Practice Management

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand eligibility guidelines for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for Medicare recipients.

According to the final decision, announced February 10, CMS will lower the age for screening from 55 to 50 years up to 77 years and reduce criteria for tobacco smoking history from at least 30 pack-years to 20 pack-years. The expanded Medicare recommendation will address racial disparities associated with lung cancer, given evidence that one third of Black patients are diagnosed with lung cancer before age 55.

The updated CMS guidelines align closely with recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in March 2021. The USPSTF expanded its guidelines for screening to include individuals ages 50 to 80 years, as well as those who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Overall, the expanded guidelines will nearly double the number of individuals who are eligible for screening and have the potential to save significantly more lives by identifying cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage.

“Expanding coverage broadens access for lung cancer screening to at-risk populations,” said Lee Felisher, MD, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, in a statement. “Today’s decision not only expands access to quality care but is also critical to improving health outcomes for people by helping to detect lung cancer earlier.”

CMS’s decision also simplifies requirements for counseling and shared decision-making visits and removes an initial requirement for the reading radiologist to document participation in continuing medical education, which will reduce administrative burden. CMS also added a requirement back to the National Coverage Determination criteria that requires radiology imaging facilities to use a standardized lung nodule identification, classification, and reporting system.

The American Lung Association applauds the decision to update eligibility.

“[The] announcement from CMS will give more people enrolled in Medicare access to lifesaving lung cancer screening. Screening for individuals at high risk is the only tool to catch this disease early when it is more curable,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, only 5.7% of people who are eligible have been screened, so it’s important that we talk with our friends and family who are at high risk about getting screened.”

While access to screening will significantly increase, the American Lung Association recommends CMS go a step further and expand eligibility to individuals up to 80 years of age, as the USPSTF recommendations do, as well as remove the recommendation that individuals cease screening once they have stopped smoking for 15 years.

Given the new guidelines, most private insurance plans will need to update screening coverage policies to reflect the updated guidelines for plan years beginning after March 31.

To read the final decision, visit the CMS website.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand eligibility guidelines for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for Medicare recipients.

According to the final decision, announced February 10, CMS will lower the age for screening from 55 to 50 years up to 77 years and reduce criteria for tobacco smoking history from at least 30 pack-years to 20 pack-years. The expanded Medicare recommendation will address racial disparities associated with lung cancer, given evidence that one third of Black patients are diagnosed with lung cancer before age 55.

The updated CMS guidelines align closely with recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in March 2021. The USPSTF expanded its guidelines for screening to include individuals ages 50 to 80 years, as well as those who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Overall, the expanded guidelines will nearly double the number of individuals who are eligible for screening and have the potential to save significantly more lives by identifying cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage.

“Expanding coverage broadens access for lung cancer screening to at-risk populations,” said Lee Felisher, MD, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, in a statement. “Today’s decision not only expands access to quality care but is also critical to improving health outcomes for people by helping to detect lung cancer earlier.”

CMS’s decision also simplifies requirements for counseling and shared decision-making visits and removes an initial requirement for the reading radiologist to document participation in continuing medical education, which will reduce administrative burden. CMS also added a requirement back to the National Coverage Determination criteria that requires radiology imaging facilities to use a standardized lung nodule identification, classification, and reporting system.

The American Lung Association applauds the decision to update eligibility.

“[The] announcement from CMS will give more people enrolled in Medicare access to lifesaving lung cancer screening. Screening for individuals at high risk is the only tool to catch this disease early when it is more curable,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, only 5.7% of people who are eligible have been screened, so it’s important that we talk with our friends and family who are at high risk about getting screened.”

While access to screening will significantly increase, the American Lung Association recommends CMS go a step further and expand eligibility to individuals up to 80 years of age, as the USPSTF recommendations do, as well as remove the recommendation that individuals cease screening once they have stopped smoking for 15 years.

Given the new guidelines, most private insurance plans will need to update screening coverage policies to reflect the updated guidelines for plan years beginning after March 31.

To read the final decision, visit the CMS website.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand eligibility guidelines for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for Medicare recipients.

According to the final decision, announced February 10, CMS will lower the age for screening from 55 to 50 years up to 77 years and reduce criteria for tobacco smoking history from at least 30 pack-years to 20 pack-years. The expanded Medicare recommendation will address racial disparities associated with lung cancer, given evidence that one third of Black patients are diagnosed with lung cancer before age 55.

The updated CMS guidelines align closely with recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in March 2021. The USPSTF expanded its guidelines for screening to include individuals ages 50 to 80 years, as well as those who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Overall, the expanded guidelines will nearly double the number of individuals who are eligible for screening and have the potential to save significantly more lives by identifying cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage.

“Expanding coverage broadens access for lung cancer screening to at-risk populations,” said Lee Felisher, MD, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, in a statement. “Today’s decision not only expands access to quality care but is also critical to improving health outcomes for people by helping to detect lung cancer earlier.”

CMS’s decision also simplifies requirements for counseling and shared decision-making visits and removes an initial requirement for the reading radiologist to document participation in continuing medical education, which will reduce administrative burden. CMS also added a requirement back to the National Coverage Determination criteria that requires radiology imaging facilities to use a standardized lung nodule identification, classification, and reporting system.

The American Lung Association applauds the decision to update eligibility.

“[The] announcement from CMS will give more people enrolled in Medicare access to lifesaving lung cancer screening. Screening for individuals at high risk is the only tool to catch this disease early when it is more curable,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, only 5.7% of people who are eligible have been screened, so it’s important that we talk with our friends and family who are at high risk about getting screened.”

While access to screening will significantly increase, the American Lung Association recommends CMS go a step further and expand eligibility to individuals up to 80 years of age, as the USPSTF recommendations do, as well as remove the recommendation that individuals cease screening once they have stopped smoking for 15 years.

Given the new guidelines, most private insurance plans will need to update screening coverage policies to reflect the updated guidelines for plan years beginning after March 31.

To read the final decision, visit the CMS website.

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

Three physicians with the Food and Drug Administration suggest in a recent JAMA Oncology viewpoint article that it might be time to give drug companies a deadline to meet accelerated approval requirements, as is done in other countries.

The FDA launched its accelerated approval program in 1992 in response to the AIDS crisis, but the bulk of approvals since then have been for cancer drugs, wrote the authors who included Gautam U. Mehta, MD, a clinical reviewer with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; R. Angelo de Claro, MD, associate director of the FDA’s Global Clinical Sciences division within the Oncology Center of Excellence; and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence.

Accelerated approvals are typically granted in oncology based on overall response rate with a requirement that companies confirm that there’s actually a clinical benefit in postmarketing studies.

The system has inspired European nations and Australia to launch their own programs, but with a key difference: Conditional approvals expire within 1 year or 2.

To be reinstated and remain on the market, companies have to submit a timeline for when they’ll meet their outstanding obligations and demonstrate that the benefit of leaving their product on the market outweighs the risk.

The approach puts “the onus of timely completion of confirmatory trials and verification of benefit” on the drug maker. In the meantime, the system limits “public exposure to stale claims of effectiveness that cannot be expeditiously substantiated,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues wrote.

There aren’t any deadlines in the United States, however, so the FDA has “to initiate a resource-intensive withdrawal process” when proof of clinical benefit is not forthcoming, they said.

In the United States, only 14 of 167 oncology indications granted accelerated approval since 1992 were withdrawn voluntarily and one was withdrawn by FDA request, and one was forced by the agency. The median time from accelerated approval to withdrawal was 8.8 years.

The actual withdrawal process itself took 11 months when bevacizumab’s breast cancer indication was canceled in 2011.

The authors didn’t call for change outright, but they did say that “future discussions of the accelerated approval program in the U.S.” will seek “to coordinate regulatory processes” with other countries, with an eye towards building “harmony between” agencies.

Among other targets for possible harmonization, they noted that only new molecular entities are eligible for accelerated approval in Europe, whereas supplemental indications are also eligible in the United States

Europe also requires a risk-benefit assessment for conditional approvals, which “has led to relatively few approvals based on single-arm clinical trial data,” the authors said.

Dr. Mehta, Dr. de Claro, and Dr. Pazdur had no conflicts of interest.

Three physicians with the Food and Drug Administration suggest in a recent JAMA Oncology viewpoint article that it might be time to give drug companies a deadline to meet accelerated approval requirements, as is done in other countries.

The FDA launched its accelerated approval program in 1992 in response to the AIDS crisis, but the bulk of approvals since then have been for cancer drugs, wrote the authors who included Gautam U. Mehta, MD, a clinical reviewer with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; R. Angelo de Claro, MD, associate director of the FDA’s Global Clinical Sciences division within the Oncology Center of Excellence; and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence.

Accelerated approvals are typically granted in oncology based on overall response rate with a requirement that companies confirm that there’s actually a clinical benefit in postmarketing studies.

The system has inspired European nations and Australia to launch their own programs, but with a key difference: Conditional approvals expire within 1 year or 2.

To be reinstated and remain on the market, companies have to submit a timeline for when they’ll meet their outstanding obligations and demonstrate that the benefit of leaving their product on the market outweighs the risk.

The approach puts “the onus of timely completion of confirmatory trials and verification of benefit” on the drug maker. In the meantime, the system limits “public exposure to stale claims of effectiveness that cannot be expeditiously substantiated,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues wrote.

There aren’t any deadlines in the United States, however, so the FDA has “to initiate a resource-intensive withdrawal process” when proof of clinical benefit is not forthcoming, they said.

In the United States, only 14 of 167 oncology indications granted accelerated approval since 1992 were withdrawn voluntarily and one was withdrawn by FDA request, and one was forced by the agency. The median time from accelerated approval to withdrawal was 8.8 years.

The actual withdrawal process itself took 11 months when bevacizumab’s breast cancer indication was canceled in 2011.

The authors didn’t call for change outright, but they did say that “future discussions of the accelerated approval program in the U.S.” will seek “to coordinate regulatory processes” with other countries, with an eye towards building “harmony between” agencies.

Among other targets for possible harmonization, they noted that only new molecular entities are eligible for accelerated approval in Europe, whereas supplemental indications are also eligible in the United States

Europe also requires a risk-benefit assessment for conditional approvals, which “has led to relatively few approvals based on single-arm clinical trial data,” the authors said.

Dr. Mehta, Dr. de Claro, and Dr. Pazdur had no conflicts of interest.

Three physicians with the Food and Drug Administration suggest in a recent JAMA Oncology viewpoint article that it might be time to give drug companies a deadline to meet accelerated approval requirements, as is done in other countries.

The FDA launched its accelerated approval program in 1992 in response to the AIDS crisis, but the bulk of approvals since then have been for cancer drugs, wrote the authors who included Gautam U. Mehta, MD, a clinical reviewer with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; R. Angelo de Claro, MD, associate director of the FDA’s Global Clinical Sciences division within the Oncology Center of Excellence; and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence.

Accelerated approvals are typically granted in oncology based on overall response rate with a requirement that companies confirm that there’s actually a clinical benefit in postmarketing studies.

The system has inspired European nations and Australia to launch their own programs, but with a key difference: Conditional approvals expire within 1 year or 2.

To be reinstated and remain on the market, companies have to submit a timeline for when they’ll meet their outstanding obligations and demonstrate that the benefit of leaving their product on the market outweighs the risk.

The approach puts “the onus of timely completion of confirmatory trials and verification of benefit” on the drug maker. In the meantime, the system limits “public exposure to stale claims of effectiveness that cannot be expeditiously substantiated,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues wrote.

There aren’t any deadlines in the United States, however, so the FDA has “to initiate a resource-intensive withdrawal process” when proof of clinical benefit is not forthcoming, they said.

In the United States, only 14 of 167 oncology indications granted accelerated approval since 1992 were withdrawn voluntarily and one was withdrawn by FDA request, and one was forced by the agency. The median time from accelerated approval to withdrawal was 8.8 years.

The actual withdrawal process itself took 11 months when bevacizumab’s breast cancer indication was canceled in 2011.

The authors didn’t call for change outright, but they did say that “future discussions of the accelerated approval program in the U.S.” will seek “to coordinate regulatory processes” with other countries, with an eye towards building “harmony between” agencies.

Among other targets for possible harmonization, they noted that only new molecular entities are eligible for accelerated approval in Europe, whereas supplemental indications are also eligible in the United States

Europe also requires a risk-benefit assessment for conditional approvals, which “has led to relatively few approvals based on single-arm clinical trial data,” the authors said.

Dr. Mehta, Dr. de Claro, and Dr. Pazdur had no conflicts of interest.

It is a tough time to be a doctor. With the stresses of the pandemic, the continued unfettered rise of insurance company BS, and so many medical groups being bought up that we often don’t even know who makes the decisions, the patient can sometimes be hidden in the equation.

What are ways that we can connect well with our patients so that both the patient and the physician are lifted up by the relationship?

Be curious

When physicians are curious about why patients have symptoms, how those symptoms will affect their lives, and how worried the patient is about them, patients feel cared about.

Ascertaining how concerned patients are about their symptoms will help you make decisions on whether symptoms you are not concerned about actually need to be treated.
 

Limit use of EHRs when possible

Use of the electronic health record during visits is essential, but focusing on it too much can put a barrier between the physician and the patient.

Marmor and colleagues found there is an inverse relationship between time spent on the EHR by a patient’s physician and the patient’s satisfaction.¹

Eye contact with the patient is important, especially when patients are sharing concerns they are scared about and upsetting experiences. There can be awkward pauses when looking things up on the EHR. Fill those pauses by explaining to the patient what you are doing, or chatting with the patient.
 

Consider teaching medical students

When a medical student works with you, it doubles the time the patient gets with a concerned listener. Students also can do a great job with timely follow-up and checking in with worried patients.

By having the student present in the clinic room, with the patient present, the patient can really feel heard. The student shares all the details the patient shared, and now their physician is hearing an organized, thoughtful report of the patients concerns.

In fact, I was involved in a study that showed that patients preferred in room presentations, and that they were more satisfied when students presented in the room.²
 

Use healing words

Some words carry loaded emotions. The word chronic, for example, has negative connotations, whereas the term persisting does not.

I will often ask patients how long they have been suffering from a symptom to imply my concern for what they are going through. The term “chief complaint” is outdated, and upsets patients when they see it in their medical record.

As a patient of mine once said to me: “I never complained about that problem, I just brought it to your attention.” No one wants to be seen as a complainer. Substituting the word concern for complaint works well.
 

Explain as you examine

People love to hear the term normal. When you are examining a patient, let them know when findings are normal.

I also find it helpful to explain to patients why I am doing certain physical exam maneuvers. This helps them assess how thorough we are in our thought process.

When patients feel their physicians are thorough, they have more confidence in them.
 

In summary

• Be curious.
• Do not overly focus on the EHR.
• Consider teaching a medical student.
• Be careful of word choice.
• “Overexplain” the physical exam.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Marmor RA et al. Appl Clin Inform. 2018 Jan;9(1):11-4.

2. Rogers HD et al. Acad Med. 2003 Sep;78(9):945-9.

It is a tough time to be a doctor. With the stresses of the pandemic, the continued unfettered rise of insurance company BS, and so many medical groups being bought up that we often don’t even know who makes the decisions, the patient can sometimes be hidden in the equation.

What are ways that we can connect well with our patients so that both the patient and the physician are lifted up by the relationship?

Be curious

When physicians are curious about why patients have symptoms, how those symptoms will affect their lives, and how worried the patient is about them, patients feel cared about.

Ascertaining how concerned patients are about their symptoms will help you make decisions on whether symptoms you are not concerned about actually need to be treated.
 

Limit use of EHRs when possible

Use of the electronic health record during visits is essential, but focusing on it too much can put a barrier between the physician and the patient.

Marmor and colleagues found there is an inverse relationship between time spent on the EHR by a patient’s physician and the patient’s satisfaction.¹

Eye contact with the patient is important, especially when patients are sharing concerns they are scared about and upsetting experiences. There can be awkward pauses when looking things up on the EHR. Fill those pauses by explaining to the patient what you are doing, or chatting with the patient.
 

Consider teaching medical students

When a medical student works with you, it doubles the time the patient gets with a concerned listener. Students also can do a great job with timely follow-up and checking in with worried patients.

By having the student present in the clinic room, with the patient present, the patient can really feel heard. The student shares all the details the patient shared, and now their physician is hearing an organized, thoughtful report of the patients concerns.

In fact, I was involved in a study that showed that patients preferred in room presentations, and that they were more satisfied when students presented in the room.²
 

Use healing words

Some words carry loaded emotions. The word chronic, for example, has negative connotations, whereas the term persisting does not.

I will often ask patients how long they have been suffering from a symptom to imply my concern for what they are going through. The term “chief complaint” is outdated, and upsets patients when they see it in their medical record.

As a patient of mine once said to me: “I never complained about that problem, I just brought it to your attention.” No one wants to be seen as a complainer. Substituting the word concern for complaint works well.
 

Explain as you examine

People love to hear the term normal. When you are examining a patient, let them know when findings are normal.

I also find it helpful to explain to patients why I am doing certain physical exam maneuvers. This helps them assess how thorough we are in our thought process.

When patients feel their physicians are thorough, they have more confidence in them.
 

In summary

• Be curious.
• Do not overly focus on the EHR.
• Consider teaching a medical student.
• Be careful of word choice.
• “Overexplain” the physical exam.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Marmor RA et al. Appl Clin Inform. 2018 Jan;9(1):11-4.

2. Rogers HD et al. Acad Med. 2003 Sep;78(9):945-9.

It is a tough time to be a doctor. With the stresses of the pandemic, the continued unfettered rise of insurance company BS, and so many medical groups being bought up that we often don’t even know who makes the decisions, the patient can sometimes be hidden in the equation.

What are ways that we can connect well with our patients so that both the patient and the physician are lifted up by the relationship?

Be curious

When physicians are curious about why patients have symptoms, how those symptoms will affect their lives, and how worried the patient is about them, patients feel cared about.

Ascertaining how concerned patients are about their symptoms will help you make decisions on whether symptoms you are not concerned about actually need to be treated.
 

Limit use of EHRs when possible

Use of the electronic health record during visits is essential, but focusing on it too much can put a barrier between the physician and the patient.

Marmor and colleagues found there is an inverse relationship between time spent on the EHR by a patient’s physician and the patient’s satisfaction.¹

Eye contact with the patient is important, especially when patients are sharing concerns they are scared about and upsetting experiences. There can be awkward pauses when looking things up on the EHR. Fill those pauses by explaining to the patient what you are doing, or chatting with the patient.
 

Consider teaching medical students

When a medical student works with you, it doubles the time the patient gets with a concerned listener. Students also can do a great job with timely follow-up and checking in with worried patients.

By having the student present in the clinic room, with the patient present, the patient can really feel heard. The student shares all the details the patient shared, and now their physician is hearing an organized, thoughtful report of the patients concerns.

In fact, I was involved in a study that showed that patients preferred in room presentations, and that they were more satisfied when students presented in the room.²
 

Use healing words

Some words carry loaded emotions. The word chronic, for example, has negative connotations, whereas the term persisting does not.

I will often ask patients how long they have been suffering from a symptom to imply my concern for what they are going through. The term “chief complaint” is outdated, and upsets patients when they see it in their medical record.

As a patient of mine once said to me: “I never complained about that problem, I just brought it to your attention.” No one wants to be seen as a complainer. Substituting the word concern for complaint works well.
 

Explain as you examine

People love to hear the term normal. When you are examining a patient, let them know when findings are normal.

I also find it helpful to explain to patients why I am doing certain physical exam maneuvers. This helps them assess how thorough we are in our thought process.

When patients feel their physicians are thorough, they have more confidence in them.
 

In summary

• Be curious.
• Do not overly focus on the EHR.
• Consider teaching a medical student.
• Be careful of word choice.
• “Overexplain” the physical exam.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Marmor RA et al. Appl Clin Inform. 2018 Jan;9(1):11-4.

2. Rogers HD et al. Acad Med. 2003 Sep;78(9):945-9.

California-based City of Hope has now completed its acquisition of Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), making the combined group one of the largest cancer research and treatment facilities in the United States.

The combined group now has 575 physicians and more than 11,000 employees and is expected to care for approximately 115,000 patients each year.

City of Hope, a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, is located near Los Angeles. It currently comprises its main campus and a network of clinical care locations across Southern California. A new campus is scheduled to open this year in Irvine, California, about 50 miles south of the main center.

The acquisition of CTCA expands its reach into three new states – Arizona, Illinois, and Georgia – with an additional 41 clinical network locations.

Commenting on the completion of the deal, Robert Stone, president and CEO of City of Hope, said in a statement: “With the completion of this acquisition, City of Hope and Cancer Treatment Centers of America are combining complementary strengths. ... Together, we are creating a new model for how cancer care is delivered, leveraging real-world cancer care experience to inform scientific innovation and making tomorrow’s new discoveries available to the people who need them today.”

City of Hope announced in December 2020 that it would acquire CTCA for $390 million, as previously reported by this news organization.

At the time, Pat Basu MD, MBA, president and CEO of CTCA, said that they were excited about the deal. “Through the shared, patient-centric values of both organizations and expanded access as a result of the collaboration, cancer patients across the nation will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this relationship,” he said. Dr. Basu will remain CEO of CTCA and report to Robert Stone.
 

Controversies and closures

CTCA is a national oncology network of hospitals and outpatient care centers that offers an integrated approach to care, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and advancements in precision medicine with supportive therapies to manage side effects and enhance quality of life during treatment and into survivorship.

However, it appears to have run into financial problems. During 2021, CTCA closed a center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and sold off assets from a Philadelphia-based hospital.

In addition, for the past 10 years, CTCA had been involved in a series of controversies. These include a 2013 investigation into alleged questionable practices designed to boost its mortality statistics, as well as an analysis of cancer center advertising practices that showed that CTCA spent $101.7 million on advertising in 2014. More recently, a 2019 report showed that CTCA’s high advertising expenditures did not correlate with better patient outcomes in comparison with other centers.

Now that it has been acquired, CTCA will transition from a private for-profit company to a nonprofit organization, according to City of Hope.

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

California-based City of Hope has now completed its acquisition of Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), making the combined group one of the largest cancer research and treatment facilities in the United States.

The combined group now has 575 physicians and more than 11,000 employees and is expected to care for approximately 115,000 patients each year.

City of Hope, a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, is located near Los Angeles. It currently comprises its main campus and a network of clinical care locations across Southern California. A new campus is scheduled to open this year in Irvine, California, about 50 miles south of the main center.

The acquisition of CTCA expands its reach into three new states – Arizona, Illinois, and Georgia – with an additional 41 clinical network locations.

Commenting on the completion of the deal, Robert Stone, president and CEO of City of Hope, said in a statement: “With the completion of this acquisition, City of Hope and Cancer Treatment Centers of America are combining complementary strengths. ... Together, we are creating a new model for how cancer care is delivered, leveraging real-world cancer care experience to inform scientific innovation and making tomorrow’s new discoveries available to the people who need them today.”

City of Hope announced in December 2020 that it would acquire CTCA for $390 million, as previously reported by this news organization.

At the time, Pat Basu MD, MBA, president and CEO of CTCA, said that they were excited about the deal. “Through the shared, patient-centric values of both organizations and expanded access as a result of the collaboration, cancer patients across the nation will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this relationship,” he said. Dr. Basu will remain CEO of CTCA and report to Robert Stone.
 

Controversies and closures

CTCA is a national oncology network of hospitals and outpatient care centers that offers an integrated approach to care, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and advancements in precision medicine with supportive therapies to manage side effects and enhance quality of life during treatment and into survivorship.

However, it appears to have run into financial problems. During 2021, CTCA closed a center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and sold off assets from a Philadelphia-based hospital.

In addition, for the past 10 years, CTCA had been involved in a series of controversies. These include a 2013 investigation into alleged questionable practices designed to boost its mortality statistics, as well as an analysis of cancer center advertising practices that showed that CTCA spent $101.7 million on advertising in 2014. More recently, a 2019 report showed that CTCA’s high advertising expenditures did not correlate with better patient outcomes in comparison with other centers.

Now that it has been acquired, CTCA will transition from a private for-profit company to a nonprofit organization, according to City of Hope.

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

California-based City of Hope has now completed its acquisition of Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), making the combined group one of the largest cancer research and treatment facilities in the United States.

The combined group now has 575 physicians and more than 11,000 employees and is expected to care for approximately 115,000 patients each year.

City of Hope, a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, is located near Los Angeles. It currently comprises its main campus and a network of clinical care locations across Southern California. A new campus is scheduled to open this year in Irvine, California, about 50 miles south of the main center.

The acquisition of CTCA expands its reach into three new states – Arizona, Illinois, and Georgia – with an additional 41 clinical network locations.

Commenting on the completion of the deal, Robert Stone, president and CEO of City of Hope, said in a statement: “With the completion of this acquisition, City of Hope and Cancer Treatment Centers of America are combining complementary strengths. ... Together, we are creating a new model for how cancer care is delivered, leveraging real-world cancer care experience to inform scientific innovation and making tomorrow’s new discoveries available to the people who need them today.”

City of Hope announced in December 2020 that it would acquire CTCA for $390 million, as previously reported by this news organization.

At the time, Pat Basu MD, MBA, president and CEO of CTCA, said that they were excited about the deal. “Through the shared, patient-centric values of both organizations and expanded access as a result of the collaboration, cancer patients across the nation will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this relationship,” he said. Dr. Basu will remain CEO of CTCA and report to Robert Stone.
 

Controversies and closures

CTCA is a national oncology network of hospitals and outpatient care centers that offers an integrated approach to care, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and advancements in precision medicine with supportive therapies to manage side effects and enhance quality of life during treatment and into survivorship.

However, it appears to have run into financial problems. During 2021, CTCA closed a center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and sold off assets from a Philadelphia-based hospital.

In addition, for the past 10 years, CTCA had been involved in a series of controversies. These include a 2013 investigation into alleged questionable practices designed to boost its mortality statistics, as well as an analysis of cancer center advertising practices that showed that CTCA spent $101.7 million on advertising in 2014. More recently, a 2019 report showed that CTCA’s high advertising expenditures did not correlate with better patient outcomes in comparison with other centers.

Now that it has been acquired, CTCA will transition from a private for-profit company to a nonprofit organization, according to City of Hope.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

Autoimmune bullous dermatoses (ABDs) develop due to antibodies directed against antigens within the epidermis or at the dermoepidermal junction. They are categorized histologically by the location of acantholysis (separation of keratinocytes), clinical presentation, and presence of autoantibodies. The most common ABDs include pemphigus vulgaris, pemphigus foliaceus, and bullous pemphigoid (BP). These conditions present on a spectrum of symptoms and severity.¹

Although multiple studies have evaluated the impact of bullous dermatoses on mental health, most were designed with a small sample size, thus limiting the generalizability of each study. Sebaratnam et al² summarized several studies in 2012. In this review, we will analyze additional relevant literature and systematically combine the data to determine the psychological burden of disease of ABDs. We also will discuss the existing questionnaires frequently used in the dermatology setting to assess adverse psychosocial symptoms.

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for articles published within the last 15 years using the terms bullous pemphigoid, pemphigus, quality of life, anxiety, and depression. We reviewed the citations in each article to further our search.

Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion—Studies that utilized validated questionnaires to evaluate the effects of pemphigus vulgaris, pemphigus foliaceus, and/or BP on mental health were included. All research participants were 18 years and older. For the questionnaires administered, each study must have included numerical scores in the results. The studies all reported statistically significant results (P<.05), but no studies were excluded on the basis of statistical significance.

Studies were excluded if they did not use a validated questionnaire to examine quality of life (QOL) or psychological status. We also excluded database, retrospective, qualitative, and observational studies. We did not include studies with a sample size less than 20. Studies that administered questionnaires that were uncommon in this realm of research such as the Attitude to Appearance Scale or The Anxiety Questionnaire also were excluded. We did not exclude articles based on their primary language.

Results

A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1716 participants enrolled in the trials. The questionnaires most commonly used are summarized in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate the studies that evaluate QOL and psychological state in patients with bullous dermatoses, respectively.

The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was the most utilized method for analyzing QOL followed by the Skindex-17, Skindex-29, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. The DLQI is a skin-specific measurement tool with higher scores translating to greater impairment in QOL. Healthy patients have an average score of 0.5.³ The mean DLQI scores for ABD patients as seen in Table 2 were 9.45, 10.18, 16, 10.9, and 10.1.^13-15,18,22 The most commonly reported concerns among patients included feelings about appearance and disturbances in daily activities.¹⁸ Symptoms of mucosal involvement, itching, and burning also were indicators of lower QOL.^15,18,20,22 Furthermore, women consistently had lower scores than men.^15,17,19,25 Multiple studies concluded that severity of the disease correlated with a lower QOL, though the subtype of pemphigus did not have an effect on QOL scores.^15,19,20,21 Lastly, recent onset of symptoms was associated with a worse QOL score.^15,18-20 Age, education level, and marital status did not have an effect on QOL.

To evaluate psychological state, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-28 and -12 primarily were used, in addition to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; and the Beck Depression Inventory-II. As seen in Table 3, GHQ-12 positivity, reflecting probable minor nonpsychotic psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety, was identified in 47%, 39.7%, and 40% of patients with pemphigus^15,19,24; GHQ-28 positivity was seen in 77.5% of pemphigus patients.¹⁸ In the average population, GHQ positivity was found in up to 12% of patients.^26,27 Similar to the QOL scores, no significant differences were seen based on subtype of pemphigus for symptoms of depression or anxiety.^20,23

Comment

Mental Health of Patients With ABDs—Immunobullous diseases are painful, potentially lifelong conditions that have no definitive cure. These conditions are characterized by bullae and erosions of the skin and mucosae that physically are disabling and often create a stigma for patients. Across multiple different validated psychosocial assessments, the 13 studies included in this review consistently reported that ABDs have a negative effect on mental well-being of patients that is more pronounced in women and worse at the onset of symptoms.^13-25

QOL Scores in Patients With ABDs—Quality of life is a broad term that encompasses a general sense of psychological and overall well-being. A score of approximately 10 on the DLQI most often was reported in patients with ABDs, which translates to a moderate impact on QOL. Incomparison, a large cohort study reported the mean (SD) DLQI scores for patients with atopic dermatitis and psoriasis as 7.31 (5.98) and 5.93 (5.66), respectively.²⁸ In another study, Penha et al¹⁴ found that patients with psoriasis have a mean DLQI score of 10. Reasons for the similarly low QOL scores in patients with ABDs include long hospitalization periods, disease chronicity, social anxiety, inability to control symptoms, difficulty with activities of daily living, and the belief that the disease is incurable.^17,19,23 Although there is a need for increased family and social support with performing necessary daily tasks, personal relationships often are negatively affected, resulting in social isolation, loneliness, and worsening of cutaneous symptoms.

Severity of cutaneous disease and recent onset of symptoms correlated with worse QOL scores. Tabolli et al²⁰ proposed the reason for this relates to not having had enough time to find the best treatment regimen. We believe there also may be an element of habituation involved, whereby patients become accustomed to the appearance of the lesions over time and therefore they become less distressing. Interestingly, Tabolli et al¹⁷ determined that patients in the quiescent phase of the disease—without any mucosal or cutaneous lesions—still maintained lower QOL scores than the average population, particularly on the psychosocial section of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, which may be due to a concern of disease relapse or from adverse effects of treatment. Providers should monitor patients for mental health complications not only in the disease infancy but throughout the disease course.

Future Directions—Cause and effect of the relationship between the psychosocial variables and ABD disease state has yet to be determined. Most studies included in this review were cross-sectional in design. Although many studies concluded that bullous dermatoses were the cause of impaired QOL, Ren and colleagues²⁹ proposed that medications used to treat neuropsychiatric disorders may trigger the autoimmune antigens of BP. Possible triggers for BP have been reported including hydrochlorothiazide, ciprofloxacin, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.^27,30-32 A longitudinal study design would better evaluate the causal relationship.

The effects of the medications were included in 2 cases, one in which the steroid dose was not found to have a significant impact on rates of depression²³ and another in which patients treated with a higher dose of corticosteroids (>10 mg) had worse QOL scores.¹⁷ Sung et al¹⁵ suggested this may be because patients who took higher doses of steroids had worse symptoms and therefore also had a worse QOL. It also is possible that those patients taking higher doses had increased side effects.¹⁷ Further studies that evaluate treatment modalities and timing in relation to the disease onset would be helpful.

Study Limitations—There are potential barriers to combining these data. Multiple different questionnaires were used, and it was difficult to ascertain if all the participants were experiencing active disease. Additionally, questionnaires are not always the best proxy for what is happening in everyday life. Lastly, the sample size of each individual study was small, and the studies only included adults.

Conclusion

As demonstrated by the 13 studies in this review, patients with ABDs have lower QOL scores and higher numbers of psychological symptoms. Clinicians should be mindful of this at-risk population and create opportunities in clinic to discuss personal hardship associated with the disease process and recommend psychiatric intervention if indicated. Additionally, family members often are overburdened with the chronicity of ABDs, and they should not be forgotten. Using one of the aforementioned questionnaires is a practical way to screen patients for lower QOL scores. We agree with Paradisi and colleagues¹⁹ that although these questionnaires may be helpful, clinicians still need to determine if the use of a dermatologic QOL evaluation tool in clinical practice improves patient satisfaction.

Autoimmune bullous dermatoses (ABDs) develop due to antibodies directed against antigens within the epidermis or at the dermoepidermal junction. They are categorized histologically by the location of acantholysis (separation of keratinocytes), clinical presentation, and presence of autoantibodies. The most common ABDs include pemphigus vulgaris, pemphigus foliaceus, and bullous pemphigoid (BP). These conditions present on a spectrum of symptoms and severity.¹

Although multiple studies have evaluated the impact of bullous dermatoses on mental health, most were designed with a small sample size, thus limiting the generalizability of each study. Sebaratnam et al² summarized several studies in 2012. In this review, we will analyze additional relevant literature and systematically combine the data to determine the psychological burden of disease of ABDs. We also will discuss the existing questionnaires frequently used in the dermatology setting to assess adverse psychosocial symptoms.

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for articles published within the last 15 years using the terms bullous pemphigoid, pemphigus, quality of life, anxiety, and depression. We reviewed the citations in each article to further our search.

Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion—Studies that utilized validated questionnaires to evaluate the effects of pemphigus vulgaris, pemphigus foliaceus, and/or BP on mental health were included. All research participants were 18 years and older. For the questionnaires administered, each study must have included numerical scores in the results. The studies all reported statistically significant results (P<.05), but no studies were excluded on the basis of statistical significance.

Studies were excluded if they did not use a validated questionnaire to examine quality of life (QOL) or psychological status. We also excluded database, retrospective, qualitative, and observational studies. We did not include studies with a sample size less than 20. Studies that administered questionnaires that were uncommon in this realm of research such as the Attitude to Appearance Scale or The Anxiety Questionnaire also were excluded. We did not exclude articles based on their primary language.

Results

A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1716 participants enrolled in the trials. The questionnaires most commonly used are summarized in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate the studies that evaluate QOL and psychological state in patients with bullous dermatoses, respectively.

The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was the most utilized method for analyzing QOL followed by the Skindex-17, Skindex-29, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. The DLQI is a skin-specific measurement tool with higher scores translating to greater impairment in QOL. Healthy patients have an average score of 0.5.³ The mean DLQI scores for ABD patients as seen in Table 2 were 9.45, 10.18, 16, 10.9, and 10.1.^13-15,18,22 The most commonly reported concerns among patients included feelings about appearance and disturbances in daily activities.¹⁸ Symptoms of mucosal involvement, itching, and burning also were indicators of lower QOL.^15,18,20,22 Furthermore, women consistently had lower scores than men.^15,17,19,25 Multiple studies concluded that severity of the disease correlated with a lower QOL, though the subtype of pemphigus did not have an effect on QOL scores.^15,19,20,21 Lastly, recent onset of symptoms was associated with a worse QOL score.^15,18-20 Age, education level, and marital status did not have an effect on QOL.

To evaluate psychological state, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-28 and -12 primarily were used, in addition to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; and the Beck Depression Inventory-II. As seen in Table 3, GHQ-12 positivity, reflecting probable minor nonpsychotic psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety, was identified in 47%, 39.7%, and 40% of patients with pemphigus^15,19,24; GHQ-28 positivity was seen in 77.5% of pemphigus patients.¹⁸ In the average population, GHQ positivity was found in up to 12% of patients.^26,27 Similar to the QOL scores, no significant differences were seen based on subtype of pemphigus for symptoms of depression or anxiety.^20,23

Comment

Mental Health of Patients With ABDs—Immunobullous diseases are painful, potentially lifelong conditions that have no definitive cure. These conditions are characterized by bullae and erosions of the skin and mucosae that physically are disabling and often create a stigma for patients. Across multiple different validated psychosocial assessments, the 13 studies included in this review consistently reported that ABDs have a negative effect on mental well-being of patients that is more pronounced in women and worse at the onset of symptoms.^13-25

QOL Scores in Patients With ABDs—Quality of life is a broad term that encompasses a general sense of psychological and overall well-being. A score of approximately 10 on the DLQI most often was reported in patients with ABDs, which translates to a moderate impact on QOL. Incomparison, a large cohort study reported the mean (SD) DLQI scores for patients with atopic dermatitis and psoriasis as 7.31 (5.98) and 5.93 (5.66), respectively.²⁸ In another study, Penha et al¹⁴ found that patients with psoriasis have a mean DLQI score of 10. Reasons for the similarly low QOL scores in patients with ABDs include long hospitalization periods, disease chronicity, social anxiety, inability to control symptoms, difficulty with activities of daily living, and the belief that the disease is incurable.^17,19,23 Although there is a need for increased family and social support with performing necessary daily tasks, personal relationships often are negatively affected, resulting in social isolation, loneliness, and worsening of cutaneous symptoms.

Severity of cutaneous disease and recent onset of symptoms correlated with worse QOL scores. Tabolli et al²⁰ proposed the reason for this relates to not having had enough time to find the best treatment regimen. We believe there also may be an element of habituation involved, whereby patients become accustomed to the appearance of the lesions over time and therefore they become less distressing. Interestingly, Tabolli et al¹⁷ determined that patients in the quiescent phase of the disease—without any mucosal or cutaneous lesions—still maintained lower QOL scores than the average population, particularly on the psychosocial section of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, which may be due to a concern of disease relapse or from adverse effects of treatment. Providers should monitor patients for mental health complications not only in the disease infancy but throughout the disease course.

Future Directions—Cause and effect of the relationship between the psychosocial variables and ABD disease state has yet to be determined. Most studies included in this review were cross-sectional in design. Although many studies concluded that bullous dermatoses were the cause of impaired QOL, Ren and colleagues²⁹ proposed that medications used to treat neuropsychiatric disorders may trigger the autoimmune antigens of BP. Possible triggers for BP have been reported including hydrochlorothiazide, ciprofloxacin, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.^27,30-32 A longitudinal study design would better evaluate the causal relationship.

The effects of the medications were included in 2 cases, one in which the steroid dose was not found to have a significant impact on rates of depression²³ and another in which patients treated with a higher dose of corticosteroids (>10 mg) had worse QOL scores.¹⁷ Sung et al¹⁵ suggested this may be because patients who took higher doses of steroids had worse symptoms and therefore also had a worse QOL. It also is possible that those patients taking higher doses had increased side effects.¹⁷ Further studies that evaluate treatment modalities and timing in relation to the disease onset would be helpful.

Study Limitations—There are potential barriers to combining these data. Multiple different questionnaires were used, and it was difficult to ascertain if all the participants were experiencing active disease. Additionally, questionnaires are not always the best proxy for what is happening in everyday life. Lastly, the sample size of each individual study was small, and the studies only included adults.

Conclusion

As demonstrated by the 13 studies in this review, patients with ABDs have lower QOL scores and higher numbers of psychological symptoms. Clinicians should be mindful of this at-risk population and create opportunities in clinic to discuss personal hardship associated with the disease process and recommend psychiatric intervention if indicated. Additionally, family members often are overburdened with the chronicity of ABDs, and they should not be forgotten. Using one of the aforementioned questionnaires is a practical way to screen patients for lower QOL scores. We agree with Paradisi and colleagues¹⁹ that although these questionnaires may be helpful, clinicians still need to determine if the use of a dermatologic QOL evaluation tool in clinical practice improves patient satisfaction.

Autoimmune bullous dermatoses (ABDs) develop due to antibodies directed against antigens within the epidermis or at the dermoepidermal junction. They are categorized histologically by the location of acantholysis (separation of keratinocytes), clinical presentation, and presence of autoantibodies. The most common ABDs include pemphigus vulgaris, pemphigus foliaceus, and bullous pemphigoid (BP). These conditions present on a spectrum of symptoms and severity.¹

Although multiple studies have evaluated the impact of bullous dermatoses on mental health, most were designed with a small sample size, thus limiting the generalizability of each study. Sebaratnam et al² summarized several studies in 2012. In this review, we will analyze additional relevant literature and systematically combine the data to determine the psychological burden of disease of ABDs. We also will discuss the existing questionnaires frequently used in the dermatology setting to assess adverse psychosocial symptoms.

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for articles published within the last 15 years using the terms bullous pemphigoid, pemphigus, quality of life, anxiety, and depression. We reviewed the citations in each article to further our search.

Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion—Studies that utilized validated questionnaires to evaluate the effects of pemphigus vulgaris, pemphigus foliaceus, and/or BP on mental health were included. All research participants were 18 years and older. For the questionnaires administered, each study must have included numerical scores in the results. The studies all reported statistically significant results (P<.05), but no studies were excluded on the basis of statistical significance.

Studies were excluded if they did not use a validated questionnaire to examine quality of life (QOL) or psychological status. We also excluded database, retrospective, qualitative, and observational studies. We did not include studies with a sample size less than 20. Studies that administered questionnaires that were uncommon in this realm of research such as the Attitude to Appearance Scale or The Anxiety Questionnaire also were excluded. We did not exclude articles based on their primary language.

Results

A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1716 participants enrolled in the trials. The questionnaires most commonly used are summarized in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate the studies that evaluate QOL and psychological state in patients with bullous dermatoses, respectively.

The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was the most utilized method for analyzing QOL followed by the Skindex-17, Skindex-29, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. The DLQI is a skin-specific measurement tool with higher scores translating to greater impairment in QOL. Healthy patients have an average score of 0.5.³ The mean DLQI scores for ABD patients as seen in Table 2 were 9.45, 10.18, 16, 10.9, and 10.1.^13-15,18,22 The most commonly reported concerns among patients included feelings about appearance and disturbances in daily activities.¹⁸ Symptoms of mucosal involvement, itching, and burning also were indicators of lower QOL.^15,18,20,22 Furthermore, women consistently had lower scores than men.^15,17,19,25 Multiple studies concluded that severity of the disease correlated with a lower QOL, though the subtype of pemphigus did not have an effect on QOL scores.^15,19,20,21 Lastly, recent onset of symptoms was associated with a worse QOL score.^15,18-20 Age, education level, and marital status did not have an effect on QOL.

To evaluate psychological state, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-28 and -12 primarily were used, in addition to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; and the Beck Depression Inventory-II. As seen in Table 3, GHQ-12 positivity, reflecting probable minor nonpsychotic psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety, was identified in 47%, 39.7%, and 40% of patients with pemphigus^15,19,24; GHQ-28 positivity was seen in 77.5% of pemphigus patients.¹⁸ In the average population, GHQ positivity was found in up to 12% of patients.^26,27 Similar to the QOL scores, no significant differences were seen based on subtype of pemphigus for symptoms of depression or anxiety.^20,23

Comment

Mental Health of Patients With ABDs—Immunobullous diseases are painful, potentially lifelong conditions that have no definitive cure. These conditions are characterized by bullae and erosions of the skin and mucosae that physically are disabling and often create a stigma for patients. Across multiple different validated psychosocial assessments, the 13 studies included in this review consistently reported that ABDs have a negative effect on mental well-being of patients that is more pronounced in women and worse at the onset of symptoms.^13-25

QOL Scores in Patients With ABDs—Quality of life is a broad term that encompasses a general sense of psychological and overall well-being. A score of approximately 10 on the DLQI most often was reported in patients with ABDs, which translates to a moderate impact on QOL. Incomparison, a large cohort study reported the mean (SD) DLQI scores for patients with atopic dermatitis and psoriasis as 7.31 (5.98) and 5.93 (5.66), respectively.²⁸ In another study, Penha et al¹⁴ found that patients with psoriasis have a mean DLQI score of 10. Reasons for the similarly low QOL scores in patients with ABDs include long hospitalization periods, disease chronicity, social anxiety, inability to control symptoms, difficulty with activities of daily living, and the belief that the disease is incurable.^17,19,23 Although there is a need for increased family and social support with performing necessary daily tasks, personal relationships often are negatively affected, resulting in social isolation, loneliness, and worsening of cutaneous symptoms.

Severity of cutaneous disease and recent onset of symptoms correlated with worse QOL scores. Tabolli et al²⁰ proposed the reason for this relates to not having had enough time to find the best treatment regimen. We believe there also may be an element of habituation involved, whereby patients become accustomed to the appearance of the lesions over time and therefore they become less distressing. Interestingly, Tabolli et al¹⁷ determined that patients in the quiescent phase of the disease—without any mucosal or cutaneous lesions—still maintained lower QOL scores than the average population, particularly on the psychosocial section of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, which may be due to a concern of disease relapse or from adverse effects of treatment. Providers should monitor patients for mental health complications not only in the disease infancy but throughout the disease course.

Future Directions—Cause and effect of the relationship between the psychosocial variables and ABD disease state has yet to be determined. Most studies included in this review were cross-sectional in design. Although many studies concluded that bullous dermatoses were the cause of impaired QOL, Ren and colleagues²⁹ proposed that medications used to treat neuropsychiatric disorders may trigger the autoimmune antigens of BP. Possible triggers for BP have been reported including hydrochlorothiazide, ciprofloxacin, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.^27,30-32 A longitudinal study design would better evaluate the causal relationship.

The effects of the medications were included in 2 cases, one in which the steroid dose was not found to have a significant impact on rates of depression²³ and another in which patients treated with a higher dose of corticosteroids (>10 mg) had worse QOL scores.¹⁷ Sung et al¹⁵ suggested this may be because patients who took higher doses of steroids had worse symptoms and therefore also had a worse QOL. It also is possible that those patients taking higher doses had increased side effects.¹⁷ Further studies that evaluate treatment modalities and timing in relation to the disease onset would be helpful.

Study Limitations—There are potential barriers to combining these data. Multiple different questionnaires were used, and it was difficult to ascertain if all the participants were experiencing active disease. Additionally, questionnaires are not always the best proxy for what is happening in everyday life. Lastly, the sample size of each individual study was small, and the studies only included adults.

Conclusion

As demonstrated by the 13 studies in this review, patients with ABDs have lower QOL scores and higher numbers of psychological symptoms. Clinicians should be mindful of this at-risk population and create opportunities in clinic to discuss personal hardship associated with the disease process and recommend psychiatric intervention if indicated. Additionally, family members often are overburdened with the chronicity of ABDs, and they should not be forgotten. Using one of the aforementioned questionnaires is a practical way to screen patients for lower QOL scores. We agree with Paradisi and colleagues¹⁹ that although these questionnaires may be helpful, clinicians still need to determine if the use of a dermatologic QOL evaluation tool in clinical practice improves patient satisfaction.

The COVID-19 pandemic largely altered the practice of medicine, including a rapid expansion of telemedicine following the March 2020 World Health Organization guidelines for social distancing, which recommended suspension of all nonurgent in-person visits.¹ Expectedly, COVID-related urgent care visits initially comprised the bulk of the new telemedicine wave: NYU Langone Health (New York, New York), for example, saw a 683% increase in virtual visits between March and April 2020, most (55.3%) of which were for respiratory concerns. In-person visits, on the other hand, concurrently fell by more than 80%. Interestingly, nonurgent ambulatory care specialties also saw a considerable uptick in virtual encounters, from less than 50 visits in a typical day to an average of 7000 in a 10-day stretch.²

As a largely ambulatory specialty that relies on visual examination, dermatology was no exception to the swing toward telemedicine, or teledermatology (TD). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 14.1% (82 of 582 respondents) of practicing US dermatologists reported having used teledermatology, compared to 96.9% (572/591) during the pandemic.³ Even at my home institution (Massachusetts General Hospital [Boston, Massachusetts] and its 12 affiliated dermatology clinics), the number of in-person visits in April 2020 (n=67) was less than 1% of that in April 2019 (n=7919), whereas there was a total of 1564 virtual visits in April 2020 compared to zero the year prior. Virtual provider-to-provider consults (e-consultations) also saw an increase of more than 20%, suggesting that dermatology’s avid adoption of TD also had improved the perceived accessibility of our specialty.⁴

The adoption and adaptation of TD are projected to continue to grow rapidly across the globe, as digitalization has enhanced access without increasing costs, shortened wait times, and even created opportunities for primary care providers based in rural or overseas locations to learn the diagnosis and treatment of skin disease.⁵ Residents and fellows should be privy to the nuances of training and practicing in this digital era, as our careers inevitably will involve some facet of TD.

The Art of Medicine

Touch, a sense that perhaps ranks second to sight in dermatology, is absent in TD. In either synchronous (live-interactive, face video visits) or asynchronous (store-and-forward, where digital photographs and clinical information sent by patients or referring physicians are assessed at a later time) TD, the skin cannot be rubbed for texture, pinched for thickness, or pushed for blanching. Instead, all we have is vision. Irwin Braverman, MD, Professor Emeritus of Dermatology at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut), alongside Jacqueline Dolev, MD, dermatologist and Yale graduate, and Linda Friedlaender, curator at the Yale Center for British Art, founded an observational skills workshop in which trainees learn to observe and describe the paintings housed in the museum, noting all memorable details: the color of the sky, the actions of the animals, and the facial expressions of the people. A study of 90 participants over a 2-year period found that following the workshop, the ability to identify key diagnostic details from clinical photography improved by more than 10%.⁶ Other studies also utilizing fine art as a medical training tool to improve “visual literacy” saw similarly increased sophistication in the description of clinical imagery, which translated to better diagnostic acumen.⁷ Confined to video and photographs, TD necessitates trainees and practicing dermatologists to be excellent visual diagnosticians. Although surveyed dermatologists believe TD is presently appropriate for acne, benign lesions, or follow-up appointments,³ conditions for which patients have been examined via TD have included drug eruptions, premalignant or malignant neoplasms, infections, and papulosquamous or inflammatory dermatoses.⁸ At the very least, clinicians should be versed in identifying those conditions that require in-person evaluation, as patients cannot be held responsible to distinguish which situations can and cannot be addressed virtually.

Issues of Patient-Physician Confidentiality

Teledermatology is not without its shortcomings; critics have noted diagnostic challenges with poor quality photographs or videos, inability to perform total-body skin examinations, and socioeconomic limitations due to broadband availability and speed.^5,9 Although most of these shortcomings are outside of our control, a key challenge within the purview of the provider is the protection of patient privacy.

Much of the salient concerns regarding patient-physician confidentiality involve asynchronous TD, where store-and-forward data sharing allows physicians to download patient photographs or information onto their personal email or smartphones.¹⁰ Although some hospital systems provide encryption software or hospital-sponsored devices to ensure security, physicians may opt to use their personal phones or laptops out of convenience or to save time.^10,11 One study found that less than 30% of smartphone users choose to activate user authentication on their devices, even ones as simple as a passphrase.¹¹ The digital exchange of information thus poses an immense risk for compromising protected health information (PHI), as personal devices can be easily lost, stolen, or hacked. Indeed, in 2015, more than 113 million individuals were affected by a breach of PHI, the majority over hacked network servers.¹² With the growing diversity of mediums through which PHI is exchanged, such as videoconferencing and instant messaging, the potential medicolegal risks of information breach continue to climb. The US Department of Health & Human Services urges health care providers to uphold best practices for security, including encrypting data, updating all software including antivirus software, using multifactor authentication, and following local cybersecurity regulations or recommendations.¹³ For synchronous TD, suggested best practices include utilizing headphones during live appointments, avoiding public wireless networks, and ensuring the provider and patient both scan the room with their device’s camera before the start of the visit.¹⁴

On the Horizon of Teledermatology

What can we expect in the coming years? Increased utilization of telemedicine will translate into data that will help address questions surrounding safety, diagnostic accuracy, privacy, and accessibility. One aspect of TD in need of clarity is a guideline on payment and reimbursement, and whether TD can continue to be financially attractive to providers. Starting in 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services removed geographic restrictions for reimbursement of telemedicine visits, enabling even urban-residing patients to enjoy the convenience of TD. This followed a prior relaxation of restrictions, where even prerecorded patient information became eligible for Medicare reimbursement.⁹ However, as virtual visits tend to be shorter with fewer diagnostic services compared to in-person visits, the reimbursement structure of TD must be nuanced, which is the subject of ongoing study and modification in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁵

Another point to consider is the explosion of direct-to-consumer TD, which allows patients to receive virtual dermatologic care or prescription medication without a pre-established relationship with any physician. In 2017, there were 22 direct-to-consumer TD services available to US patients in 45 states, 16 (73%) of which provided dermatologic care for any concern while 6 (27%) were limited to acne or antiaging and were largely prescription oriented. Orchestrated mostly by the for-profit private sector, direct-to-consumer companies are poorly regulated and have raised concerns over questionable practices, such as the use of non–US board-certified physicians, exorbitant fees, and failure to disclose medication side effects.¹⁶ A study of 16 direct-to-consumer telemedicine sites found substantial discordance in the suggested management of the same patient, and many of the services relied heavily on patient-provided self-diagnoses, such as a case where psoriasis medication was dispensed for a psoriasis patient who submitted a photograph of his syphilitic rash.¹⁷ Despite these problems, consumers show a willingness to pay out of pocket to access these services for their shorter waiting times and convenience.¹⁸ Hence, we must learn to ask about direct-to-consumer service use when obtaining a thorough history and be open to counseling our patients on the proper use and potential risks of direct-to-consumer TD.

Final Thoughts

The telemedicine industry is expected to reach more than $130 billion by 2025, with more than 90% of surveyed health care executives planning for the adoption and incorporation of telemedicine into their business models.¹⁹ The COVID-19 pandemic was an impetus for an exponential adoption of TD, and it would behoove current residents to realize that the practice of dermatology will continue to be increasingly digitalized within the coming years. Whether through formal training or self-assessment, we must strive to grow as proficient virtual dermatologists while upholding professionalism, patient safety, and health information privacy.

The COVID-19 pandemic largely altered the practice of medicine, including a rapid expansion of telemedicine following the March 2020 World Health Organization guidelines for social distancing, which recommended suspension of all nonurgent in-person visits.¹ Expectedly, COVID-related urgent care visits initially comprised the bulk of the new telemedicine wave: NYU Langone Health (New York, New York), for example, saw a 683% increase in virtual visits between March and April 2020, most (55.3%) of which were for respiratory concerns. In-person visits, on the other hand, concurrently fell by more than 80%. Interestingly, nonurgent ambulatory care specialties also saw a considerable uptick in virtual encounters, from less than 50 visits in a typical day to an average of 7000 in a 10-day stretch.²

As a largely ambulatory specialty that relies on visual examination, dermatology was no exception to the swing toward telemedicine, or teledermatology (TD). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 14.1% (82 of 582 respondents) of practicing US dermatologists reported having used teledermatology, compared to 96.9% (572/591) during the pandemic.³ Even at my home institution (Massachusetts General Hospital [Boston, Massachusetts] and its 12 affiliated dermatology clinics), the number of in-person visits in April 2020 (n=67) was less than 1% of that in April 2019 (n=7919), whereas there was a total of 1564 virtual visits in April 2020 compared to zero the year prior. Virtual provider-to-provider consults (e-consultations) also saw an increase of more than 20%, suggesting that dermatology’s avid adoption of TD also had improved the perceived accessibility of our specialty.⁴

The adoption and adaptation of TD are projected to continue to grow rapidly across the globe, as digitalization has enhanced access without increasing costs, shortened wait times, and even created opportunities for primary care providers based in rural or overseas locations to learn the diagnosis and treatment of skin disease.⁵ Residents and fellows should be privy to the nuances of training and practicing in this digital era, as our careers inevitably will involve some facet of TD.

The Art of Medicine

Touch, a sense that perhaps ranks second to sight in dermatology, is absent in TD. In either synchronous (live-interactive, face video visits) or asynchronous (store-and-forward, where digital photographs and clinical information sent by patients or referring physicians are assessed at a later time) TD, the skin cannot be rubbed for texture, pinched for thickness, or pushed for blanching. Instead, all we have is vision. Irwin Braverman, MD, Professor Emeritus of Dermatology at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut), alongside Jacqueline Dolev, MD, dermatologist and Yale graduate, and Linda Friedlaender, curator at the Yale Center for British Art, founded an observational skills workshop in which trainees learn to observe and describe the paintings housed in the museum, noting all memorable details: the color of the sky, the actions of the animals, and the facial expressions of the people. A study of 90 participants over a 2-year period found that following the workshop, the ability to identify key diagnostic details from clinical photography improved by more than 10%.⁶ Other studies also utilizing fine art as a medical training tool to improve “visual literacy” saw similarly increased sophistication in the description of clinical imagery, which translated to better diagnostic acumen.⁷ Confined to video and photographs, TD necessitates trainees and practicing dermatologists to be excellent visual diagnosticians. Although surveyed dermatologists believe TD is presently appropriate for acne, benign lesions, or follow-up appointments,³ conditions for which patients have been examined via TD have included drug eruptions, premalignant or malignant neoplasms, infections, and papulosquamous or inflammatory dermatoses.⁸ At the very least, clinicians should be versed in identifying those conditions that require in-person evaluation, as patients cannot be held responsible to distinguish which situations can and cannot be addressed virtually.

Issues of Patient-Physician Confidentiality

Teledermatology is not without its shortcomings; critics have noted diagnostic challenges with poor quality photographs or videos, inability to perform total-body skin examinations, and socioeconomic limitations due to broadband availability and speed.^5,9 Although most of these shortcomings are outside of our control, a key challenge within the purview of the provider is the protection of patient privacy.

Much of the salient concerns regarding patient-physician confidentiality involve asynchronous TD, where store-and-forward data sharing allows physicians to download patient photographs or information onto their personal email or smartphones.¹⁰ Although some hospital systems provide encryption software or hospital-sponsored devices to ensure security, physicians may opt to use their personal phones or laptops out of convenience or to save time.^10,11 One study found that less than 30% of smartphone users choose to activate user authentication on their devices, even ones as simple as a passphrase.¹¹ The digital exchange of information thus poses an immense risk for compromising protected health information (PHI), as personal devices can be easily lost, stolen, or hacked. Indeed, in 2015, more than 113 million individuals were affected by a breach of PHI, the majority over hacked network servers.¹² With the growing diversity of mediums through which PHI is exchanged, such as videoconferencing and instant messaging, the potential medicolegal risks of information breach continue to climb. The US Department of Health & Human Services urges health care providers to uphold best practices for security, including encrypting data, updating all software including antivirus software, using multifactor authentication, and following local cybersecurity regulations or recommendations.¹³ For synchronous TD, suggested best practices include utilizing headphones during live appointments, avoiding public wireless networks, and ensuring the provider and patient both scan the room with their device’s camera before the start of the visit.¹⁴

On the Horizon of Teledermatology

What can we expect in the coming years? Increased utilization of telemedicine will translate into data that will help address questions surrounding safety, diagnostic accuracy, privacy, and accessibility. One aspect of TD in need of clarity is a guideline on payment and reimbursement, and whether TD can continue to be financially attractive to providers. Starting in 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services removed geographic restrictions for reimbursement of telemedicine visits, enabling even urban-residing patients to enjoy the convenience of TD. This followed a prior relaxation of restrictions, where even prerecorded patient information became eligible for Medicare reimbursement.⁹ However, as virtual visits tend to be shorter with fewer diagnostic services compared to in-person visits, the reimbursement structure of TD must be nuanced, which is the subject of ongoing study and modification in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁵

Another point to consider is the explosion of direct-to-consumer TD, which allows patients to receive virtual dermatologic care or prescription medication without a pre-established relationship with any physician. In 2017, there were 22 direct-to-consumer TD services available to US patients in 45 states, 16 (73%) of which provided dermatologic care for any concern while 6 (27%) were limited to acne or antiaging and were largely prescription oriented. Orchestrated mostly by the for-profit private sector, direct-to-consumer companies are poorly regulated and have raised concerns over questionable practices, such as the use of non–US board-certified physicians, exorbitant fees, and failure to disclose medication side effects.¹⁶ A study of 16 direct-to-consumer telemedicine sites found substantial discordance in the suggested management of the same patient, and many of the services relied heavily on patient-provided self-diagnoses, such as a case where psoriasis medication was dispensed for a psoriasis patient who submitted a photograph of his syphilitic rash.¹⁷ Despite these problems, consumers show a willingness to pay out of pocket to access these services for their shorter waiting times and convenience.¹⁸ Hence, we must learn to ask about direct-to-consumer service use when obtaining a thorough history and be open to counseling our patients on the proper use and potential risks of direct-to-consumer TD.

Final Thoughts

The telemedicine industry is expected to reach more than $130 billion by 2025, with more than 90% of surveyed health care executives planning for the adoption and incorporation of telemedicine into their business models.¹⁹ The COVID-19 pandemic was an impetus for an exponential adoption of TD, and it would behoove current residents to realize that the practice of dermatology will continue to be increasingly digitalized within the coming years. Whether through formal training or self-assessment, we must strive to grow as proficient virtual dermatologists while upholding professionalism, patient safety, and health information privacy.

The COVID-19 pandemic largely altered the practice of medicine, including a rapid expansion of telemedicine following the March 2020 World Health Organization guidelines for social distancing, which recommended suspension of all nonurgent in-person visits.¹ Expectedly, COVID-related urgent care visits initially comprised the bulk of the new telemedicine wave: NYU Langone Health (New York, New York), for example, saw a 683% increase in virtual visits between March and April 2020, most (55.3%) of which were for respiratory concerns. In-person visits, on the other hand, concurrently fell by more than 80%. Interestingly, nonurgent ambulatory care specialties also saw a considerable uptick in virtual encounters, from less than 50 visits in a typical day to an average of 7000 in a 10-day stretch.²

As a largely ambulatory specialty that relies on visual examination, dermatology was no exception to the swing toward telemedicine, or teledermatology (TD). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 14.1% (82 of 582 respondents) of practicing US dermatologists reported having used teledermatology, compared to 96.9% (572/591) during the pandemic.³ Even at my home institution (Massachusetts General Hospital [Boston, Massachusetts] and its 12 affiliated dermatology clinics), the number of in-person visits in April 2020 (n=67) was less than 1% of that in April 2019 (n=7919), whereas there was a total of 1564 virtual visits in April 2020 compared to zero the year prior. Virtual provider-to-provider consults (e-consultations) also saw an increase of more than 20%, suggesting that dermatology’s avid adoption of TD also had improved the perceived accessibility of our specialty.⁴

The adoption and adaptation of TD are projected to continue to grow rapidly across the globe, as digitalization has enhanced access without increasing costs, shortened wait times, and even created opportunities for primary care providers based in rural or overseas locations to learn the diagnosis and treatment of skin disease.⁵ Residents and fellows should be privy to the nuances of training and practicing in this digital era, as our careers inevitably will involve some facet of TD.

The Art of Medicine

Touch, a sense that perhaps ranks second to sight in dermatology, is absent in TD. In either synchronous (live-interactive, face video visits) or asynchronous (store-and-forward, where digital photographs and clinical information sent by patients or referring physicians are assessed at a later time) TD, the skin cannot be rubbed for texture, pinched for thickness, or pushed for blanching. Instead, all we have is vision. Irwin Braverman, MD, Professor Emeritus of Dermatology at Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut), alongside Jacqueline Dolev, MD, dermatologist and Yale graduate, and Linda Friedlaender, curator at the Yale Center for British Art, founded an observational skills workshop in which trainees learn to observe and describe the paintings housed in the museum, noting all memorable details: the color of the sky, the actions of the animals, and the facial expressions of the people. A study of 90 participants over a 2-year period found that following the workshop, the ability to identify key diagnostic details from clinical photography improved by more than 10%.⁶ Other studies also utilizing fine art as a medical training tool to improve “visual literacy” saw similarly increased sophistication in the description of clinical imagery, which translated to better diagnostic acumen.⁷ Confined to video and photographs, TD necessitates trainees and practicing dermatologists to be excellent visual diagnosticians. Although surveyed dermatologists believe TD is presently appropriate for acne, benign lesions, or follow-up appointments,³ conditions for which patients have been examined via TD have included drug eruptions, premalignant or malignant neoplasms, infections, and papulosquamous or inflammatory dermatoses.⁸ At the very least, clinicians should be versed in identifying those conditions that require in-person evaluation, as patients cannot be held responsible to distinguish which situations can and cannot be addressed virtually.

Issues of Patient-Physician Confidentiality

Teledermatology is not without its shortcomings; critics have noted diagnostic challenges with poor quality photographs or videos, inability to perform total-body skin examinations, and socioeconomic limitations due to broadband availability and speed.^5,9 Although most of these shortcomings are outside of our control, a key challenge within the purview of the provider is the protection of patient privacy.

Much of the salient concerns regarding patient-physician confidentiality involve asynchronous TD, where store-and-forward data sharing allows physicians to download patient photographs or information onto their personal email or smartphones.¹⁰ Although some hospital systems provide encryption software or hospital-sponsored devices to ensure security, physicians may opt to use their personal phones or laptops out of convenience or to save time.^10,11 One study found that less than 30% of smartphone users choose to activate user authentication on their devices, even ones as simple as a passphrase.¹¹ The digital exchange of information thus poses an immense risk for compromising protected health information (PHI), as personal devices can be easily lost, stolen, or hacked. Indeed, in 2015, more than 113 million individuals were affected by a breach of PHI, the majority over hacked network servers.¹² With the growing diversity of mediums through which PHI is exchanged, such as videoconferencing and instant messaging, the potential medicolegal risks of information breach continue to climb. The US Department of Health & Human Services urges health care providers to uphold best practices for security, including encrypting data, updating all software including antivirus software, using multifactor authentication, and following local cybersecurity regulations or recommendations.¹³ For synchronous TD, suggested best practices include utilizing headphones during live appointments, avoiding public wireless networks, and ensuring the provider and patient both scan the room with their device’s camera before the start of the visit.¹⁴

On the Horizon of Teledermatology

What can we expect in the coming years? Increased utilization of telemedicine will translate into data that will help address questions surrounding safety, diagnostic accuracy, privacy, and accessibility. One aspect of TD in need of clarity is a guideline on payment and reimbursement, and whether TD can continue to be financially attractive to providers. Starting in 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services removed geographic restrictions for reimbursement of telemedicine visits, enabling even urban-residing patients to enjoy the convenience of TD. This followed a prior relaxation of restrictions, where even prerecorded patient information became eligible for Medicare reimbursement.⁹ However, as virtual visits tend to be shorter with fewer diagnostic services compared to in-person visits, the reimbursement structure of TD must be nuanced, which is the subject of ongoing study and modification in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁵

Another point to consider is the explosion of direct-to-consumer TD, which allows patients to receive virtual dermatologic care or prescription medication without a pre-established relationship with any physician. In 2017, there were 22 direct-to-consumer TD services available to US patients in 45 states, 16 (73%) of which provided dermatologic care for any concern while 6 (27%) were limited to acne or antiaging and were largely prescription oriented. Orchestrated mostly by the for-profit private sector, direct-to-consumer companies are poorly regulated and have raised concerns over questionable practices, such as the use of non–US board-certified physicians, exorbitant fees, and failure to disclose medication side effects.¹⁶ A study of 16 direct-to-consumer telemedicine sites found substantial discordance in the suggested management of the same patient, and many of the services relied heavily on patient-provided self-diagnoses, such as a case where psoriasis medication was dispensed for a psoriasis patient who submitted a photograph of his syphilitic rash.¹⁷ Despite these problems, consumers show a willingness to pay out of pocket to access these services for their shorter waiting times and convenience.¹⁸ Hence, we must learn to ask about direct-to-consumer service use when obtaining a thorough history and be open to counseling our patients on the proper use and potential risks of direct-to-consumer TD.

Final Thoughts

The telemedicine industry is expected to reach more than $130 billion by 2025, with more than 90% of surveyed health care executives planning for the adoption and incorporation of telemedicine into their business models.¹⁹ The COVID-19 pandemic was an impetus for an exponential adoption of TD, and it would behoove current residents to realize that the practice of dermatology will continue to be increasingly digitalized within the coming years. Whether through formal training or self-assessment, we must strive to grow as proficient virtual dermatologists while upholding professionalism, patient safety, and health information privacy.

On November 2, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final rule for the 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) and the Quality Payment Program (QPP).^1,2 These guidelines contain updates that will remarkably impact the field of medicine—and dermatology in particular—in 2022. This article will walk you through some of the updates most relevant to dermatology and how they may affect your practice.

Process for the Final Rule

The CMS releases an annual rule for the PFS and QPP. The interim rule generally is released over the summer with preliminary guidelines for the upcoming payment year. There is then a period of open comment where those affected by these changes, including physicians and medical associations, can submit comments to support what has been proposed or advocate for any changes. This input is then reviewed, and a final rule generally is published in the fall.

For this calendar year, the interim 2022 rule was released on July 13, 2021,³ and included many of guidelines that will be discussed in more detail in this article. Many associations that represent medicine overall and specifically dermatology, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, submitted comments in response to these proposals.^4,5

PFS Conversion Factor

The PFS conversion factor is updated annually to ensure budget neutrality in the setting of changes in relative value units. For 2022, the PFS conversion factor is $34.6062, representing a reduction of approximately $0.29 from the 2021 PFS conversion factor of $34.8931.⁶ This reduction does not take into account other payment adjustments due to legislative changes.

In combination, these changes previously were estimated to represent an overall payment cut of 10% or higher for dermatology, with those practitioners doing more procedural work or dermatopathology likely being impacted more heavily. However, with the passing of the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, it is estimated that the reductions in payment to dermatology will begin at 0.75% and reach 2.75% in the second half of the year with the phased-in reinstatement of the Medicare sequester.^4,5,7

Clinical Labor Pricing Updates

Starting in 2022, the CMS will utilize updated wage rates from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to revise clinical labor costs over a 4-year period. Clinical labor rates are important, as they are used to calculate practice expense within the PFS. These clinical labor rates were last updated in 2002.⁸ Median wage data, as opposed to mean data, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics will be utilized to calculate the updated clinical labor rates.

A multiyear implementation plan was put into place by CMS due to multiple concerns, including that current wage rates are inadequate and may not reflect current labor rate information. Additionally, comments on this proposal voiced concern that updating the supply and equipment pricing without updating the clinical labor pricing could create distortions in the allocation of direct practice expense, which also factored into the implementation of a multiyear plan.⁸

Evaluation and Management Visits

The biggest update in this area primarily is related to refining policies for split (shared) evaluation and management (E/M) visits and teaching physician activities. Split E/M visits are defined by the CMS as visits provided in the facility setting by a physician and nonphysician practitioner in the same group, with the visit billed by whomever provides the substantive portion of the visit. For 2022, the term substantive portion will be defined by the CMS as history, physical examination, medical decision-making, or more than half of the total time; for 2023, it will be defined as more than half of the total time spent.³ A split visit also can apply to an E/M visit provided in part by both a teaching physician and resident. Split visits can be reported for new or established patients. For proper reimbursement, the 2 practitioners who performed the services must be documented in the medical record, and the practitioner who provided the substantive portion must sign and date the encounter in the medical record. Additionally, the CMS has indicated the modifier FS must be included on the claim to indicate the split visit.⁹

For dermatologists who act as teaching physicians, it is important to note that many of the existing CMS policies for billing E/M services are still in place, specifically that if a resident participates in a service in a teaching setting, the teaching physician can bill for the service only if they are present for the key or critical portion of the service. A primary care exception does exist, in which teaching physicians at certain teaching hospital primary care centers can bill for some services performed independently by a resident without the physical presence of the teaching physician; however, this often is not applicable within dermatology.

With updated outpatient E/M guidelines, if time is being selected to bill, only the time that the teaching physician was present can be included to determine the overall E/M level.

Billing for Physician Assistant Services

Currently Medicare can only make payments to the employer or independent contractor of a physician assistant (PA); however, starting January 1, 2022, the CMS has authorized Medicare to make direct payments to PAs for qualifying professional services, in the same manner that nurse practitioners can currently bill. This also will allow PAs to incorporate as a group and bill Medicare for PA services. This stems from a congressional mandate within the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.⁸ As a result, in states where PAs can practice independently, they can opt out of physician-led care teams and furnish services independently, including dermatologic services.

Several changes were made to the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Some of these changes include:

• Increase the MIPS performance threshold to 75 points from 60 points.
• Set the performance threshold at 89 points.
• Reduce the quality performance category weight from 40% to 30% of the final MIPS score.
• Increase the cost performance category weight from 20% to 30% of the final MIPS score.
• The extreme and uncontrollable circumstances application also has been extended to the end of 2022, allowing those remarkably impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency to request for reweighting on any or all MIPS performance categories.

Cost Measures and MIPS Value Pathways

The melanoma resection cost measure will be implemented in 2022, representing the first dermatology cost measure, which will include the cost to Medicare over a 1-year period for all patient care for the excision of a melanoma. Although cost measures will be part of the MIPS value pathways (MVPs) reporting, dermatology currently is not part of the MVP; however, with the CMS moving forward with an initial set of MVPs that physicians can voluntarily report on in 2023, there is a possibility that dermatology will be asked to be part of the program in the future.¹⁰

Final Thoughts

There are many upcoming changes as part of the 2022 final rule, including to the conversion factor, E/M split visits, PA billing, and the QPP. Advocacy in these areas to the CMS and lawmakers, either directly or through dermatologic and other medical societies, is critical to help influence eventual recommendations.

On November 2, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final rule for the 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) and the Quality Payment Program (QPP).^1,2 These guidelines contain updates that will remarkably impact the field of medicine—and dermatology in particular—in 2022. This article will walk you through some of the updates most relevant to dermatology and how they may affect your practice.

Process for the Final Rule

The CMS releases an annual rule for the PFS and QPP. The interim rule generally is released over the summer with preliminary guidelines for the upcoming payment year. There is then a period of open comment where those affected by these changes, including physicians and medical associations, can submit comments to support what has been proposed or advocate for any changes. This input is then reviewed, and a final rule generally is published in the fall.

For this calendar year, the interim 2022 rule was released on July 13, 2021,³ and included many of guidelines that will be discussed in more detail in this article. Many associations that represent medicine overall and specifically dermatology, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, submitted comments in response to these proposals.^4,5

PFS Conversion Factor

The PFS conversion factor is updated annually to ensure budget neutrality in the setting of changes in relative value units. For 2022, the PFS conversion factor is $34.6062, representing a reduction of approximately $0.29 from the 2021 PFS conversion factor of $34.8931.⁶ This reduction does not take into account other payment adjustments due to legislative changes.

In combination, these changes previously were estimated to represent an overall payment cut of 10% or higher for dermatology, with those practitioners doing more procedural work or dermatopathology likely being impacted more heavily. However, with the passing of the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, it is estimated that the reductions in payment to dermatology will begin at 0.75% and reach 2.75% in the second half of the year with the phased-in reinstatement of the Medicare sequester.^4,5,7

Clinical Labor Pricing Updates

Starting in 2022, the CMS will utilize updated wage rates from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to revise clinical labor costs over a 4-year period. Clinical labor rates are important, as they are used to calculate practice expense within the PFS. These clinical labor rates were last updated in 2002.⁸ Median wage data, as opposed to mean data, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics will be utilized to calculate the updated clinical labor rates.

A multiyear implementation plan was put into place by CMS due to multiple concerns, including that current wage rates are inadequate and may not reflect current labor rate information. Additionally, comments on this proposal voiced concern that updating the supply and equipment pricing without updating the clinical labor pricing could create distortions in the allocation of direct practice expense, which also factored into the implementation of a multiyear plan.⁸

Evaluation and Management Visits

The biggest update in this area primarily is related to refining policies for split (shared) evaluation and management (E/M) visits and teaching physician activities. Split E/M visits are defined by the CMS as visits provided in the facility setting by a physician and nonphysician practitioner in the same group, with the visit billed by whomever provides the substantive portion of the visit. For 2022, the term substantive portion will be defined by the CMS as history, physical examination, medical decision-making, or more than half of the total time; for 2023, it will be defined as more than half of the total time spent.³ A split visit also can apply to an E/M visit provided in part by both a teaching physician and resident. Split visits can be reported for new or established patients. For proper reimbursement, the 2 practitioners who performed the services must be documented in the medical record, and the practitioner who provided the substantive portion must sign and date the encounter in the medical record. Additionally, the CMS has indicated the modifier FS must be included on the claim to indicate the split visit.⁹

For dermatologists who act as teaching physicians, it is important to note that many of the existing CMS policies for billing E/M services are still in place, specifically that if a resident participates in a service in a teaching setting, the teaching physician can bill for the service only if they are present for the key or critical portion of the service. A primary care exception does exist, in which teaching physicians at certain teaching hospital primary care centers can bill for some services performed independently by a resident without the physical presence of the teaching physician; however, this often is not applicable within dermatology.

With updated outpatient E/M guidelines, if time is being selected to bill, only the time that the teaching physician was present can be included to determine the overall E/M level.

Billing for Physician Assistant Services

Currently Medicare can only make payments to the employer or independent contractor of a physician assistant (PA); however, starting January 1, 2022, the CMS has authorized Medicare to make direct payments to PAs for qualifying professional services, in the same manner that nurse practitioners can currently bill. This also will allow PAs to incorporate as a group and bill Medicare for PA services. This stems from a congressional mandate within the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.⁸ As a result, in states where PAs can practice independently, they can opt out of physician-led care teams and furnish services independently, including dermatologic services.

Several changes were made to the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Some of these changes include:

• Increase the MIPS performance threshold to 75 points from 60 points.
• Set the performance threshold at 89 points.
• Reduce the quality performance category weight from 40% to 30% of the final MIPS score.
• Increase the cost performance category weight from 20% to 30% of the final MIPS score.
• The extreme and uncontrollable circumstances application also has been extended to the end of 2022, allowing those remarkably impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency to request for reweighting on any or all MIPS performance categories.

Cost Measures and MIPS Value Pathways

The melanoma resection cost measure will be implemented in 2022, representing the first dermatology cost measure, which will include the cost to Medicare over a 1-year period for all patient care for the excision of a melanoma. Although cost measures will be part of the MIPS value pathways (MVPs) reporting, dermatology currently is not part of the MVP; however, with the CMS moving forward with an initial set of MVPs that physicians can voluntarily report on in 2023, there is a possibility that dermatology will be asked to be part of the program in the future.¹⁰

Final Thoughts

There are many upcoming changes as part of the 2022 final rule, including to the conversion factor, E/M split visits, PA billing, and the QPP. Advocacy in these areas to the CMS and lawmakers, either directly or through dermatologic and other medical societies, is critical to help influence eventual recommendations.

On November 2, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final rule for the 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) and the Quality Payment Program (QPP).^1,2 These guidelines contain updates that will remarkably impact the field of medicine—and dermatology in particular—in 2022. This article will walk you through some of the updates most relevant to dermatology and how they may affect your practice.

Process for the Final Rule

The CMS releases an annual rule for the PFS and QPP. The interim rule generally is released over the summer with preliminary guidelines for the upcoming payment year. There is then a period of open comment where those affected by these changes, including physicians and medical associations, can submit comments to support what has been proposed or advocate for any changes. This input is then reviewed, and a final rule generally is published in the fall.

For this calendar year, the interim 2022 rule was released on July 13, 2021,³ and included many of guidelines that will be discussed in more detail in this article. Many associations that represent medicine overall and specifically dermatology, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, submitted comments in response to these proposals.^4,5

PFS Conversion Factor

The PFS conversion factor is updated annually to ensure budget neutrality in the setting of changes in relative value units. For 2022, the PFS conversion factor is $34.6062, representing a reduction of approximately $0.29 from the 2021 PFS conversion factor of $34.8931.⁶ This reduction does not take into account other payment adjustments due to legislative changes.

In combination, these changes previously were estimated to represent an overall payment cut of 10% or higher for dermatology, with those practitioners doing more procedural work or dermatopathology likely being impacted more heavily. However, with the passing of the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, it is estimated that the reductions in payment to dermatology will begin at 0.75% and reach 2.75% in the second half of the year with the phased-in reinstatement of the Medicare sequester.^4,5,7

Clinical Labor Pricing Updates

Starting in 2022, the CMS will utilize updated wage rates from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to revise clinical labor costs over a 4-year period. Clinical labor rates are important, as they are used to calculate practice expense within the PFS. These clinical labor rates were last updated in 2002.⁸ Median wage data, as opposed to mean data, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics will be utilized to calculate the updated clinical labor rates.

A multiyear implementation plan was put into place by CMS due to multiple concerns, including that current wage rates are inadequate and may not reflect current labor rate information. Additionally, comments on this proposal voiced concern that updating the supply and equipment pricing without updating the clinical labor pricing could create distortions in the allocation of direct practice expense, which also factored into the implementation of a multiyear plan.⁸

Evaluation and Management Visits

The biggest update in this area primarily is related to refining policies for split (shared) evaluation and management (E/M) visits and teaching physician activities. Split E/M visits are defined by the CMS as visits provided in the facility setting by a physician and nonphysician practitioner in the same group, with the visit billed by whomever provides the substantive portion of the visit. For 2022, the term substantive portion will be defined by the CMS as history, physical examination, medical decision-making, or more than half of the total time; for 2023, it will be defined as more than half of the total time spent.³ A split visit also can apply to an E/M visit provided in part by both a teaching physician and resident. Split visits can be reported for new or established patients. For proper reimbursement, the 2 practitioners who performed the services must be documented in the medical record, and the practitioner who provided the substantive portion must sign and date the encounter in the medical record. Additionally, the CMS has indicated the modifier FS must be included on the claim to indicate the split visit.⁹

For dermatologists who act as teaching physicians, it is important to note that many of the existing CMS policies for billing E/M services are still in place, specifically that if a resident participates in a service in a teaching setting, the teaching physician can bill for the service only if they are present for the key or critical portion of the service. A primary care exception does exist, in which teaching physicians at certain teaching hospital primary care centers can bill for some services performed independently by a resident without the physical presence of the teaching physician; however, this often is not applicable within dermatology.

With updated outpatient E/M guidelines, if time is being selected to bill, only the time that the teaching physician was present can be included to determine the overall E/M level.

Billing for Physician Assistant Services

Currently Medicare can only make payments to the employer or independent contractor of a physician assistant (PA); however, starting January 1, 2022, the CMS has authorized Medicare to make direct payments to PAs for qualifying professional services, in the same manner that nurse practitioners can currently bill. This also will allow PAs to incorporate as a group and bill Medicare for PA services. This stems from a congressional mandate within the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.⁸ As a result, in states where PAs can practice independently, they can opt out of physician-led care teams and furnish services independently, including dermatologic services.

Several changes were made to the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Some of these changes include:

• Increase the MIPS performance threshold to 75 points from 60 points.
• Set the performance threshold at 89 points.
• Reduce the quality performance category weight from 40% to 30% of the final MIPS score.
• Increase the cost performance category weight from 20% to 30% of the final MIPS score.
• The extreme and uncontrollable circumstances application also has been extended to the end of 2022, allowing those remarkably impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency to request for reweighting on any or all MIPS performance categories.

Cost Measures and MIPS Value Pathways

The melanoma resection cost measure will be implemented in 2022, representing the first dermatology cost measure, which will include the cost to Medicare over a 1-year period for all patient care for the excision of a melanoma. Although cost measures will be part of the MIPS value pathways (MVPs) reporting, dermatology currently is not part of the MVP; however, with the CMS moving forward with an initial set of MVPs that physicians can voluntarily report on in 2023, there is a possibility that dermatology will be asked to be part of the program in the future.¹⁰

Final Thoughts

There are many upcoming changes as part of the 2022 final rule, including to the conversion factor, E/M split visits, PA billing, and the QPP. Advocacy in these areas to the CMS and lawmakers, either directly or through dermatologic and other medical societies, is critical to help influence eventual recommendations.

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

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

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

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

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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