigation period for a malpractice suit, and in Maine, before filing any malpractice action, a plaintiff must file a complaint with a prelitigation screening panel.
 

Medical malpractice statutes of limitations by state

Although each state has a basic statute of limitations, many states also include clauses for discovery rules. For example, in Vermont, in addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, a patient can pursue legal recourse “2 years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than 7 years from the date of the incident.”

In some states, such as Virginia, special extensions apply in cases in which fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the statute of limitations. And in most states, the statute of limitations is much longer for cases in which medical malpractice involves a child, usually at least until the child turns 18.
 

Statutes of limitations by state

1 Year: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee

2 Years: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

2.5 Years: New York

3 Years: Washington D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

4 Years: Minnesota
 

To protect yourself

Mr. O’Rourke says that if your state enacts a law that extends the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, there aren’t any proactive changes you need to make in terms of your day-to-day practice of medicine.

“Physicians should continue to provide care that is consistent with the standards of care for their specialty and ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the care they rendered,” he says.

Always be candid and up-front about a patient’s condition, Mr. O’Rourke says, especially if malpractice is on the table.

“If a physician misleads a patient about the nature or extent of an injury, that could prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run,” he says. “Being open and honest about an injury doesn’t mean that a physician must admit any fault. The patient is owed timely, accurate, and candid information about their condition.”
 

Keep good records

If the statute of limitations increases, you’ll need to have access to the medical records for as long as the statute is in place, but this shouldn’t have an effect on your records keeping if you’re up to date with HIPAA compliance, says Mr. O’Rourke.

“I don’t think an extension of the statute should cause physicians to change their practices, particularly with the retention of medical records, which should be maintained consistently with HIPAA requirements irrespective of the limitations period in a particular state,” he adds.
 

Keep an eye on malpractice insurance rates

It’s possible that your malpractice insurance could go up as a result of laws that increase the statute of limitations. But Mr. O’Rourke thinks it likely won’t be a significant amount.

He says it’s “theoretically possible” that an increase in a limitations period could result in an increase in your malpractice insurance, since some claims that would otherwise have been barred because of time could then proceed, but the increase would be nominal.

“I would expect any increase to be fairly marginal because the majority of claims will already be accounted for on an actuarial basis,” he says. “I also don’t think that the extension of a limitations period would increase the award of damages in a particular case. The injuries should be the same under either limitations period, so the compensable loss should not increase.”

Anything that makes it easier for patients to recover should increase the cost of professional liability insurance, and vice versa, says Charles Silver, McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at University of Texas at Austin School of Law and coauthor of “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works – Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” But the long-term trend across the country is toward declining rates of liability and declining payouts on claims.

“The likelihood of being sued successfully by a former patient is low, as is the risk of having to pay out of pocket to settle a claim,” he says. In 2022, the number of adverse reports nationally was 38,938, and out of those, 10,807 resulted in a payout.

In his research on medical malpractice in Texas, Mr. Silver says physicians who carried $1 million in coverage essentially never faced any personal liability on medical malpractice claims. “[This means] that they never had to write a check to a victim,” he says. “Insurers provided all the money. I suspect that the same is true nationwide.”
 

Key takeaways

Ultimately, to protect yourself and your practice, you can do the following:

• Know the statute of limitations and discovery rules for your state.
• Review your coverage with your insurer to better understand your liability.
• Keep accurate records for as long as your statute requires.
• Notify your insurer or risk management department as soon as possible in the event of an adverse outcome with a patient, Mr. O’Rourke advises.

“The most important thing a physician can do to avoid being sued, even when negligent, is to treat patients with kindness and respect,” says Mr. Silver. “Patients don’t expect doctors to be perfect, and they rarely sue doctors they like.”

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

A bill in the Maine legislature would have the medical malpractice statute of limitations clock start running when a patient discovers the negligence, which could be years after treatment took place. And other states could follow suit with similar bills. What danger does this pose for doctors?

As it stands, the time limit for patients to be able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit varies by state. The bill that was introduced in Maine would enable patients to bring suits many years after treatment took place. For physicians, this extends their period of liability and could potentially increase the number of lawsuits against them.

“The theory behind a statute of limitations is that states want to provide a reasonable, but not indefinite, amount of time for someone to bring a case to court,” says Patrick T. O’Rourke, Esq., adjunct professor at University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder.

Without a statute of limitations, people could bring claims many years after the fact, which makes it harder to obtain and preserve evidence, Mr. O’Rourke says.

In most cases, it isn’t necessary for a patient to know the full extent of their injury or that their physician acted wrongfully or negligently for the statute of limitations to begin running.
 

Time of injury versus time of discovery

Most states’ laws dictate that the statute of limitations begins at a set time “after the cause of action accrues.” That means that the clock starts ticking from the date of the procedure, surgery, or treatment. In most states, that time is 2 or 3 years.

This can bar some patients from taking any action at all because the statute of limitations ran out. Because of these hurdles, the proposed bill in Maine would extend the statute of limitations.

Proponents of the bill say that patients would still have 3 years to file suit; it just changes when the clock starts. But opponents feel it could open the door to a limitless system in which people have an indefinite time to sue.

Many states already have discovery rules that extend the statute of limitations when the harm was not immediately obvious to the patient. The legal expectation is that patients who have significant pain or unexpected health conditions will seek medical treatment to investigate what’s wrong. Patients who don’t address the situation promptly are not protected by the discovery rule.

“It is the injured person’s obligation, once learning of the injury, to take action to protect their rights,” says Mr. O’Rourke.

Some states have also enacted other claims requirements in medical malpractice cases that are prerequisites for bringing lawsuits that have periods attached to them. For instance, in Florida, parties have 10 days to provide relevant medical records during the investigation period for a malpractice suit, and in Maine, before filing any malpractice action, a plaintiff must file a complaint with a prelitigation screening panel.
 

Medical malpractice statutes of limitations by state

Although each state has a basic statute of limitations, many states also include clauses for discovery rules. For example, in Vermont, in addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, a patient can pursue legal recourse “2 years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than 7 years from the date of the incident.”

In some states, such as Virginia, special extensions apply in cases in which fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the statute of limitations. And in most states, the statute of limitations is much longer for cases in which medical malpractice involves a child, usually at least until the child turns 18.
 

Statutes of limitations by state

1 Year: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee

2 Years: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

2.5 Years: New York

3 Years: Washington D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

4 Years: Minnesota
 

To protect yourself

Mr. O’Rourke says that if your state enacts a law that extends the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, there aren’t any proactive changes you need to make in terms of your day-to-day practice of medicine.

“Physicians should continue to provide care that is consistent with the standards of care for their specialty and ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the care they rendered,” he says.

Always be candid and up-front about a patient’s condition, Mr. O’Rourke says, especially if malpractice is on the table.

“If a physician misleads a patient about the nature or extent of an injury, that could prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run,” he says. “Being open and honest about an injury doesn’t mean that a physician must admit any fault. The patient is owed timely, accurate, and candid information about their condition.”
 

Keep good records

If the statute of limitations increases, you’ll need to have access to the medical records for as long as the statute is in place, but this shouldn’t have an effect on your records keeping if you’re up to date with HIPAA compliance, says Mr. O’Rourke.

“I don’t think an extension of the statute should cause physicians to change their practices, particularly with the retention of medical records, which should be maintained consistently with HIPAA requirements irrespective of the limitations period in a particular state,” he adds.
 

Keep an eye on malpractice insurance rates

It’s possible that your malpractice insurance could go up as a result of laws that increase the statute of limitations. But Mr. O’Rourke thinks it likely won’t be a significant amount.

He says it’s “theoretically possible” that an increase in a limitations period could result in an increase in your malpractice insurance, since some claims that would otherwise have been barred because of time could then proceed, but the increase would be nominal.

“I would expect any increase to be fairly marginal because the majority of claims will already be accounted for on an actuarial basis,” he says. “I also don’t think that the extension of a limitations period would increase the award of damages in a particular case. The injuries should be the same under either limitations period, so the compensable loss should not increase.”

Anything that makes it easier for patients to recover should increase the cost of professional liability insurance, and vice versa, says Charles Silver, McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at University of Texas at Austin School of Law and coauthor of “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works – Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” But the long-term trend across the country is toward declining rates of liability and declining payouts on claims.

“The likelihood of being sued successfully by a former patient is low, as is the risk of having to pay out of pocket to settle a claim,” he says. In 2022, the number of adverse reports nationally was 38,938, and out of those, 10,807 resulted in a payout.

In his research on medical malpractice in Texas, Mr. Silver says physicians who carried $1 million in coverage essentially never faced any personal liability on medical malpractice claims. “[This means] that they never had to write a check to a victim,” he says. “Insurers provided all the money. I suspect that the same is true nationwide.”
 

Key takeaways

Ultimately, to protect yourself and your practice, you can do the following:

• Know the statute of limitations and discovery rules for your state.
• Review your coverage with your insurer to better understand your liability.
• Keep accurate records for as long as your statute requires.
• Notify your insurer or risk management department as soon as possible in the event of an adverse outcome with a patient, Mr. O’Rourke advises.

“The most important thing a physician can do to avoid being sued, even when negligent, is to treat patients with kindness and respect,” says Mr. Silver. “Patients don’t expect doctors to be perfect, and they rarely sue doctors they like.”

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