Practice Management

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

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

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

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

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

When Jerry Gardner, MD, and a junior colleague received the acceptance notification for their abstract to be presented at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2021, a clause in the mandatory participation agreement gave Dr. Gardner pause. It required his colleague, as the submitting author, to completely accept any and all legal responsibility for any claims that might arise out of their presentation.

VladKol/Getty Images

The clause was a red flag to Dr. Gardner, president of Science for Organizations, a Mill Valley, Calif.–based consulting firm. The gastroenterologist and former head of the digestive diseases branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – who has made hundreds of presentations and had participated in DDW for 40 years – had never encountered such a broad indemnity clause.

This news organization investigated just how risky it is to make a presentation at a conference – more than a dozen professional societies were contacted. Although DDW declined to discuss its agreement, Houston health care attorney Rachel V. Rose said that Dr. Gardner was smart to be cautious. “I would not sign that agreement. I have never seen anything that broad and all encompassing,” she said.

The DDW requirement “means that participants must put themselves at great potential financial risk in order to present their work,” Dr. Gardner said. He added that he and his colleague would not have submitted an abstract had they known about the indemnification clause up front.

Dr. Gardner advised his colleague not to sign the DDW agreement. She did not, and both missed the meeting.
 

Speakers ‘have to be careful’

Dr. Gardner may be an exception. How many doctors are willing to forgo a presentation because of a concern about something in an agreement?

John Mandrola, MD, said he operates under the assumption that if he does not sign the agreement, then he won’t be able to give his presentation. He admits that he generally just signs them and is careful with his presentations. “I’ve never really paid much attention to them,” said Dr. Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist in Louisville, Ky., and chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.

Not everyone takes that approach. “I do think that people read them, but they also take them with a grain of salt,” said E. Magnus Ohman, MBBS, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. He said he’s pragmatic and regards the agreements as a necessary evil in a litigious nation. Speakers “have to be careful, obviously,” Dr. Ohman said in an interview.

Some argue that the requirements are not only fair but also understandable. David Johnson, MD, a former president of the American College of Gastroenterology, said he has never had questions about agreements for meetings he has been involved with. “To me, this is not anything other than standard operating procedure,” he said.

Presenters participate by invitation, noted Dr. Johnson, a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who is a contributor to this news organization. “If they stand up and do something egregious, I would concur that the society should not be liable,” he said.
 

Big asks, big secrecy

Even for those who generally agree with Dr. Johnson’s position, it may be hard to completely understand what’s at stake without an attorney.

Although many declined to discuss their policies, a handful of professional societies provided their agreements for review. In general, the agreements appear to offer broad protection and rights to the organizers and large liability exposure for the participants. Participants are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, such as ensuring against copyright violations and intellectual property infringement, and that they also agree to unlimited use of their presentations and their name and likeness.

The American Academy of Neurology, which held its meeting virtually in 2021, required participants to indemnify the organization against all “losses, expenses, damages, or liabilities,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Federal employees, however, could opt out of indemnification.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that it does not usually require indemnification from its meeting participants. However, a spokesperson noted that ASCO did require participants at its 2021 virtual meeting to abide by the terms of use for content posted to the ASCO website. Those terms specify that users agree to indemnify ASCO from damages related to posts.

The American Psychiatric Association said it does not require any indemnification but did not make its agreement available. The American Academy of Pediatrics also said it did not require indemnification but would not share its agreement.

An American Diabetes Association spokesperson said that “every association is different in what they ask or require from speakers,” but would not share its requirements.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the Endocrine Society all declined to participate.

The organizations that withheld agreements “probably don’t want anybody picking apart their documents,” said Kyle Claussen, CEO of the Resolve Physician Agency, which reviews employment contracts and other contracts for physicians. “The more fair a document, the more likely they would be willing to disclose that, because they have nothing to hide,” he said.
 

‘It’s all on you’

Requiring indemnification for any and all aspects of a presentation appears to be increasingly common, said the attorneys interviewed for this article. As organizations repackage meeting presentations for sale, they put the content further out into the world and for a longer period, which increases liability exposure.

“If I’m the attorney for DDW, I certainly think I’d want to have this in place,” said Mr. Claussen.

“It’s good business sense for them because it reduces their risk,” said Courtney H. A. Thompson, an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who advises regional and national corporations and ad agencies on advertising, marketing, and trademark law. She also works with clients who speak at meetings and who thus encounter meeting agreements.

Ms. Thompson said indemnity clauses have become fairly common over the past decade, especially as more companies and organizations have sought to protect trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property and to minimize litigation costs.

A conference organizer “doesn’t want a third party to come after them for intellectual property, privacy, or publicity right infringement based on the participation of the customer or, in this case, the speaker,” said Ms. Thompson.

The agreements also reflect America’s litigation-prone culture.

Dean Fanelli, a patent attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of Cooley LLP, said the agreements he’s been asked to sign as a speaker increasingly seem “overly lawyerly.”

Two decades ago, a speaker might have been asked to sign a paragraph or a one-page form. Now “they often look more like formalized legal agreements,” Mr. Fanelli told this news organization.

The DDW agreement, for instance, ran four pages and contained 21 detailed clauses.

The increasingly complicated agreements “are a little over the top,” said Mr. Fanelli. But as an attorney who works with clients in the pharmaceutical industry, he said he understands that meeting organizers want to protect their rights.

DDW’s main indemnification clause requires the participant to indemnify DDW and its agents, directors, and employees “against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,” including attorneys’ fees “arising out of a claim, action or proceeding” based on a breach or “alleged breach” by the participant.

“You’re releasing this information to them and then you’re also giving them blanket indemnity back, saying if there’s any type of intellectual property violation on your end – if you’ve included any type of work that’s protected, if this causes any problems – it’s all on you,” said Mr. Claussen.
 

Other potential pitfalls

Aside from indemnification, participation agreements can contain other potentially worrisome clauses, including onerous terms for cancellation and reuse of content without remuneration.

DDW requires royalty-free licensing of a speaker’s content; the organization can reproduce it in perpetuity without royalties. Many organizations have such a clause in their agreements, including the AAN and the American College of Cardiology.

ASCO’s general authorization form for meeting participants requires that they assign to ASCO rights to their content “perpetually, irrevocably, worldwide and royalty free.” Participants can contact the organization if they seek to opt out, but it’s not clear whether ASCO grants such requests.

Participants in the upcoming American Heart Association annual meeting can deny permission to record their presentation. But if they allow recording and do not agree to assign all rights and copyright ownership to the AHA, the work will be excluded from publication in the meeting program, e-posters, and the meeting supplement in Circulation.

Mr. Claussen said granting royalty-free rights presents a conundrum. Having content reproduced in various formats “might be better for your personal brand,” but it’s not likely to result in any direct compensation and could increase liability exposure, he said.
 

How presenters must prepare

Mr. Claussen and Ms. Rose said speakers should be vigilant about their own rights and responsibilities, including ensuring that they do not violate copyrights or infringe on intellectual property rights.

“I would recommend that folks be meticulous about what is in their slide deck and materials,” said Ms. Thompson. He said that presenters should be sure they have the right to share material. Technologies crawl the internet seeking out infringement, which often leads to cease and desist letters from attorneys, she said.

It’s better to head off such a letter, Ms. Thompson said. “You need to defend it whether or not it’s a viable claim,” and that can be costly, she said.

Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fanelli also warn about disclosing anything that might be considered a trade secret. Many agreements prohibit presenters from engaging in commercial promotion, but if a talk includes information about a drug or device, the manufacturer will want to review the presentation before it’s made public, said Mr. Fanelli.

Many organizations prohibit attendees from photographing, recording, or tweeting at meetings and often require speakers to warn the audience about doing so. DDW goes further by holding presenters liable if someone violates the rule.

“That’s a huge problem,” said Dr. Mandrola. He noted that although it might be easy to police journalists attending a meeting, “it seems hard to enforce that rule amongst just regular attendees.”
 

Accept or negotiate?

Individuals who submit work to an organization might feel they must sign an agreement as is, especially if they are looking to advance their career or expand knowledge by presenting work at a meeting. But some attorneys said it might be possible to negotiate with meeting organizers.

“My personal opinion is that it never hurts to ask,” said Ms. Thompson. If she were speaking at a legal conference, she would mark up a contract and “see what happens.” The more times pushback is accepted – say, if it works with three out of five speaking engagements – the more it reduces overall liability exposure.

Mr. Fanelli, however, said that although he always reads over an agreement, he typically signs without negotiating. “I don’t usually worry about it because I’m just trying to talk at a particular seminar,” he said.

Prospective presenters “have to weigh that balance – do you want to talk at a seminar, or are you concerned about the legal issues?” said Mr. Fanelli.

If in doubt, talk with a lawyer.

“If you ever have a question on whether or not you should consult an attorney, the answer is always yes,” said Mr. Claussen. It would be “an ounce of prevention,” especially if it’s just a short agreement, he said.

Dr. Ohman, however, said that he believed “it would be fairly costly” and potentially unwieldy. “You can’t litigate everything in life,” he added.

As for Dr. Gardner, he said he would not be as likely to attend DDW in the future if he has to agree to cover any and all liability. “I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to personally indemnify DDW in order to make a presentation at the annual meeting,” he said.

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

When Jerry Gardner, MD, and a junior colleague received the acceptance notification for their abstract to be presented at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2021, a clause in the mandatory participation agreement gave Dr. Gardner pause. It required his colleague, as the submitting author, to completely accept any and all legal responsibility for any claims that might arise out of their presentation.

VladKol/Getty Images

The clause was a red flag to Dr. Gardner, president of Science for Organizations, a Mill Valley, Calif.–based consulting firm. The gastroenterologist and former head of the digestive diseases branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – who has made hundreds of presentations and had participated in DDW for 40 years – had never encountered such a broad indemnity clause.

This news organization investigated just how risky it is to make a presentation at a conference – more than a dozen professional societies were contacted. Although DDW declined to discuss its agreement, Houston health care attorney Rachel V. Rose said that Dr. Gardner was smart to be cautious. “I would not sign that agreement. I have never seen anything that broad and all encompassing,” she said.

The DDW requirement “means that participants must put themselves at great potential financial risk in order to present their work,” Dr. Gardner said. He added that he and his colleague would not have submitted an abstract had they known about the indemnification clause up front.

Dr. Gardner advised his colleague not to sign the DDW agreement. She did not, and both missed the meeting.
 

Speakers ‘have to be careful’

Dr. Gardner may be an exception. How many doctors are willing to forgo a presentation because of a concern about something in an agreement?

John Mandrola, MD, said he operates under the assumption that if he does not sign the agreement, then he won’t be able to give his presentation. He admits that he generally just signs them and is careful with his presentations. “I’ve never really paid much attention to them,” said Dr. Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist in Louisville, Ky., and chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.

Not everyone takes that approach. “I do think that people read them, but they also take them with a grain of salt,” said E. Magnus Ohman, MBBS, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. He said he’s pragmatic and regards the agreements as a necessary evil in a litigious nation. Speakers “have to be careful, obviously,” Dr. Ohman said in an interview.

Some argue that the requirements are not only fair but also understandable. David Johnson, MD, a former president of the American College of Gastroenterology, said he has never had questions about agreements for meetings he has been involved with. “To me, this is not anything other than standard operating procedure,” he said.

Presenters participate by invitation, noted Dr. Johnson, a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who is a contributor to this news organization. “If they stand up and do something egregious, I would concur that the society should not be liable,” he said.
 

Big asks, big secrecy

Even for those who generally agree with Dr. Johnson’s position, it may be hard to completely understand what’s at stake without an attorney.

Although many declined to discuss their policies, a handful of professional societies provided their agreements for review. In general, the agreements appear to offer broad protection and rights to the organizers and large liability exposure for the participants. Participants are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, such as ensuring against copyright violations and intellectual property infringement, and that they also agree to unlimited use of their presentations and their name and likeness.

The American Academy of Neurology, which held its meeting virtually in 2021, required participants to indemnify the organization against all “losses, expenses, damages, or liabilities,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Federal employees, however, could opt out of indemnification.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that it does not usually require indemnification from its meeting participants. However, a spokesperson noted that ASCO did require participants at its 2021 virtual meeting to abide by the terms of use for content posted to the ASCO website. Those terms specify that users agree to indemnify ASCO from damages related to posts.

The American Psychiatric Association said it does not require any indemnification but did not make its agreement available. The American Academy of Pediatrics also said it did not require indemnification but would not share its agreement.

An American Diabetes Association spokesperson said that “every association is different in what they ask or require from speakers,” but would not share its requirements.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the Endocrine Society all declined to participate.

The organizations that withheld agreements “probably don’t want anybody picking apart their documents,” said Kyle Claussen, CEO of the Resolve Physician Agency, which reviews employment contracts and other contracts for physicians. “The more fair a document, the more likely they would be willing to disclose that, because they have nothing to hide,” he said.
 

‘It’s all on you’

Requiring indemnification for any and all aspects of a presentation appears to be increasingly common, said the attorneys interviewed for this article. As organizations repackage meeting presentations for sale, they put the content further out into the world and for a longer period, which increases liability exposure.

“If I’m the attorney for DDW, I certainly think I’d want to have this in place,” said Mr. Claussen.

“It’s good business sense for them because it reduces their risk,” said Courtney H. A. Thompson, an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who advises regional and national corporations and ad agencies on advertising, marketing, and trademark law. She also works with clients who speak at meetings and who thus encounter meeting agreements.

Ms. Thompson said indemnity clauses have become fairly common over the past decade, especially as more companies and organizations have sought to protect trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property and to minimize litigation costs.

A conference organizer “doesn’t want a third party to come after them for intellectual property, privacy, or publicity right infringement based on the participation of the customer or, in this case, the speaker,” said Ms. Thompson.

The agreements also reflect America’s litigation-prone culture.

Dean Fanelli, a patent attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of Cooley LLP, said the agreements he’s been asked to sign as a speaker increasingly seem “overly lawyerly.”

Two decades ago, a speaker might have been asked to sign a paragraph or a one-page form. Now “they often look more like formalized legal agreements,” Mr. Fanelli told this news organization.

The DDW agreement, for instance, ran four pages and contained 21 detailed clauses.

The increasingly complicated agreements “are a little over the top,” said Mr. Fanelli. But as an attorney who works with clients in the pharmaceutical industry, he said he understands that meeting organizers want to protect their rights.

DDW’s main indemnification clause requires the participant to indemnify DDW and its agents, directors, and employees “against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,” including attorneys’ fees “arising out of a claim, action or proceeding” based on a breach or “alleged breach” by the participant.

“You’re releasing this information to them and then you’re also giving them blanket indemnity back, saying if there’s any type of intellectual property violation on your end – if you’ve included any type of work that’s protected, if this causes any problems – it’s all on you,” said Mr. Claussen.
 

Other potential pitfalls

Aside from indemnification, participation agreements can contain other potentially worrisome clauses, including onerous terms for cancellation and reuse of content without remuneration.

DDW requires royalty-free licensing of a speaker’s content; the organization can reproduce it in perpetuity without royalties. Many organizations have such a clause in their agreements, including the AAN and the American College of Cardiology.

ASCO’s general authorization form for meeting participants requires that they assign to ASCO rights to their content “perpetually, irrevocably, worldwide and royalty free.” Participants can contact the organization if they seek to opt out, but it’s not clear whether ASCO grants such requests.

Participants in the upcoming American Heart Association annual meeting can deny permission to record their presentation. But if they allow recording and do not agree to assign all rights and copyright ownership to the AHA, the work will be excluded from publication in the meeting program, e-posters, and the meeting supplement in Circulation.

Mr. Claussen said granting royalty-free rights presents a conundrum. Having content reproduced in various formats “might be better for your personal brand,” but it’s not likely to result in any direct compensation and could increase liability exposure, he said.
 

How presenters must prepare

Mr. Claussen and Ms. Rose said speakers should be vigilant about their own rights and responsibilities, including ensuring that they do not violate copyrights or infringe on intellectual property rights.

“I would recommend that folks be meticulous about what is in their slide deck and materials,” said Ms. Thompson. He said that presenters should be sure they have the right to share material. Technologies crawl the internet seeking out infringement, which often leads to cease and desist letters from attorneys, she said.

It’s better to head off such a letter, Ms. Thompson said. “You need to defend it whether or not it’s a viable claim,” and that can be costly, she said.

Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fanelli also warn about disclosing anything that might be considered a trade secret. Many agreements prohibit presenters from engaging in commercial promotion, but if a talk includes information about a drug or device, the manufacturer will want to review the presentation before it’s made public, said Mr. Fanelli.

Many organizations prohibit attendees from photographing, recording, or tweeting at meetings and often require speakers to warn the audience about doing so. DDW goes further by holding presenters liable if someone violates the rule.

“That’s a huge problem,” said Dr. Mandrola. He noted that although it might be easy to police journalists attending a meeting, “it seems hard to enforce that rule amongst just regular attendees.”
 

Accept or negotiate?

Individuals who submit work to an organization might feel they must sign an agreement as is, especially if they are looking to advance their career or expand knowledge by presenting work at a meeting. But some attorneys said it might be possible to negotiate with meeting organizers.

“My personal opinion is that it never hurts to ask,” said Ms. Thompson. If she were speaking at a legal conference, she would mark up a contract and “see what happens.” The more times pushback is accepted – say, if it works with three out of five speaking engagements – the more it reduces overall liability exposure.

Mr. Fanelli, however, said that although he always reads over an agreement, he typically signs without negotiating. “I don’t usually worry about it because I’m just trying to talk at a particular seminar,” he said.

Prospective presenters “have to weigh that balance – do you want to talk at a seminar, or are you concerned about the legal issues?” said Mr. Fanelli.

If in doubt, talk with a lawyer.

“If you ever have a question on whether or not you should consult an attorney, the answer is always yes,” said Mr. Claussen. It would be “an ounce of prevention,” especially if it’s just a short agreement, he said.

Dr. Ohman, however, said that he believed “it would be fairly costly” and potentially unwieldy. “You can’t litigate everything in life,” he added.

As for Dr. Gardner, he said he would not be as likely to attend DDW in the future if he has to agree to cover any and all liability. “I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to personally indemnify DDW in order to make a presentation at the annual meeting,” he said.

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

When Jerry Gardner, MD, and a junior colleague received the acceptance notification for their abstract to be presented at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2021, a clause in the mandatory participation agreement gave Dr. Gardner pause. It required his colleague, as the submitting author, to completely accept any and all legal responsibility for any claims that might arise out of their presentation.

VladKol/Getty Images

The clause was a red flag to Dr. Gardner, president of Science for Organizations, a Mill Valley, Calif.–based consulting firm. The gastroenterologist and former head of the digestive diseases branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – who has made hundreds of presentations and had participated in DDW for 40 years – had never encountered such a broad indemnity clause.

This news organization investigated just how risky it is to make a presentation at a conference – more than a dozen professional societies were contacted. Although DDW declined to discuss its agreement, Houston health care attorney Rachel V. Rose said that Dr. Gardner was smart to be cautious. “I would not sign that agreement. I have never seen anything that broad and all encompassing,” she said.

The DDW requirement “means that participants must put themselves at great potential financial risk in order to present their work,” Dr. Gardner said. He added that he and his colleague would not have submitted an abstract had they known about the indemnification clause up front.

Dr. Gardner advised his colleague not to sign the DDW agreement. She did not, and both missed the meeting.
 

Speakers ‘have to be careful’

Dr. Gardner may be an exception. How many doctors are willing to forgo a presentation because of a concern about something in an agreement?

John Mandrola, MD, said he operates under the assumption that if he does not sign the agreement, then he won’t be able to give his presentation. He admits that he generally just signs them and is careful with his presentations. “I’ve never really paid much attention to them,” said Dr. Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist in Louisville, Ky., and chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.

Not everyone takes that approach. “I do think that people read them, but they also take them with a grain of salt,” said E. Magnus Ohman, MBBS, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. He said he’s pragmatic and regards the agreements as a necessary evil in a litigious nation. Speakers “have to be careful, obviously,” Dr. Ohman said in an interview.

Some argue that the requirements are not only fair but also understandable. David Johnson, MD, a former president of the American College of Gastroenterology, said he has never had questions about agreements for meetings he has been involved with. “To me, this is not anything other than standard operating procedure,” he said.

Presenters participate by invitation, noted Dr. Johnson, a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who is a contributor to this news organization. “If they stand up and do something egregious, I would concur that the society should not be liable,” he said.
 

Big asks, big secrecy

Even for those who generally agree with Dr. Johnson’s position, it may be hard to completely understand what’s at stake without an attorney.

Although many declined to discuss their policies, a handful of professional societies provided their agreements for review. In general, the agreements appear to offer broad protection and rights to the organizers and large liability exposure for the participants. Participants are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, such as ensuring against copyright violations and intellectual property infringement, and that they also agree to unlimited use of their presentations and their name and likeness.

The American Academy of Neurology, which held its meeting virtually in 2021, required participants to indemnify the organization against all “losses, expenses, damages, or liabilities,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Federal employees, however, could opt out of indemnification.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that it does not usually require indemnification from its meeting participants. However, a spokesperson noted that ASCO did require participants at its 2021 virtual meeting to abide by the terms of use for content posted to the ASCO website. Those terms specify that users agree to indemnify ASCO from damages related to posts.

The American Psychiatric Association said it does not require any indemnification but did not make its agreement available. The American Academy of Pediatrics also said it did not require indemnification but would not share its agreement.

An American Diabetes Association spokesperson said that “every association is different in what they ask or require from speakers,” but would not share its requirements.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the Endocrine Society all declined to participate.

The organizations that withheld agreements “probably don’t want anybody picking apart their documents,” said Kyle Claussen, CEO of the Resolve Physician Agency, which reviews employment contracts and other contracts for physicians. “The more fair a document, the more likely they would be willing to disclose that, because they have nothing to hide,” he said.
 

‘It’s all on you’

Requiring indemnification for any and all aspects of a presentation appears to be increasingly common, said the attorneys interviewed for this article. As organizations repackage meeting presentations for sale, they put the content further out into the world and for a longer period, which increases liability exposure.

“If I’m the attorney for DDW, I certainly think I’d want to have this in place,” said Mr. Claussen.

“It’s good business sense for them because it reduces their risk,” said Courtney H. A. Thompson, an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who advises regional and national corporations and ad agencies on advertising, marketing, and trademark law. She also works with clients who speak at meetings and who thus encounter meeting agreements.

Ms. Thompson said indemnity clauses have become fairly common over the past decade, especially as more companies and organizations have sought to protect trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property and to minimize litigation costs.

A conference organizer “doesn’t want a third party to come after them for intellectual property, privacy, or publicity right infringement based on the participation of the customer or, in this case, the speaker,” said Ms. Thompson.

The agreements also reflect America’s litigation-prone culture.

Dean Fanelli, a patent attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of Cooley LLP, said the agreements he’s been asked to sign as a speaker increasingly seem “overly lawyerly.”

Two decades ago, a speaker might have been asked to sign a paragraph or a one-page form. Now “they often look more like formalized legal agreements,” Mr. Fanelli told this news organization.

The DDW agreement, for instance, ran four pages and contained 21 detailed clauses.

The increasingly complicated agreements “are a little over the top,” said Mr. Fanelli. But as an attorney who works with clients in the pharmaceutical industry, he said he understands that meeting organizers want to protect their rights.

DDW’s main indemnification clause requires the participant to indemnify DDW and its agents, directors, and employees “against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,” including attorneys’ fees “arising out of a claim, action or proceeding” based on a breach or “alleged breach” by the participant.

“You’re releasing this information to them and then you’re also giving them blanket indemnity back, saying if there’s any type of intellectual property violation on your end – if you’ve included any type of work that’s protected, if this causes any problems – it’s all on you,” said Mr. Claussen.
 

Other potential pitfalls

Aside from indemnification, participation agreements can contain other potentially worrisome clauses, including onerous terms for cancellation and reuse of content without remuneration.

DDW requires royalty-free licensing of a speaker’s content; the organization can reproduce it in perpetuity without royalties. Many organizations have such a clause in their agreements, including the AAN and the American College of Cardiology.

ASCO’s general authorization form for meeting participants requires that they assign to ASCO rights to their content “perpetually, irrevocably, worldwide and royalty free.” Participants can contact the organization if they seek to opt out, but it’s not clear whether ASCO grants such requests.

Participants in the upcoming American Heart Association annual meeting can deny permission to record their presentation. But if they allow recording and do not agree to assign all rights and copyright ownership to the AHA, the work will be excluded from publication in the meeting program, e-posters, and the meeting supplement in Circulation.

Mr. Claussen said granting royalty-free rights presents a conundrum. Having content reproduced in various formats “might be better for your personal brand,” but it’s not likely to result in any direct compensation and could increase liability exposure, he said.
 

How presenters must prepare

Mr. Claussen and Ms. Rose said speakers should be vigilant about their own rights and responsibilities, including ensuring that they do not violate copyrights or infringe on intellectual property rights.

“I would recommend that folks be meticulous about what is in their slide deck and materials,” said Ms. Thompson. He said that presenters should be sure they have the right to share material. Technologies crawl the internet seeking out infringement, which often leads to cease and desist letters from attorneys, she said.

It’s better to head off such a letter, Ms. Thompson said. “You need to defend it whether or not it’s a viable claim,” and that can be costly, she said.

Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fanelli also warn about disclosing anything that might be considered a trade secret. Many agreements prohibit presenters from engaging in commercial promotion, but if a talk includes information about a drug or device, the manufacturer will want to review the presentation before it’s made public, said Mr. Fanelli.

Many organizations prohibit attendees from photographing, recording, or tweeting at meetings and often require speakers to warn the audience about doing so. DDW goes further by holding presenters liable if someone violates the rule.

“That’s a huge problem,” said Dr. Mandrola. He noted that although it might be easy to police journalists attending a meeting, “it seems hard to enforce that rule amongst just regular attendees.”
 

Accept or negotiate?

Individuals who submit work to an organization might feel they must sign an agreement as is, especially if they are looking to advance their career or expand knowledge by presenting work at a meeting. But some attorneys said it might be possible to negotiate with meeting organizers.

“My personal opinion is that it never hurts to ask,” said Ms. Thompson. If she were speaking at a legal conference, she would mark up a contract and “see what happens.” The more times pushback is accepted – say, if it works with three out of five speaking engagements – the more it reduces overall liability exposure.

Mr. Fanelli, however, said that although he always reads over an agreement, he typically signs without negotiating. “I don’t usually worry about it because I’m just trying to talk at a particular seminar,” he said.

Prospective presenters “have to weigh that balance – do you want to talk at a seminar, or are you concerned about the legal issues?” said Mr. Fanelli.

If in doubt, talk with a lawyer.

“If you ever have a question on whether or not you should consult an attorney, the answer is always yes,” said Mr. Claussen. It would be “an ounce of prevention,” especially if it’s just a short agreement, he said.

Dr. Ohman, however, said that he believed “it would be fairly costly” and potentially unwieldy. “You can’t litigate everything in life,” he added.

As for Dr. Gardner, he said he would not be as likely to attend DDW in the future if he has to agree to cover any and all liability. “I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to personally indemnify DDW in order to make a presentation at the annual meeting,” he said.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a unique dermatologic surgery technique that allows the dermatologist to fill the concomitant roles of surgeon and pathologist. It is utilized for the extirpation of skin malignancy, with an emphasis on tissue preservation and immediate surgical margin evaluation. In MMS, the Mohs surgeon acts as the surgeon for physical removal of the lesion and the pathologist during evaluation of frozen section margins.¹

Primary care providers (PCPs) are on the frontlines of management of cutaneous malignancy. Whether referring to Dermatology for biopsy or performing a biopsy themselves, PCPs can assure optimal treatment outcomes by guiding patients to ­evidence-based treatments, while still respecting the patient’s wishes. In this evidence-based review of the advantages, improved outcomes, and safety of Mohs surgery for the treatment of common and rare skin neoplasms, we provide our primary care colleagues with information on the indications, process (the order in which steps of the procedure are performed), and techniques used for treating cutaneous malignancies with Mohs surgery.

When is Mohs surgery appropriate?

MMS has typically been reserved for treatment of cutaneous malignancy in cosmetically sensitive areas where tissue preservation is key. In 2012, Connolly et al released appropriate use criteria (AUC) for MMS.² (See “An app that helps clinicians apply the criteria for Mohs surgery.”) Within the AUC, there are 4 major qualitative and quantitative categories when considering referral for MMS:

• area of the body in which the lesion manifests
• the patient’s medical characteristics
• tumor characteristics
• the size of the lesion to be treated.²

Areas of the body are divided into 3 categories by the AUC according to how challenging tumor extirpation is expected to be and how critical tissue preservation is. Areas termed “H” receive the highest score for appropriate Mohs usage, followed by areas “M” and “L.”

Patient medical characteristics that should be taken into account when referring for Mohs surgery are the patient’s immune status, genetic syndromes that may predispose the patient to cutaneous malignancies (eg, xeroderma pigmentosa), history of radiation to the area of involvement, and the patient’s history of aggressive cutaneous malignancies.

Tumor characteristics. The most common malignancies treated with MMS include basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). These malignancies are further delineated through histologic evaluation by a pathologist or dermatopathologist. Aggressive features of a BCC on any area of the body that warrant referral to a Mohs surgeon include morpheaform/fibrosing/sclerosing histologic findings, as well as micronodular architecture and perineural invasion. Concerning histologic SCC findings that warrant Mohs surgery through the AUC include sclerosing, basosquamous, and small cell histology, as well as poorly differentiated and/or undifferentiated SCC.

The procedure’s emphasis on evaluating 100% of tissue margins and tissue preservation give it many inherent advantages over wide local excisions.

Melanoma in situ and lentigo maligna, which are variants of melanoma limited to the epidermis without invasion into the underlying dermis, are included within the AUC for MMS. For invasive melanoma (melanoma that has invaded into the dermis or subcutaneous tissue), MMS has been shown to have marginal benefit but currently is not included within the AUC.³

Continue to: Due to excellent margin control...

Due to excellent margin control via immediate microscopic evaluation of surgical margins, MMS is an appropriate treatment choice and indicated for many more uncommon cutaneous malignancies, including sebaceous and mucinous carcinoma, microcystic adnexal carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, leiomyosarcoma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, atypical fibroxanthoma, angiosarcoma, and other more rarely encountered clinical malignancies.²

Tumor size. When considering a referral to MMS for cancer extirpation, the size of the tumor does play a role; however, size depends on the type of tumor as well as the location on the body. In general, most skin cancers of any size on the face, perianal area, genitalia, nipples, hands, feet and ankles, or pretibial surface are appropriate for Mohs surgery. Skin cancers on the trunk and extremities are also appropriate if they are above a certain size specified by the AUC. Tumor type and whether they are recurrences also factor into the equation.

Who will do the procedure?

A recent review showed that PCPs were more likely to refer patients to plastic surgery rather than Mohs surgery for skin cancer removal, especially among younger female patients.⁴ This is likely because of the perception that plastic surgeons do more complex closures and have more experience removing difficult cancers. Interestingly, this same study showed that Mohs surgeons may actually be doing several-fold more complex closures (flaps and grafts) on the nose and ears than plastic surgeons at similar practice settings.⁴

Aside from Mohs surgeons doing more closures, perhaps the biggest difference between Mohs surgeons and plastic surgeons is the pathology training of the Mohs surgeon. Mohs surgeons evaluate 100% of the tissue margins at the time of the procedure to both ensure complete tumor removal and to preserve as much tumor-free skin as possible, ultimately resulting in decreased recurrences and smaller scars. In contrast, the plastic surgeon’s rigorous training typically does not include extensive dermatopathology training, particularly the pathology of cutaneous neoplasms. Plastic surgeons will often send pathologic specimens for evaluation, meaning patients have to wait for outside histologic confirmation before their wounds can be closed. Additionally, the histologic evaluation is often not a full-margin assessment, as not all labs are equipped for this technique.

Consider early consultation with a Mohs surgeon for tumor extirpation to keep the defect size as small as possible, as MMS does not require taking margins of healthy surrounding tissue, in contrast to wide local excisions (WLEs; FIGURE 1). A smaller initial incision will result in a smaller scar, which is likely to have better cosmetic outcomes and decreased risk for wound infection.

Continue to: Before consultation...

Before consultation, include a picture of the surgical site with the patient’s referral documentation or have the patient present a photo from his or her phone to the Mohs surgeon. (If a camera or cell phone is not available, triangulation of the site’s location using cosmetic landmarks can be documented in the patient’s chart.)

What the patient can expect during preop visits

During an initial consultation, patients can expect an evaluation by the surgeon that will include more photo taking, a discussion of the surgery, and possibly, performance of an in-clinic biopsy of suspicious lesions. Many practices, including the authors’, use a photo capturing add-on for the EMR in the office.^5-7

During the consent process, MMS is described to the patient using lay language and, often, pictorial depictions of the procedure. While explaining that the procedure helps preserve healthy tissue and limit the size of the resulting scar, the surgeon will typically manage the expectations of the patient prior to the first incision. Many clinically small lesions can have significant subclinical extension adjacent to, or on top of, cosmetic landmarks, requiring a flap or graft to close the surgical defect with acceptable cosmetic outcomes.⁸

One more time. Immediately before surgery, the surgeon will again review the procedure with the patient, using photos of the biopsy site taken during the initial consult, in conjunction with patient verification of the biopsy site, to verify the surgical site and confirm that the patient understands and agrees to the surgery.

A look at how Mohs surgery is performed

MMS typically is performed in the outpatient setting but can also be performed in an operating room or outpatient surgical center. MMS can be performed in a nonsterile procedure room with surgeons and assistants typically utilizing clean, nonsterile gloves, although many Mohs surgeons prefer to perform part, or all, of the technique using sterile gloves.⁹ A recent systematic review and large meta-analysis showed no significant difference in postsurgical site infections when comparing the use of sterile vs nonsterile gloves.¹⁰

Continue to: Prior to initial incision...

Prior to initial incision, the site is marked with a surgical pen and given 1-mm margins around the clinically visualized lesion. The site is then cleansed with an antiseptic, typically a chlorhexidine solution. Local anesthesia is employed, most commonly with a 1:100,000 lidocaine and epinephrine injection. Marking of the tumor prior to numbing is imperative, as the boundaries of the tumor are typically obscured when the local cutaneous vasculature constricts and causes visualized blanching of adjacent skin. Many Mohs surgeons perform a brief curettage of the lesion with a nondisposable, dull curette to better define the tumor edges and to debulk any obvious exophytic tumor noted by the naked eye.

Prior to the first incision, the surgical site is scored in a variety of ways in order to properly orient the tissue after it has been removed from the patient. Mohs surgeons have differing opinions on how to score and/or mark the tissue, but a common practice is to make a nick at the 12 o’clock position. Following removal of the first stage, the nick will be visible on both the extirpated tissue and the tissue just above the surgical defect. This prevents potential confusion regarding orientation during tissue processing.

The majority of all WLEs are performed utilizing the scalpel blade at an angle 90° perpendicular to the plane of the skin. In MMS, a signature 45° angle with the tip of the scalpel pointing toward, and the handle pointing away from, the lesion is commonly used in order to bevel the tissue being excised (FIGURE 2). Once the tissue is excised, hemostasis is obtained using electrodessication/electrofulguration or electrocoagulation.

Tissue processing and microscopic evaluation

The technique of beveling allows the epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous tissue to lie flat on the tissue block, so the Mohs surgeon can evaluate 100% of the excised tissue’s margins. The tissue is transported to a nearby lab for staining and processing. Even if near-perfect beveling is achieved, many stages will require bisecting, quadrissecting, or relaxing cuts in order to allow the margins to lie flat on the tissue block.

Using the scoring system made prior to incision, the tissue is oriented and stained with colored ink. Subsequently, a map is made with sections highlighting the colors used to stain designated areas of the tissue. This step is imperative for orientation during microscopic evaluation. Additionally, the map serves as a guide and log, should a section of the specimen have an involved margin and require another stage.

Continue to: Once fixed to the block...

Once fixed to the block, the tissue is engulfed in appropriate embedding medium and placed within the cryostat. The block is slowly cut to produce several micron-thin wafers of tissue that are then mounted on glass slides and processed with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) or various stains. The first wafers of tissue that come from the tissue block are those that are closest to the margin that was excised. Thus, 100% of the epidermis and deep margin can be visualized. “Deeper sections” are those that come from deeper cuts within the tissue and are more likely to show the malignant neoplasm.

Mohs surgery is the standard of care for treating cutaneous malignancy in light of its high cure rates and maximal conservation of tissue in sensitive locations.

The evaluation of immediate margins at the very edge of the tissue is in contrast to the technique of “bread-loafing,” which is the standard of evaluating margins after a WLE.¹¹ With this process, the pathologist examines sections that are cut 2- to 4-mm apart. This process only allows the pathologist to examine roughly 1% of the total tissue that was excised, and large variability in cutaneous representation can occur depending on the individual who cuts and processes the tissue.¹¹

Closing the defect

Once the site is deemed clear of residual tumor, the Mohs surgeon approaches the defect and determines the most appropriate way to close the surgical wound. Mohs surgeons are trained to close wounds using a variety of methods, including complex linear closures, flaps, and full-thickness skin grafts. Thoughtful consideration of local anatomy, cosmetic landmarks that may be affected by the closure method, and local tissue laxity are evaluated.

Depending on the location, a secondary intention closure may prove to be just as effective and cosmetically satisfying as a primary intention closure. In light of the many methods of closure, a complex or large surface area defect may better be suited for evaluation and closure by another specialist such as an ENT physician, ophthalmologist, or plastic surgeon.¹²

Lower recurrence rates for patients who undergo Mohs surgery

As noted earlier, the cutaneous malignancies most commonly treated with MMS are BCCs, followed by SCCs.¹³ Comparison studies between WLE and MMS show clinically significant differences in terms of recurrence rates between the 2 procedures.

Continue to: For BCCs

For BCCs, recurrence rates for excisions vs MMS are 10% and 1%, respectively.^14-16 A randomized trial reviewing 10-year recurrence of primary BCCs on the face showed recurrence rates for MMS of 4.4% compared to 12.2% for WLE.¹⁷ This study also showed recurrence rates for recurrent facial BCCs treated with MMS to be 3.9% vs 13.5% for standard WLE.¹⁷

SCC. The evidence similarly supports the efficacy of MMS for SCCs. A recent study showed primary T2a tumors had a 1.2% local recurrence rate with Mohs vs a 4% recurrence rate with WLE at an average follow-up of 2.8 years.¹⁸ Another study showed that primary tumors that were < 2 cm in diameter had a 5-year cure rate of 99% with Mohs surgery.¹¹

Melanoma in situ. A few studies have shown no clinically significant benefit of MMS compared to WLE when it comes to melanoma in situ.^19,20 However, a more recent article by Etzkom et al noted the ability to potentially upstage melanoma in situ and invasive melanoma after reviewing peripheral and deep margins during MMS.²¹ In this study, the authors uniquely delayed wound closure if upstaging was established and the need for a sentinel lymph node biopsy was warranted. This approach to MMS with delayed closure ultimately paved the way for very low recurrence rates.

CORRESPONDENCE
Andres Garcia, MD, 2612 112th Street, Lubbock, TX 79423; [email protected]

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a unique dermatologic surgery technique that allows the dermatologist to fill the concomitant roles of surgeon and pathologist. It is utilized for the extirpation of skin malignancy, with an emphasis on tissue preservation and immediate surgical margin evaluation. In MMS, the Mohs surgeon acts as the surgeon for physical removal of the lesion and the pathologist during evaluation of frozen section margins.¹

Primary care providers (PCPs) are on the frontlines of management of cutaneous malignancy. Whether referring to Dermatology for biopsy or performing a biopsy themselves, PCPs can assure optimal treatment outcomes by guiding patients to ­evidence-based treatments, while still respecting the patient’s wishes. In this evidence-based review of the advantages, improved outcomes, and safety of Mohs surgery for the treatment of common and rare skin neoplasms, we provide our primary care colleagues with information on the indications, process (the order in which steps of the procedure are performed), and techniques used for treating cutaneous malignancies with Mohs surgery.

When is Mohs surgery appropriate?

MMS has typically been reserved for treatment of cutaneous malignancy in cosmetically sensitive areas where tissue preservation is key. In 2012, Connolly et al released appropriate use criteria (AUC) for MMS.² (See “An app that helps clinicians apply the criteria for Mohs surgery.”) Within the AUC, there are 4 major qualitative and quantitative categories when considering referral for MMS:

• area of the body in which the lesion manifests
• the patient’s medical characteristics
• tumor characteristics
• the size of the lesion to be treated.²

Areas of the body are divided into 3 categories by the AUC according to how challenging tumor extirpation is expected to be and how critical tissue preservation is. Areas termed “H” receive the highest score for appropriate Mohs usage, followed by areas “M” and “L.”

Patient medical characteristics that should be taken into account when referring for Mohs surgery are the patient’s immune status, genetic syndromes that may predispose the patient to cutaneous malignancies (eg, xeroderma pigmentosa), history of radiation to the area of involvement, and the patient’s history of aggressive cutaneous malignancies.

Tumor characteristics. The most common malignancies treated with MMS include basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). These malignancies are further delineated through histologic evaluation by a pathologist or dermatopathologist. Aggressive features of a BCC on any area of the body that warrant referral to a Mohs surgeon include morpheaform/fibrosing/sclerosing histologic findings, as well as micronodular architecture and perineural invasion. Concerning histologic SCC findings that warrant Mohs surgery through the AUC include sclerosing, basosquamous, and small cell histology, as well as poorly differentiated and/or undifferentiated SCC.

The procedure’s emphasis on evaluating 100% of tissue margins and tissue preservation give it many inherent advantages over wide local excisions.

Melanoma in situ and lentigo maligna, which are variants of melanoma limited to the epidermis without invasion into the underlying dermis, are included within the AUC for MMS. For invasive melanoma (melanoma that has invaded into the dermis or subcutaneous tissue), MMS has been shown to have marginal benefit but currently is not included within the AUC.³

Continue to: Due to excellent margin control...

Due to excellent margin control via immediate microscopic evaluation of surgical margins, MMS is an appropriate treatment choice and indicated for many more uncommon cutaneous malignancies, including sebaceous and mucinous carcinoma, microcystic adnexal carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, leiomyosarcoma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, atypical fibroxanthoma, angiosarcoma, and other more rarely encountered clinical malignancies.²

Tumor size. When considering a referral to MMS for cancer extirpation, the size of the tumor does play a role; however, size depends on the type of tumor as well as the location on the body. In general, most skin cancers of any size on the face, perianal area, genitalia, nipples, hands, feet and ankles, or pretibial surface are appropriate for Mohs surgery. Skin cancers on the trunk and extremities are also appropriate if they are above a certain size specified by the AUC. Tumor type and whether they are recurrences also factor into the equation.

Who will do the procedure?

A recent review showed that PCPs were more likely to refer patients to plastic surgery rather than Mohs surgery for skin cancer removal, especially among younger female patients.⁴ This is likely because of the perception that plastic surgeons do more complex closures and have more experience removing difficult cancers. Interestingly, this same study showed that Mohs surgeons may actually be doing several-fold more complex closures (flaps and grafts) on the nose and ears than plastic surgeons at similar practice settings.⁴

Aside from Mohs surgeons doing more closures, perhaps the biggest difference between Mohs surgeons and plastic surgeons is the pathology training of the Mohs surgeon. Mohs surgeons evaluate 100% of the tissue margins at the time of the procedure to both ensure complete tumor removal and to preserve as much tumor-free skin as possible, ultimately resulting in decreased recurrences and smaller scars. In contrast, the plastic surgeon’s rigorous training typically does not include extensive dermatopathology training, particularly the pathology of cutaneous neoplasms. Plastic surgeons will often send pathologic specimens for evaluation, meaning patients have to wait for outside histologic confirmation before their wounds can be closed. Additionally, the histologic evaluation is often not a full-margin assessment, as not all labs are equipped for this technique.

Consider early consultation with a Mohs surgeon for tumor extirpation to keep the defect size as small as possible, as MMS does not require taking margins of healthy surrounding tissue, in contrast to wide local excisions (WLEs; FIGURE 1). A smaller initial incision will result in a smaller scar, which is likely to have better cosmetic outcomes and decreased risk for wound infection.

Continue to: Before consultation...

Before consultation, include a picture of the surgical site with the patient’s referral documentation or have the patient present a photo from his or her phone to the Mohs surgeon. (If a camera or cell phone is not available, triangulation of the site’s location using cosmetic landmarks can be documented in the patient’s chart.)

What the patient can expect during preop visits

During an initial consultation, patients can expect an evaluation by the surgeon that will include more photo taking, a discussion of the surgery, and possibly, performance of an in-clinic biopsy of suspicious lesions. Many practices, including the authors’, use a photo capturing add-on for the EMR in the office.^5-7

During the consent process, MMS is described to the patient using lay language and, often, pictorial depictions of the procedure. While explaining that the procedure helps preserve healthy tissue and limit the size of the resulting scar, the surgeon will typically manage the expectations of the patient prior to the first incision. Many clinically small lesions can have significant subclinical extension adjacent to, or on top of, cosmetic landmarks, requiring a flap or graft to close the surgical defect with acceptable cosmetic outcomes.⁸

One more time. Immediately before surgery, the surgeon will again review the procedure with the patient, using photos of the biopsy site taken during the initial consult, in conjunction with patient verification of the biopsy site, to verify the surgical site and confirm that the patient understands and agrees to the surgery.

A look at how Mohs surgery is performed

MMS typically is performed in the outpatient setting but can also be performed in an operating room or outpatient surgical center. MMS can be performed in a nonsterile procedure room with surgeons and assistants typically utilizing clean, nonsterile gloves, although many Mohs surgeons prefer to perform part, or all, of the technique using sterile gloves.⁹ A recent systematic review and large meta-analysis showed no significant difference in postsurgical site infections when comparing the use of sterile vs nonsterile gloves.¹⁰

Continue to: Prior to initial incision...

Prior to initial incision, the site is marked with a surgical pen and given 1-mm margins around the clinically visualized lesion. The site is then cleansed with an antiseptic, typically a chlorhexidine solution. Local anesthesia is employed, most commonly with a 1:100,000 lidocaine and epinephrine injection. Marking of the tumor prior to numbing is imperative, as the boundaries of the tumor are typically obscured when the local cutaneous vasculature constricts and causes visualized blanching of adjacent skin. Many Mohs surgeons perform a brief curettage of the lesion with a nondisposable, dull curette to better define the tumor edges and to debulk any obvious exophytic tumor noted by the naked eye.

Prior to the first incision, the surgical site is scored in a variety of ways in order to properly orient the tissue after it has been removed from the patient. Mohs surgeons have differing opinions on how to score and/or mark the tissue, but a common practice is to make a nick at the 12 o’clock position. Following removal of the first stage, the nick will be visible on both the extirpated tissue and the tissue just above the surgical defect. This prevents potential confusion regarding orientation during tissue processing.

The majority of all WLEs are performed utilizing the scalpel blade at an angle 90° perpendicular to the plane of the skin. In MMS, a signature 45° angle with the tip of the scalpel pointing toward, and the handle pointing away from, the lesion is commonly used in order to bevel the tissue being excised (FIGURE 2). Once the tissue is excised, hemostasis is obtained using electrodessication/electrofulguration or electrocoagulation.

Tissue processing and microscopic evaluation

The technique of beveling allows the epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous tissue to lie flat on the tissue block, so the Mohs surgeon can evaluate 100% of the excised tissue’s margins. The tissue is transported to a nearby lab for staining and processing. Even if near-perfect beveling is achieved, many stages will require bisecting, quadrissecting, or relaxing cuts in order to allow the margins to lie flat on the tissue block.

Using the scoring system made prior to incision, the tissue is oriented and stained with colored ink. Subsequently, a map is made with sections highlighting the colors used to stain designated areas of the tissue. This step is imperative for orientation during microscopic evaluation. Additionally, the map serves as a guide and log, should a section of the specimen have an involved margin and require another stage.

Continue to: Once fixed to the block...

Once fixed to the block, the tissue is engulfed in appropriate embedding medium and placed within the cryostat. The block is slowly cut to produce several micron-thin wafers of tissue that are then mounted on glass slides and processed with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) or various stains. The first wafers of tissue that come from the tissue block are those that are closest to the margin that was excised. Thus, 100% of the epidermis and deep margin can be visualized. “Deeper sections” are those that come from deeper cuts within the tissue and are more likely to show the malignant neoplasm.

Mohs surgery is the standard of care for treating cutaneous malignancy in light of its high cure rates and maximal conservation of tissue in sensitive locations.

The evaluation of immediate margins at the very edge of the tissue is in contrast to the technique of “bread-loafing,” which is the standard of evaluating margins after a WLE.¹¹ With this process, the pathologist examines sections that are cut 2- to 4-mm apart. This process only allows the pathologist to examine roughly 1% of the total tissue that was excised, and large variability in cutaneous representation can occur depending on the individual who cuts and processes the tissue.¹¹

Closing the defect

Once the site is deemed clear of residual tumor, the Mohs surgeon approaches the defect and determines the most appropriate way to close the surgical wound. Mohs surgeons are trained to close wounds using a variety of methods, including complex linear closures, flaps, and full-thickness skin grafts. Thoughtful consideration of local anatomy, cosmetic landmarks that may be affected by the closure method, and local tissue laxity are evaluated.

Depending on the location, a secondary intention closure may prove to be just as effective and cosmetically satisfying as a primary intention closure. In light of the many methods of closure, a complex or large surface area defect may better be suited for evaluation and closure by another specialist such as an ENT physician, ophthalmologist, or plastic surgeon.¹²

Lower recurrence rates for patients who undergo Mohs surgery

As noted earlier, the cutaneous malignancies most commonly treated with MMS are BCCs, followed by SCCs.¹³ Comparison studies between WLE and MMS show clinically significant differences in terms of recurrence rates between the 2 procedures.

Continue to: For BCCs

For BCCs, recurrence rates for excisions vs MMS are 10% and 1%, respectively.^14-16 A randomized trial reviewing 10-year recurrence of primary BCCs on the face showed recurrence rates for MMS of 4.4% compared to 12.2% for WLE.¹⁷ This study also showed recurrence rates for recurrent facial BCCs treated with MMS to be 3.9% vs 13.5% for standard WLE.¹⁷

SCC. The evidence similarly supports the efficacy of MMS for SCCs. A recent study showed primary T2a tumors had a 1.2% local recurrence rate with Mohs vs a 4% recurrence rate with WLE at an average follow-up of 2.8 years.¹⁸ Another study showed that primary tumors that were < 2 cm in diameter had a 5-year cure rate of 99% with Mohs surgery.¹¹

Melanoma in situ. A few studies have shown no clinically significant benefit of MMS compared to WLE when it comes to melanoma in situ.^19,20 However, a more recent article by Etzkom et al noted the ability to potentially upstage melanoma in situ and invasive melanoma after reviewing peripheral and deep margins during MMS.²¹ In this study, the authors uniquely delayed wound closure if upstaging was established and the need for a sentinel lymph node biopsy was warranted. This approach to MMS with delayed closure ultimately paved the way for very low recurrence rates.

CORRESPONDENCE
Andres Garcia, MD, 2612 112th Street, Lubbock, TX 79423; [email protected]

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a unique dermatologic surgery technique that allows the dermatologist to fill the concomitant roles of surgeon and pathologist. It is utilized for the extirpation of skin malignancy, with an emphasis on tissue preservation and immediate surgical margin evaluation. In MMS, the Mohs surgeon acts as the surgeon for physical removal of the lesion and the pathologist during evaluation of frozen section margins.¹

Primary care providers (PCPs) are on the frontlines of management of cutaneous malignancy. Whether referring to Dermatology for biopsy or performing a biopsy themselves, PCPs can assure optimal treatment outcomes by guiding patients to ­evidence-based treatments, while still respecting the patient’s wishes. In this evidence-based review of the advantages, improved outcomes, and safety of Mohs surgery for the treatment of common and rare skin neoplasms, we provide our primary care colleagues with information on the indications, process (the order in which steps of the procedure are performed), and techniques used for treating cutaneous malignancies with Mohs surgery.

When is Mohs surgery appropriate?

MMS has typically been reserved for treatment of cutaneous malignancy in cosmetically sensitive areas where tissue preservation is key. In 2012, Connolly et al released appropriate use criteria (AUC) for MMS.² (See “An app that helps clinicians apply the criteria for Mohs surgery.”) Within the AUC, there are 4 major qualitative and quantitative categories when considering referral for MMS:

• area of the body in which the lesion manifests
• the patient’s medical characteristics
• tumor characteristics
• the size of the lesion to be treated.²

Areas of the body are divided into 3 categories by the AUC according to how challenging tumor extirpation is expected to be and how critical tissue preservation is. Areas termed “H” receive the highest score for appropriate Mohs usage, followed by areas “M” and “L.”

Patient medical characteristics that should be taken into account when referring for Mohs surgery are the patient’s immune status, genetic syndromes that may predispose the patient to cutaneous malignancies (eg, xeroderma pigmentosa), history of radiation to the area of involvement, and the patient’s history of aggressive cutaneous malignancies.

Tumor characteristics. The most common malignancies treated with MMS include basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). These malignancies are further delineated through histologic evaluation by a pathologist or dermatopathologist. Aggressive features of a BCC on any area of the body that warrant referral to a Mohs surgeon include morpheaform/fibrosing/sclerosing histologic findings, as well as micronodular architecture and perineural invasion. Concerning histologic SCC findings that warrant Mohs surgery through the AUC include sclerosing, basosquamous, and small cell histology, as well as poorly differentiated and/or undifferentiated SCC.

The procedure’s emphasis on evaluating 100% of tissue margins and tissue preservation give it many inherent advantages over wide local excisions.

Melanoma in situ and lentigo maligna, which are variants of melanoma limited to the epidermis without invasion into the underlying dermis, are included within the AUC for MMS. For invasive melanoma (melanoma that has invaded into the dermis or subcutaneous tissue), MMS has been shown to have marginal benefit but currently is not included within the AUC.³

Continue to: Due to excellent margin control...

Due to excellent margin control via immediate microscopic evaluation of surgical margins, MMS is an appropriate treatment choice and indicated for many more uncommon cutaneous malignancies, including sebaceous and mucinous carcinoma, microcystic adnexal carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, leiomyosarcoma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, atypical fibroxanthoma, angiosarcoma, and other more rarely encountered clinical malignancies.²

Tumor size. When considering a referral to MMS for cancer extirpation, the size of the tumor does play a role; however, size depends on the type of tumor as well as the location on the body. In general, most skin cancers of any size on the face, perianal area, genitalia, nipples, hands, feet and ankles, or pretibial surface are appropriate for Mohs surgery. Skin cancers on the trunk and extremities are also appropriate if they are above a certain size specified by the AUC. Tumor type and whether they are recurrences also factor into the equation.

Who will do the procedure?

A recent review showed that PCPs were more likely to refer patients to plastic surgery rather than Mohs surgery for skin cancer removal, especially among younger female patients.⁴ This is likely because of the perception that plastic surgeons do more complex closures and have more experience removing difficult cancers. Interestingly, this same study showed that Mohs surgeons may actually be doing several-fold more complex closures (flaps and grafts) on the nose and ears than plastic surgeons at similar practice settings.⁴

Aside from Mohs surgeons doing more closures, perhaps the biggest difference between Mohs surgeons and plastic surgeons is the pathology training of the Mohs surgeon. Mohs surgeons evaluate 100% of the tissue margins at the time of the procedure to both ensure complete tumor removal and to preserve as much tumor-free skin as possible, ultimately resulting in decreased recurrences and smaller scars. In contrast, the plastic surgeon’s rigorous training typically does not include extensive dermatopathology training, particularly the pathology of cutaneous neoplasms. Plastic surgeons will often send pathologic specimens for evaluation, meaning patients have to wait for outside histologic confirmation before their wounds can be closed. Additionally, the histologic evaluation is often not a full-margin assessment, as not all labs are equipped for this technique.

Consider early consultation with a Mohs surgeon for tumor extirpation to keep the defect size as small as possible, as MMS does not require taking margins of healthy surrounding tissue, in contrast to wide local excisions (WLEs; FIGURE 1). A smaller initial incision will result in a smaller scar, which is likely to have better cosmetic outcomes and decreased risk for wound infection.

Continue to: Before consultation...

Before consultation, include a picture of the surgical site with the patient’s referral documentation or have the patient present a photo from his or her phone to the Mohs surgeon. (If a camera or cell phone is not available, triangulation of the site’s location using cosmetic landmarks can be documented in the patient’s chart.)

What the patient can expect during preop visits

During an initial consultation, patients can expect an evaluation by the surgeon that will include more photo taking, a discussion of the surgery, and possibly, performance of an in-clinic biopsy of suspicious lesions. Many practices, including the authors’, use a photo capturing add-on for the EMR in the office.^5-7

During the consent process, MMS is described to the patient using lay language and, often, pictorial depictions of the procedure. While explaining that the procedure helps preserve healthy tissue and limit the size of the resulting scar, the surgeon will typically manage the expectations of the patient prior to the first incision. Many clinically small lesions can have significant subclinical extension adjacent to, or on top of, cosmetic landmarks, requiring a flap or graft to close the surgical defect with acceptable cosmetic outcomes.⁸

One more time. Immediately before surgery, the surgeon will again review the procedure with the patient, using photos of the biopsy site taken during the initial consult, in conjunction with patient verification of the biopsy site, to verify the surgical site and confirm that the patient understands and agrees to the surgery.

A look at how Mohs surgery is performed

MMS typically is performed in the outpatient setting but can also be performed in an operating room or outpatient surgical center. MMS can be performed in a nonsterile procedure room with surgeons and assistants typically utilizing clean, nonsterile gloves, although many Mohs surgeons prefer to perform part, or all, of the technique using sterile gloves.⁹ A recent systematic review and large meta-analysis showed no significant difference in postsurgical site infections when comparing the use of sterile vs nonsterile gloves.¹⁰

Continue to: Prior to initial incision...

Prior to initial incision, the site is marked with a surgical pen and given 1-mm margins around the clinically visualized lesion. The site is then cleansed with an antiseptic, typically a chlorhexidine solution. Local anesthesia is employed, most commonly with a 1:100,000 lidocaine and epinephrine injection. Marking of the tumor prior to numbing is imperative, as the boundaries of the tumor are typically obscured when the local cutaneous vasculature constricts and causes visualized blanching of adjacent skin. Many Mohs surgeons perform a brief curettage of the lesion with a nondisposable, dull curette to better define the tumor edges and to debulk any obvious exophytic tumor noted by the naked eye.

Prior to the first incision, the surgical site is scored in a variety of ways in order to properly orient the tissue after it has been removed from the patient. Mohs surgeons have differing opinions on how to score and/or mark the tissue, but a common practice is to make a nick at the 12 o’clock position. Following removal of the first stage, the nick will be visible on both the extirpated tissue and the tissue just above the surgical defect. This prevents potential confusion regarding orientation during tissue processing.

The majority of all WLEs are performed utilizing the scalpel blade at an angle 90° perpendicular to the plane of the skin. In MMS, a signature 45° angle with the tip of the scalpel pointing toward, and the handle pointing away from, the lesion is commonly used in order to bevel the tissue being excised (FIGURE 2). Once the tissue is excised, hemostasis is obtained using electrodessication/electrofulguration or electrocoagulation.

Tissue processing and microscopic evaluation

The technique of beveling allows the epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous tissue to lie flat on the tissue block, so the Mohs surgeon can evaluate 100% of the excised tissue’s margins. The tissue is transported to a nearby lab for staining and processing. Even if near-perfect beveling is achieved, many stages will require bisecting, quadrissecting, or relaxing cuts in order to allow the margins to lie flat on the tissue block.

Using the scoring system made prior to incision, the tissue is oriented and stained with colored ink. Subsequently, a map is made with sections highlighting the colors used to stain designated areas of the tissue. This step is imperative for orientation during microscopic evaluation. Additionally, the map serves as a guide and log, should a section of the specimen have an involved margin and require another stage.

Continue to: Once fixed to the block...

Once fixed to the block, the tissue is engulfed in appropriate embedding medium and placed within the cryostat. The block is slowly cut to produce several micron-thin wafers of tissue that are then mounted on glass slides and processed with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) or various stains. The first wafers of tissue that come from the tissue block are those that are closest to the margin that was excised. Thus, 100% of the epidermis and deep margin can be visualized. “Deeper sections” are those that come from deeper cuts within the tissue and are more likely to show the malignant neoplasm.

Mohs surgery is the standard of care for treating cutaneous malignancy in light of its high cure rates and maximal conservation of tissue in sensitive locations.

The evaluation of immediate margins at the very edge of the tissue is in contrast to the technique of “bread-loafing,” which is the standard of evaluating margins after a WLE.¹¹ With this process, the pathologist examines sections that are cut 2- to 4-mm apart. This process only allows the pathologist to examine roughly 1% of the total tissue that was excised, and large variability in cutaneous representation can occur depending on the individual who cuts and processes the tissue.¹¹

Closing the defect

Once the site is deemed clear of residual tumor, the Mohs surgeon approaches the defect and determines the most appropriate way to close the surgical wound. Mohs surgeons are trained to close wounds using a variety of methods, including complex linear closures, flaps, and full-thickness skin grafts. Thoughtful consideration of local anatomy, cosmetic landmarks that may be affected by the closure method, and local tissue laxity are evaluated.

Depending on the location, a secondary intention closure may prove to be just as effective and cosmetically satisfying as a primary intention closure. In light of the many methods of closure, a complex or large surface area defect may better be suited for evaluation and closure by another specialist such as an ENT physician, ophthalmologist, or plastic surgeon.¹²

Lower recurrence rates for patients who undergo Mohs surgery

As noted earlier, the cutaneous malignancies most commonly treated with MMS are BCCs, followed by SCCs.¹³ Comparison studies between WLE and MMS show clinically significant differences in terms of recurrence rates between the 2 procedures.

Continue to: For BCCs

For BCCs, recurrence rates for excisions vs MMS are 10% and 1%, respectively.^14-16 A randomized trial reviewing 10-year recurrence of primary BCCs on the face showed recurrence rates for MMS of 4.4% compared to 12.2% for WLE.¹⁷ This study also showed recurrence rates for recurrent facial BCCs treated with MMS to be 3.9% vs 13.5% for standard WLE.¹⁷

SCC. The evidence similarly supports the efficacy of MMS for SCCs. A recent study showed primary T2a tumors had a 1.2% local recurrence rate with Mohs vs a 4% recurrence rate with WLE at an average follow-up of 2.8 years.¹⁸ Another study showed that primary tumors that were < 2 cm in diameter had a 5-year cure rate of 99% with Mohs surgery.¹¹

Melanoma in situ. A few studies have shown no clinically significant benefit of MMS compared to WLE when it comes to melanoma in situ.^19,20 However, a more recent article by Etzkom et al noted the ability to potentially upstage melanoma in situ and invasive melanoma after reviewing peripheral and deep margins during MMS.²¹ In this study, the authors uniquely delayed wound closure if upstaging was established and the need for a sentinel lymph node biopsy was warranted. This approach to MMS with delayed closure ultimately paved the way for very low recurrence rates.

CORRESPONDENCE
Andres Garcia, MD, 2612 112th Street, Lubbock, TX 79423; [email protected]

Mark Nelson, PharmD, recalls the anguish when a major pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) moved all veteran patients with prostate cancer at his facility from an effective medication to a pricier alternative therapy. “All of these patients were stable on their therapy and were extremely distraught about their medications being changed,” said Dr. Nelson, CEO of Northwest Medical Specialties in Washington State. While there was no clinical reason to change the medication, “our oncologists had no choice other than to comply,” he said.

Niyazz/ThinkStock

It’s unclear why a PBM would switch to a more expensive medication that has no additional clinical benefit, he continued. “Why upset so many veterans? For what reason? We were not given a reason despite our very vocal protest.”

Angus B. Worthing, MD, sees these scenarios unfold every day in his rheumatology practice in the Washington, D.C., area. “In my clinic with 25 doctors, we have three full-time people that only handle PBMs,” he said in an interview. He and others in the medical community, as well as many states, have been pushing back on what they see as efforts by PBMs to raise drug prices and collect the profits at the expense of patients.

PCMA’s challenges against PBM law

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a trade group that represents PBMs, has sued at least a half dozen states on their ability to regulate PBMs. However, a landmark case in late 2020 (Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Rutledge) set a new precedent. Reversing a lower appeals court decision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of allowing states to put in place fair regulation of these entities.

Dr. Worthing and others hope that the medical community and states can leverage this ruling in another lawsuit PCMA brought against North Dakota (PCMA v. Wehbi). PCMA filed this lawsuit in 2017, which challenges two statutes on PBM regulation. The group has issued similar legal challenges in Maine, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas with the Rutledge case.

“PBMs have become massive profit centers while (ironically) increasing patients’ out-of-pocket costs, interfering with doctor-patient relationships, and impairing patient access to appropriate treatment,” according to an amicus brief filed by The Alliance for Transparent & Affordable Prescriptions (ATAP), the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), and American Pharmacies, supporting North Dakota in the Wehbi case.

This is to ensure the case represents the voices of physicians, patients, nurses, and other stakeholders, and underscores PBM abuses, said Dr. Worthing, vice president of ATAP. He also serves as the American College of Rheumatology’s representative on ATAP’s Executive Committee.

PCMA did not respond to requests for comment. Its CEO and president, J.C. Scott, emphasizes that PBMs have a long track record of reducing drug costs for patients and plan sponsors. In 2021, PCMA released 21 policy solutions, a set of industry principles and a three-part policy platform, all with an aim to bring down costs and increase access to pharmaceutical care, according to the organization.

PCMA estimates that the strategies in its platform (updating Medicare Part D, accelerating value-based care, and eliminating anticompetitive ‘pay for delay’ agreements) would save the federal government a maximum of $398.7 billion over 10 years.

According to Wendy Hemmen, senior director with Texas Oncology in Dallas, PBMs do their own unique calculations to arrive at their cost reductions. “Essentially in a PBM, they use things that make their story. Numbers reported to plan sponsors and to the public are not audited and are usually in terms of percentages or a per member per month. Data points are moved around, dropped, or reclassified to make the story that the PBM needs to tell,” Ms. Hemmen said.


 

Amicus briefs dispute ERISA connection

North Dakota legislation prohibits PBMs from charging copays to patients that exceed the cost of a drug. It also prohibits gag clause provisions that restrict what pharmacists may discuss with patients. PBMs may charge fees based on performance metrics, but they must use nationally recognized metrics. Fees must be disclosed at the point of sale.

In its legal challenges, PCMA has asserted that state laws violate the preemption clause in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). “Federal preemption allows employers flexibility to administer innovative benefit plans in an environment of increasing health care costs. The court’s decision in Rutledge v. PCMA will either uphold or threaten these federal protections,” PCMA asserted in a statement issued in March 2020.

ATAP’s amicus brief, and another one filed by 34 attorneys general that supports the North Dakota statute to regulate PBMs, counter that this isn’t the case.

“First, PBM regulation (in its common and standard form) does not reference ERISA itself. These laws leave all plans on equal footing; they do not single out ERISA plans for preferred or disfavored coverage, and they do not change the playing field for ERISA plans alone ... Second, PBM regulation does not have any prohibited connection with ERISA plans,” noted authors in the ATAP brief.

PCMA has also included Medicare preemption in its arguments against PBM regulation. This is meritless, wrote the state attorneys general. “Medicare preempts state laws only if a Medicare ‘standard’ particularly addresses the subject of state regulation. Because the challenged North Dakota laws do not dictate plan benefits or conflict with a Medicare standard, they are not preempted.”

The auctioning of medications

PBMs in theory could use their market power to drive down costs by extracting discounts from drug makers and pharmacies. In reality, they retain any price concessions and discounts for themselves, ATAP’s brief continued.

A system that PBMs have put into place, called step therapy, is essentially an auction for the preferred spot that will be authorized and covered, Dr. Worthing explained.

PBMs create formularies through this auction. The highest rebate to the PBM earns the top spot in the auction and becomes the preferred drug. “That highest bid gets paid for by passing the cost along to patients and insurance plans, and PBMs pocket the profits. This provides an incentive for pharmaceutical manufacturers to raise prices,” he said.

Dr. Worthing has seen these practices trickle down and affect his patients. “Frequently, the medication I prescribe based on what’s best for the patient based on their disease activity, values, and medical history is often not covered because a different drug or portfolio of drugs has earned the top spot in step therapy. This is an extremely frustrating and cumbersome process that not only delays access to treatments but also provides an incentive for higher drug prices,” he said.

There are other ways in which PBMs get in the way of care, said Ms. Hemmen, whose facility serves complex-care oncology patients.

“PBMs force scripts out of higher-quality pharmacies that preserve unfragmented care. They incentivize plan sponsors to put programs into place that take away patient choice, fragment care, and drive scripts to their own owned pharmacies,” she said.
 

Rutledge case sets precedent

In the Rutledge case, PCMA had challenged an Arkansas law that forbid PBMs from paying local pharmacies at a lower rate than what the pharmacies were reimbursed to fill prescriptions. Although the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with PCMA, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arkansas in late 2020.

The appeals court also backed PCMA in PCMA v. Wehbi. However, the Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded it back to the appeals court, asking for a reconsideration in wake of the outcome in Rutledge v. PCMA.

PCMA has argued that Rutledge was a narrow decision, limited to state laws that regulate PBM reimbursements, and that Rutledge has no bearing on North Dakota law.

While it’s unfortunate that PCMA is trying to delay implementation of sensible regulations, “a lot of us are happy that this issue is coming to light,” Dr. Worthing said. “As a rheumatologist and health policy advocate, exposing drug middlemen is the most important bipartisan issue in the country today because it gets at the core of making sure that sick people get access to the medications they need and reducing the budget of insurance carriers, hospitals, and the federal budget.”

The ATAP brief noted that 28 state attorneys general have filed suit against PBMs, “securing settlements compelling PBMs to correct deceptive trade practices.”

Many people at the state and local level were waiting for the Supreme Court to decide on Rutledge before enacting legislation and sensible regulations, and now they can go ahead and do it, said Dr. Worthing. “I expect to see this across the country as states look at budgets, and as patients bring personal stories to light. We look forward to states passing these kinds of laws to regulate PBMs.”

The ACR doesn’t anticipate a ruling in the Wehbi case until the spring of 2022.

Recent laws passed around PBMs and the pharmacy benefit are a good first step in holding PBMs accountable for quality of care and honoring patient choice, Ms. Hemmen said. The laws also begin to address the fiscal manipulations PBMs use to gain advantage and direct scripts to their own coffers, she added. However, this may not have enough teeth. “These state laws are coming from a provider perspective, and they don’t anticipate what PBMs will do in response. The PBMs are going to work around it.”

Mark Nelson, PharmD, recalls the anguish when a major pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) moved all veteran patients with prostate cancer at his facility from an effective medication to a pricier alternative therapy. “All of these patients were stable on their therapy and were extremely distraught about their medications being changed,” said Dr. Nelson, CEO of Northwest Medical Specialties in Washington State. While there was no clinical reason to change the medication, “our oncologists had no choice other than to comply,” he said.

Niyazz/ThinkStock

It’s unclear why a PBM would switch to a more expensive medication that has no additional clinical benefit, he continued. “Why upset so many veterans? For what reason? We were not given a reason despite our very vocal protest.”

Angus B. Worthing, MD, sees these scenarios unfold every day in his rheumatology practice in the Washington, D.C., area. “In my clinic with 25 doctors, we have three full-time people that only handle PBMs,” he said in an interview. He and others in the medical community, as well as many states, have been pushing back on what they see as efforts by PBMs to raise drug prices and collect the profits at the expense of patients.

PCMA’s challenges against PBM law

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a trade group that represents PBMs, has sued at least a half dozen states on their ability to regulate PBMs. However, a landmark case in late 2020 (Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Rutledge) set a new precedent. Reversing a lower appeals court decision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of allowing states to put in place fair regulation of these entities.

Dr. Worthing and others hope that the medical community and states can leverage this ruling in another lawsuit PCMA brought against North Dakota (PCMA v. Wehbi). PCMA filed this lawsuit in 2017, which challenges two statutes on PBM regulation. The group has issued similar legal challenges in Maine, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas with the Rutledge case.

“PBMs have become massive profit centers while (ironically) increasing patients’ out-of-pocket costs, interfering with doctor-patient relationships, and impairing patient access to appropriate treatment,” according to an amicus brief filed by The Alliance for Transparent & Affordable Prescriptions (ATAP), the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), and American Pharmacies, supporting North Dakota in the Wehbi case.

This is to ensure the case represents the voices of physicians, patients, nurses, and other stakeholders, and underscores PBM abuses, said Dr. Worthing, vice president of ATAP. He also serves as the American College of Rheumatology’s representative on ATAP’s Executive Committee.

PCMA did not respond to requests for comment. Its CEO and president, J.C. Scott, emphasizes that PBMs have a long track record of reducing drug costs for patients and plan sponsors. In 2021, PCMA released 21 policy solutions, a set of industry principles and a three-part policy platform, all with an aim to bring down costs and increase access to pharmaceutical care, according to the organization.

PCMA estimates that the strategies in its platform (updating Medicare Part D, accelerating value-based care, and eliminating anticompetitive ‘pay for delay’ agreements) would save the federal government a maximum of $398.7 billion over 10 years.

According to Wendy Hemmen, senior director with Texas Oncology in Dallas, PBMs do their own unique calculations to arrive at their cost reductions. “Essentially in a PBM, they use things that make their story. Numbers reported to plan sponsors and to the public are not audited and are usually in terms of percentages or a per member per month. Data points are moved around, dropped, or reclassified to make the story that the PBM needs to tell,” Ms. Hemmen said.


 

Amicus briefs dispute ERISA connection

North Dakota legislation prohibits PBMs from charging copays to patients that exceed the cost of a drug. It also prohibits gag clause provisions that restrict what pharmacists may discuss with patients. PBMs may charge fees based on performance metrics, but they must use nationally recognized metrics. Fees must be disclosed at the point of sale.

In its legal challenges, PCMA has asserted that state laws violate the preemption clause in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). “Federal preemption allows employers flexibility to administer innovative benefit plans in an environment of increasing health care costs. The court’s decision in Rutledge v. PCMA will either uphold or threaten these federal protections,” PCMA asserted in a statement issued in March 2020.

ATAP’s amicus brief, and another one filed by 34 attorneys general that supports the North Dakota statute to regulate PBMs, counter that this isn’t the case.

“First, PBM regulation (in its common and standard form) does not reference ERISA itself. These laws leave all plans on equal footing; they do not single out ERISA plans for preferred or disfavored coverage, and they do not change the playing field for ERISA plans alone ... Second, PBM regulation does not have any prohibited connection with ERISA plans,” noted authors in the ATAP brief.

PCMA has also included Medicare preemption in its arguments against PBM regulation. This is meritless, wrote the state attorneys general. “Medicare preempts state laws only if a Medicare ‘standard’ particularly addresses the subject of state regulation. Because the challenged North Dakota laws do not dictate plan benefits or conflict with a Medicare standard, they are not preempted.”

The auctioning of medications

PBMs in theory could use their market power to drive down costs by extracting discounts from drug makers and pharmacies. In reality, they retain any price concessions and discounts for themselves, ATAP’s brief continued.

A system that PBMs have put into place, called step therapy, is essentially an auction for the preferred spot that will be authorized and covered, Dr. Worthing explained.

PBMs create formularies through this auction. The highest rebate to the PBM earns the top spot in the auction and becomes the preferred drug. “That highest bid gets paid for by passing the cost along to patients and insurance plans, and PBMs pocket the profits. This provides an incentive for pharmaceutical manufacturers to raise prices,” he said.

Dr. Worthing has seen these practices trickle down and affect his patients. “Frequently, the medication I prescribe based on what’s best for the patient based on their disease activity, values, and medical history is often not covered because a different drug or portfolio of drugs has earned the top spot in step therapy. This is an extremely frustrating and cumbersome process that not only delays access to treatments but also provides an incentive for higher drug prices,” he said.

There are other ways in which PBMs get in the way of care, said Ms. Hemmen, whose facility serves complex-care oncology patients.

“PBMs force scripts out of higher-quality pharmacies that preserve unfragmented care. They incentivize plan sponsors to put programs into place that take away patient choice, fragment care, and drive scripts to their own owned pharmacies,” she said.
 

Rutledge case sets precedent

In the Rutledge case, PCMA had challenged an Arkansas law that forbid PBMs from paying local pharmacies at a lower rate than what the pharmacies were reimbursed to fill prescriptions. Although the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with PCMA, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arkansas in late 2020.

The appeals court also backed PCMA in PCMA v. Wehbi. However, the Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded it back to the appeals court, asking for a reconsideration in wake of the outcome in Rutledge v. PCMA.

PCMA has argued that Rutledge was a narrow decision, limited to state laws that regulate PBM reimbursements, and that Rutledge has no bearing on North Dakota law.

While it’s unfortunate that PCMA is trying to delay implementation of sensible regulations, “a lot of us are happy that this issue is coming to light,” Dr. Worthing said. “As a rheumatologist and health policy advocate, exposing drug middlemen is the most important bipartisan issue in the country today because it gets at the core of making sure that sick people get access to the medications they need and reducing the budget of insurance carriers, hospitals, and the federal budget.”

The ATAP brief noted that 28 state attorneys general have filed suit against PBMs, “securing settlements compelling PBMs to correct deceptive trade practices.”

Many people at the state and local level were waiting for the Supreme Court to decide on Rutledge before enacting legislation and sensible regulations, and now they can go ahead and do it, said Dr. Worthing. “I expect to see this across the country as states look at budgets, and as patients bring personal stories to light. We look forward to states passing these kinds of laws to regulate PBMs.”

The ACR doesn’t anticipate a ruling in the Wehbi case until the spring of 2022.

Recent laws passed around PBMs and the pharmacy benefit are a good first step in holding PBMs accountable for quality of care and honoring patient choice, Ms. Hemmen said. The laws also begin to address the fiscal manipulations PBMs use to gain advantage and direct scripts to their own coffers, she added. However, this may not have enough teeth. “These state laws are coming from a provider perspective, and they don’t anticipate what PBMs will do in response. The PBMs are going to work around it.”

Mark Nelson, PharmD, recalls the anguish when a major pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) moved all veteran patients with prostate cancer at his facility from an effective medication to a pricier alternative therapy. “All of these patients were stable on their therapy and were extremely distraught about their medications being changed,” said Dr. Nelson, CEO of Northwest Medical Specialties in Washington State. While there was no clinical reason to change the medication, “our oncologists had no choice other than to comply,” he said.

Niyazz/ThinkStock

It’s unclear why a PBM would switch to a more expensive medication that has no additional clinical benefit, he continued. “Why upset so many veterans? For what reason? We were not given a reason despite our very vocal protest.”

Angus B. Worthing, MD, sees these scenarios unfold every day in his rheumatology practice in the Washington, D.C., area. “In my clinic with 25 doctors, we have three full-time people that only handle PBMs,” he said in an interview. He and others in the medical community, as well as many states, have been pushing back on what they see as efforts by PBMs to raise drug prices and collect the profits at the expense of patients.

PCMA’s challenges against PBM law

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a trade group that represents PBMs, has sued at least a half dozen states on their ability to regulate PBMs. However, a landmark case in late 2020 (Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Rutledge) set a new precedent. Reversing a lower appeals court decision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of allowing states to put in place fair regulation of these entities.

Dr. Worthing and others hope that the medical community and states can leverage this ruling in another lawsuit PCMA brought against North Dakota (PCMA v. Wehbi). PCMA filed this lawsuit in 2017, which challenges two statutes on PBM regulation. The group has issued similar legal challenges in Maine, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas with the Rutledge case.

“PBMs have become massive profit centers while (ironically) increasing patients’ out-of-pocket costs, interfering with doctor-patient relationships, and impairing patient access to appropriate treatment,” according to an amicus brief filed by The Alliance for Transparent & Affordable Prescriptions (ATAP), the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), and American Pharmacies, supporting North Dakota in the Wehbi case.

This is to ensure the case represents the voices of physicians, patients, nurses, and other stakeholders, and underscores PBM abuses, said Dr. Worthing, vice president of ATAP. He also serves as the American College of Rheumatology’s representative on ATAP’s Executive Committee.

PCMA did not respond to requests for comment. Its CEO and president, J.C. Scott, emphasizes that PBMs have a long track record of reducing drug costs for patients and plan sponsors. In 2021, PCMA released 21 policy solutions, a set of industry principles and a three-part policy platform, all with an aim to bring down costs and increase access to pharmaceutical care, according to the organization.

PCMA estimates that the strategies in its platform (updating Medicare Part D, accelerating value-based care, and eliminating anticompetitive ‘pay for delay’ agreements) would save the federal government a maximum of $398.7 billion over 10 years.

According to Wendy Hemmen, senior director with Texas Oncology in Dallas, PBMs do their own unique calculations to arrive at their cost reductions. “Essentially in a PBM, they use things that make their story. Numbers reported to plan sponsors and to the public are not audited and are usually in terms of percentages or a per member per month. Data points are moved around, dropped, or reclassified to make the story that the PBM needs to tell,” Ms. Hemmen said.


 

Amicus briefs dispute ERISA connection

North Dakota legislation prohibits PBMs from charging copays to patients that exceed the cost of a drug. It also prohibits gag clause provisions that restrict what pharmacists may discuss with patients. PBMs may charge fees based on performance metrics, but they must use nationally recognized metrics. Fees must be disclosed at the point of sale.

In its legal challenges, PCMA has asserted that state laws violate the preemption clause in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). “Federal preemption allows employers flexibility to administer innovative benefit plans in an environment of increasing health care costs. The court’s decision in Rutledge v. PCMA will either uphold or threaten these federal protections,” PCMA asserted in a statement issued in March 2020.

ATAP’s amicus brief, and another one filed by 34 attorneys general that supports the North Dakota statute to regulate PBMs, counter that this isn’t the case.

“First, PBM regulation (in its common and standard form) does not reference ERISA itself. These laws leave all plans on equal footing; they do not single out ERISA plans for preferred or disfavored coverage, and they do not change the playing field for ERISA plans alone ... Second, PBM regulation does not have any prohibited connection with ERISA plans,” noted authors in the ATAP brief.

PCMA has also included Medicare preemption in its arguments against PBM regulation. This is meritless, wrote the state attorneys general. “Medicare preempts state laws only if a Medicare ‘standard’ particularly addresses the subject of state regulation. Because the challenged North Dakota laws do not dictate plan benefits or conflict with a Medicare standard, they are not preempted.”

The auctioning of medications

PBMs in theory could use their market power to drive down costs by extracting discounts from drug makers and pharmacies. In reality, they retain any price concessions and discounts for themselves, ATAP’s brief continued.

A system that PBMs have put into place, called step therapy, is essentially an auction for the preferred spot that will be authorized and covered, Dr. Worthing explained.

PBMs create formularies through this auction. The highest rebate to the PBM earns the top spot in the auction and becomes the preferred drug. “That highest bid gets paid for by passing the cost along to patients and insurance plans, and PBMs pocket the profits. This provides an incentive for pharmaceutical manufacturers to raise prices,” he said.

Dr. Worthing has seen these practices trickle down and affect his patients. “Frequently, the medication I prescribe based on what’s best for the patient based on their disease activity, values, and medical history is often not covered because a different drug or portfolio of drugs has earned the top spot in step therapy. This is an extremely frustrating and cumbersome process that not only delays access to treatments but also provides an incentive for higher drug prices,” he said.

There are other ways in which PBMs get in the way of care, said Ms. Hemmen, whose facility serves complex-care oncology patients.

“PBMs force scripts out of higher-quality pharmacies that preserve unfragmented care. They incentivize plan sponsors to put programs into place that take away patient choice, fragment care, and drive scripts to their own owned pharmacies,” she said.
 

Rutledge case sets precedent

In the Rutledge case, PCMA had challenged an Arkansas law that forbid PBMs from paying local pharmacies at a lower rate than what the pharmacies were reimbursed to fill prescriptions. Although the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with PCMA, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arkansas in late 2020.

The appeals court also backed PCMA in PCMA v. Wehbi. However, the Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded it back to the appeals court, asking for a reconsideration in wake of the outcome in Rutledge v. PCMA.

PCMA has argued that Rutledge was a narrow decision, limited to state laws that regulate PBM reimbursements, and that Rutledge has no bearing on North Dakota law.

While it’s unfortunate that PCMA is trying to delay implementation of sensible regulations, “a lot of us are happy that this issue is coming to light,” Dr. Worthing said. “As a rheumatologist and health policy advocate, exposing drug middlemen is the most important bipartisan issue in the country today because it gets at the core of making sure that sick people get access to the medications they need and reducing the budget of insurance carriers, hospitals, and the federal budget.”

The ATAP brief noted that 28 state attorneys general have filed suit against PBMs, “securing settlements compelling PBMs to correct deceptive trade practices.”

Many people at the state and local level were waiting for the Supreme Court to decide on Rutledge before enacting legislation and sensible regulations, and now they can go ahead and do it, said Dr. Worthing. “I expect to see this across the country as states look at budgets, and as patients bring personal stories to light. We look forward to states passing these kinds of laws to regulate PBMs.”

The ACR doesn’t anticipate a ruling in the Wehbi case until the spring of 2022.

Recent laws passed around PBMs and the pharmacy benefit are a good first step in holding PBMs accountable for quality of care and honoring patient choice, Ms. Hemmen said. The laws also begin to address the fiscal manipulations PBMs use to gain advantage and direct scripts to their own coffers, she added. However, this may not have enough teeth. “These state laws are coming from a provider perspective, and they don’t anticipate what PBMs will do in response. The PBMs are going to work around it.”

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

Some adults who have an intellectual or other developmental disability (IDD) require extensive subspecialty care; many, however, depend primarily on their family physician for the bulk of their health care. With that reliance in mind, this article provides (1) an overview of important services that family physicians can provide for their adult patients with IDD and (2) pragmatic clinical suggestions for tailoring that care. Note: We highlight only some high-impact areas of clinical focus; refer to the 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines for a comprehensive approach to optimizing primary care for this population.¹

CASE

Laura S, a 24-year-old woman with Down syndrome, is visiting your clinic with her mother to establish care. Ms. S has several medical comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, repaired congenital heart disease, schizoaffective disorder, and hypothyroidism. She is under the care of multiple specialists, including a cardiologist and an endocrinologist. Her medications include the atypical antipsychotic risperidone, which was prescribed for her through the services of a community mental health center.

Ms. S is due for multiple preventive health screenings. She indicates that she feels nervous today talking about these screenings with a new physician.

First step in care: Proficiency in the lexicon of IDD

Three core concepts of IDD are impairment, disability, and handicap. According to the World Health Organization²:

• impairment “is any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function.”
• disability “is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.”
• handicap therefore “represents socialization of an impairment or disability, and as such it reflects the consequences for the individual—cultural, social, economic, and environmental—that stem from the presence of impairment and disability.”

Essential transition: Pediatric to adult health care

Health care transition (HCT) is the planned process of transferring care from a pediatric to an adult-based health care setting,³ comprising 3 phases:

• preparation
• transfer from pediatric to adult care
• integration into adult-based care.

Two critical components of a smooth HCT include initiating the transition early in adolescence and providing transition-support resources, which are often lacking, even in large, integrated health systems.⁴ Got Transition, created by the National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, outlines core elements of an organized HCT process (www.gottransition.org) specific to young adults with IDD, including young adults with autism spectrum disorder.^5,6 

Even young people who are served by a family physician and who intend to remain in that family practice as they age into adulthood require HCT services that include⁶:

• assessment of readiness to transition to adult care
• update of the medical history
• assessment and promotion of self-care skills
• consent discussions and optimized participation in decision-making
• transition of specialty care from pediatric to adult specialists.

Continue to: For an ideal HCT...

For an ideal health care transition, full engagement of the patient, the medical home, and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical.

For an ideal HCT, full engagement of the patient, the medical home (physicians, nursing staff, and care coordinators), and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical. In addition to preventive care visits and management of chronic disease, additional domains that require explicit attention in transitioning young people with IDD include health insurance, transportation, employment, and postsecondary education.

Young people who have special health care needs and receive high-quality HCT demonstrate improvements in adherence to care, disease-specific measures, quality of life, self-care skills, satisfaction with care, and health care utilization.⁷TABLE 1³ lists resources identified by Berens and colleagues that are helpful in facilitating the transition.

Teach and practice disability etiquette

Societal prejudice harms people with IDD—leading to self-deprecation, alienation from the larger community, and isolation from others with IDD.⁸ To promote acceptance and inclusivity in residential communities, the workplace, recreational venues, and clinical settings, disability etiquette should be utilized—a set of guidelines on how to interact with patients with IDD. These include speaking to the patient directly, using clear language in an adult voice, and avoiding stereotypes about people with disabilities.⁹ The entire health care team, including all front-facing staff (receptionists and care and financial coordinators) and clinical staff (physicians, nurses, medical assistants), need to be educated in, and practice, disability etiquette.

Preparing for in-person visits. Pre-­visit preparation, ideally by means of dialogue between health care staff and the patient or caregiver (or both), typically by telephone and in advance of the scheduled visit, is often critical for a successful first face-to-face encounter. (See “Pre-visit telephone questionnaire and script for a new adult patient with IDD,” page 287, which we developed for use in our office practice.) Outcomes of the pre-visit preparation should include identifying:

• words or actions that can trigger anxiety or panic
• de-escalation techniques, such as specific calming words and actions
• strategies for optimal communication, physical access, and physical examination.

Initial appointments should focus on building trust and rapport with the health care team and desensitizing the patient to the clinical environment.¹⁰ Examination techniques used with pediatric patients can be applied to this population: for example, demonstrating an examination maneuver first on the parent or caregiver; beginning the examination with the least invasive or anxiety-­provoking components; and stating what you plan to do next—before you do it.

Continue to: Systematic health checks provide great value

A health check is a systematic and comprehensive health assessment that is provided annually to adults with IDD, and includes:

• specific review of signs and symptoms of health conditions that often co-­occur in adults with IDD (TABLE 2Calibri¹¹)
• screening for changes in adaptive functioning and secondary disability
• lifestyle counseling
• medication review and counseling
• immunization update
• discussion of caregiver concerns.

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests for a patient with IDD often requires ingenuity and creativity to allay fears and anxieties.

Regarding the last point: Many caregivers are the aging parents of the adult patient with IDD—people who have their own emerging health and support needs. You should initiate conversations about advanced planning for the needs of patients, which often involves engaging siblings and other family members to assume a greater role in caregiving.¹²

Benefits of the health check. A systematic review of 38 studies, comprising more than 5000 patients with IDD, found that health checks increased the detection of serious conditions, improved screening for sensory impairments, and increased the immunization rate.¹³ Although many patients with IDD generally understand the need for a periodic health examination, you can enhance their experience by better explaining the rationale for the health check; scheduling sufficient time for the appointment, based on the individual clinical situation; and discussing the value of laboratory testing and referrals to specialists.¹⁴

Tailoring preventive care

Many of the preventive services recommendations typically utilized by family physicians, such as guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force, have been developed for the general population at average risk of conditions of interest.¹⁵ Adults with IDD, depending on the cause of their developmental disability and their behavioral risk profile, might be at significantly higher (or lower) risk of cancer, heart disease, or other conditions than the general population. To address these differences, preventive care guidelines tailored to patients with certain developmental disabilities have been created, including guidelines specific to adults with Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, Smith-Magenis syndrome, and 22q11.2 deletion (DiGeorge) syndrome.¹⁶

Clarifying the molecular genetic etiology of many developmental disabilities has led to more precise understandings about physical and behavioral health issues associated with specific developmental disabilities. For that reason, patients without a known cause for their IDD might benefit from referral to a geneticist—even in early or middle adulthood. Variables generally associated with a higher likelihood of an abnormal genetic test result include¹⁷:

• a family history of developmental disability
• a congenital malformation or dysmorphic features
• a dual diagnosis of developmental disability and co-occurring mental illness
• hypotonia
• severe or profound IDD.

Continue to: Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests...

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests often requires ingenuity and the collective creativity of the patient, family members, staff, and family physician to allay fears and anxieties. Examples: Women who have been advised to undergo screening mammography might feel less anxious by undergoing tandem screening with their sister or mother, and colorectal cancer screening might be more easily accomplished using a fecal DNA test rather than by colonoscopy. Procedural desensitization strategies and preventive care instructional materials targeting people with IDD are posted on YouTube (for example, the “DD CARES Best Practices” series [see www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPJy4zvg4io]) and other websites.

Management of chronic disease

Evidence of health disparities in patients with IDD includes suboptimal management of chronic diseases, such as diabetes¹⁸ and hypertension,¹⁹ despite contact with a primary care physician. Nonadherence to a medication regimen might be more common in patients who live with their family or in a residential setting where there is a lower degree of supervision—that is, compared to a residence that maintains 24-hour staffing with daily nursing care and supervision. For a patient who is not so closely supervised, reviewing the medication refill history with the pharmacy, or using the so-called brown-bag technique of counting pill bottles brought to appointments, can ensure medication adherence.

CASE

As you interview Ms. S, you note that she is shy, avoids eye contact, and appears generally anxious. You calm her by noticing and complimenting her jewelry and fingernail polish. Ms. S smiles and talks about her favorite polish colors.

Evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health issues begins with assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress or stereotypies.

Her mother reports that, when Ms. S is stressed, she talks to herself alone in her bedroom. However, you do not observe evidence of schizoaffective disorder, and begin to wonder whether she needs to be taking risperidone.

Essentials of mental health care

It is estimated that one-third of adults with IDD have significant mental and behavioral health care needs.²⁰ Patients with IDD suffer the same psychiatric disorders as the general population; some also engage in problematic behaviors, such as self-injurious actions, physical or verbal aggression (or both), property destruction, and resistance to caregiving assistance.

Continue to: Mental and behavioral health problems...

Mental and behavioral health problems can have a profound impact on the quality of life of patients with IDD, their peers, and their family and other caregivers. If untreated, these problems can lead to premature institutionalization, loss of employment or desired program participation, fractured social relationships, and caregiver withdrawal and burnout.

Initial evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health problems begins with careful assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress, stereotypies, and other problematic behaviors. Common sources of pain and discomfort include dental and other oral disease, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis, constipation, allergic disease, headache, musculoskeletal pathology, lower urinary tract disease, and gynecologic disorders.¹¹ Identification and optimal treatment of medical conditions might not eliminate problematic behaviors but often decrease their frequency and intensity.

Psychoactive medications are prescribed for many patients with IDD. Many have behavioral adverse effects, such as akathisia, aggression, and disinhibition—leading to a prescribing cascade of psychoactive medication polypharmacy and escalating dosages.²¹ Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis, explicit outcome targets, or adequate clinical monitoring for effectiveness; in addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.²¹ Even a family physician who is not the prescriber can perform an important advocacy role by critically reviewing psychoactive medications, documenting adverse effects, insisting on a clear therapeutic target, and calling for discontinuation of medications that appear to be ineffective.

Evaluation of mental and behavioral health problems requires a developmental perspective to interpret specific, observable behaviors with a proper clinical lens. For example, many patients with IDD engage in self-talk (soliloquizing) as a means of processing the world around them. This practice might escalate during a time of physical or psychological stress, and the unwary clinician might misinterpret this behavior as psychotic, leading to inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medication. Other psychotoform behaviors that, superficially, mimic but are typically not truly psychotic, include talk with or about imaginary friends and repetitive retelling of sometimes elaborate or grandiose tales or assertions. The failure of clinicians to recognize developmentally determined expressions of distress often leads to a misdiagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic illness and, consequently, inappropriate psychopharmacotherapy. 

Family physicians, familiar with the use of psychiatric scales for diagnosis and treatment monitoring, should use similar scales that have been developed specifically for patients with IDD (TABLE 3¹¹). In addition, a psychiatric diagnosis manual, the Diagnostic Manual—Intellectual Disability 2, specific to people with IDD (and analogous to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition) provides modification of diagnostic criteria to account for patients who have difficulty articulating their internal emotional state and inner thoughts.²²

Continue to: Problematic behaviors

Problematic behaviors that are not features of a bona fide psychiatric disorder are often best understood through functional behavioral analysis, which examines antecedents and consequences of problematic behaviors and identifies their predictable outcomes, such as gaining attention, avoiding a task, or securing a desired item. Rather than being given a prescription for psychoactive medication, many adult patients with IDD and problematic behaviors might be best served by having you order consultation with a certified behavior analyst. The analyst will conduct an evaluation and, along with family or residential staff and the patient, craft a behavioral support plan to address core drivers of the undesired behavior. Behavioral support plans might be enriched by multidisciplinary input from a speech and language pathologist, habilitation professionals, occupational and physical therapists, a neuropsychologist, and others.²³

Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis. In addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.

Resources to help you address the physical, mental, and behavioral health problems of these patients are available online through Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s “Toolkit for primary care providers” (https://iddtoolkit.vkcsites.org).

CASE

During your examination, you review Ms. S’s vital signs, including body mass index (BMI). You calculate that she is morbidly obese—BMI, 37—in the setting of a known comorbidity, diabetes.

Ms. S tells you that she is interested in having a healthy lifestyle, but feels frustrated because she does not know how to make the necessary changes. You discuss with her how some medications, including risperidone, can promote weight gain, and that it is important for her mental health provider to carefully reassess whether she needs to continue the drug.

Weight management in a patient population that tends to be sedentary

Patients with IDD are more likely to live a sedentary lifestyle. Compared to adults who do not have IDD, adults with IDD—especially women and patients with Down syndrome—are reported to have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁴

Continue to: As in the general population...

Similarly, undesired weight loss demands careful evaluation and management because such loss can reflect a medically significant condition, such as gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, dysphagia, neglect, and cancer.²⁷

Boosting the amount and effectiveness of physical activity

Young people with IDD participate in physical activity less often than their neurotypical peers; as a result, they tend to be less fit and have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁸ Based on a meta-analysis, interventions that focus on sport and movement skills training, such as soccer, basketball, and ball-throwing programs, might be more effective than general physical activity programs.²⁸ In addition to year-round sports training and athletic competitions, Special Olympics conducts vital health screenings of athletes and supports community-based initiatives that address bias against patients with IDD, promote inclusion, and foster social relationships (www.specialolympics.org/our-work/inclusive-health?locale=en).

Success in weight management involves multidisciplinary treatment, including nutritional support, physical activity, behavioral changes, and close follow-up.

Emphasize regular activity. In adulthood, fewer than 10% of patients with IDD exercise regularly.²¹ According to the second edition of Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans,²⁹ “all adults, with or without a disability, should get at least 150 minutes of aerobic physical activity a week. Activities can be broken down into smaller amounts, such as about 25 minutes a day every day.”³⁰ Supplementation with muscle-strengthening activities (eg, yoga, weight training, and resistance-band training) provides further health benefit, such as improvement in posture and prevention of future injury.³¹ An ideal exercise program proposed by Tyler and Baker is based on a daily, “3-2-1” schedule (ie, of every hour of activity, 30 minutes should be of aerobic exercise; 20 minutes, of strength building; and 10 minutes, of flexibility).¹¹ By participating in any type of physical activity, there is potential for considerable health benefit in reducing psychosocial stressors, improving mental health, counteracting metabolic syndromes, and, ultimately, reducing morbidity and mortality related to physical inactivity.

CASE

With permission from Ms. S, you send your progress notes by fax to her mental health provider at the community mental health center and request a call to discuss her case—in particular, to examine potential alternatives to risperidone. With Ms. S’s input, you also co-create an exercise prescription that includes a daily 20-minute walking program with her mother.

At the follow-up visit that is scheduled in 3 months, you anticipate adding a resistance component and balance activity to the exercise prescription to enrich Ms. S’s physical activity regimen.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carl V. Tyler Jr., MD, 14601 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, OH, 44107; [email protected]

Some adults who have an intellectual or other developmental disability (IDD) require extensive subspecialty care; many, however, depend primarily on their family physician for the bulk of their health care. With that reliance in mind, this article provides (1) an overview of important services that family physicians can provide for their adult patients with IDD and (2) pragmatic clinical suggestions for tailoring that care. Note: We highlight only some high-impact areas of clinical focus; refer to the 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines for a comprehensive approach to optimizing primary care for this population.¹

CASE

Laura S, a 24-year-old woman with Down syndrome, is visiting your clinic with her mother to establish care. Ms. S has several medical comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, repaired congenital heart disease, schizoaffective disorder, and hypothyroidism. She is under the care of multiple specialists, including a cardiologist and an endocrinologist. Her medications include the atypical antipsychotic risperidone, which was prescribed for her through the services of a community mental health center.

Ms. S is due for multiple preventive health screenings. She indicates that she feels nervous today talking about these screenings with a new physician.

First step in care: Proficiency in the lexicon of IDD

Three core concepts of IDD are impairment, disability, and handicap. According to the World Health Organization²:

• impairment “is any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function.”
• disability “is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.”
• handicap therefore “represents socialization of an impairment or disability, and as such it reflects the consequences for the individual—cultural, social, economic, and environmental—that stem from the presence of impairment and disability.”

Essential transition: Pediatric to adult health care

Health care transition (HCT) is the planned process of transferring care from a pediatric to an adult-based health care setting,³ comprising 3 phases:

• preparation
• transfer from pediatric to adult care
• integration into adult-based care.

Two critical components of a smooth HCT include initiating the transition early in adolescence and providing transition-support resources, which are often lacking, even in large, integrated health systems.⁴ Got Transition, created by the National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, outlines core elements of an organized HCT process (www.gottransition.org) specific to young adults with IDD, including young adults with autism spectrum disorder.^5,6 

Even young people who are served by a family physician and who intend to remain in that family practice as they age into adulthood require HCT services that include⁶:

• assessment of readiness to transition to adult care
• update of the medical history
• assessment and promotion of self-care skills
• consent discussions and optimized participation in decision-making
• transition of specialty care from pediatric to adult specialists.

Continue to: For an ideal HCT...

For an ideal health care transition, full engagement of the patient, the medical home, and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical.

For an ideal HCT, full engagement of the patient, the medical home (physicians, nursing staff, and care coordinators), and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical. In addition to preventive care visits and management of chronic disease, additional domains that require explicit attention in transitioning young people with IDD include health insurance, transportation, employment, and postsecondary education.

Young people who have special health care needs and receive high-quality HCT demonstrate improvements in adherence to care, disease-specific measures, quality of life, self-care skills, satisfaction with care, and health care utilization.⁷TABLE 1³ lists resources identified by Berens and colleagues that are helpful in facilitating the transition.

Teach and practice disability etiquette

Societal prejudice harms people with IDD—leading to self-deprecation, alienation from the larger community, and isolation from others with IDD.⁸ To promote acceptance and inclusivity in residential communities, the workplace, recreational venues, and clinical settings, disability etiquette should be utilized—a set of guidelines on how to interact with patients with IDD. These include speaking to the patient directly, using clear language in an adult voice, and avoiding stereotypes about people with disabilities.⁹ The entire health care team, including all front-facing staff (receptionists and care and financial coordinators) and clinical staff (physicians, nurses, medical assistants), need to be educated in, and practice, disability etiquette.

Preparing for in-person visits. Pre-­visit preparation, ideally by means of dialogue between health care staff and the patient or caregiver (or both), typically by telephone and in advance of the scheduled visit, is often critical for a successful first face-to-face encounter. (See “Pre-visit telephone questionnaire and script for a new adult patient with IDD,” page 287, which we developed for use in our office practice.) Outcomes of the pre-visit preparation should include identifying:

• words or actions that can trigger anxiety or panic
• de-escalation techniques, such as specific calming words and actions
• strategies for optimal communication, physical access, and physical examination.

Initial appointments should focus on building trust and rapport with the health care team and desensitizing the patient to the clinical environment.¹⁰ Examination techniques used with pediatric patients can be applied to this population: for example, demonstrating an examination maneuver first on the parent or caregiver; beginning the examination with the least invasive or anxiety-­provoking components; and stating what you plan to do next—before you do it.

Continue to: Systematic health checks provide great value

A health check is a systematic and comprehensive health assessment that is provided annually to adults with IDD, and includes:

• specific review of signs and symptoms of health conditions that often co-­occur in adults with IDD (TABLE 2Calibri¹¹)
• screening for changes in adaptive functioning and secondary disability
• lifestyle counseling
• medication review and counseling
• immunization update
• discussion of caregiver concerns.

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests for a patient with IDD often requires ingenuity and creativity to allay fears and anxieties.

Regarding the last point: Many caregivers are the aging parents of the adult patient with IDD—people who have their own emerging health and support needs. You should initiate conversations about advanced planning for the needs of patients, which often involves engaging siblings and other family members to assume a greater role in caregiving.¹²

Benefits of the health check. A systematic review of 38 studies, comprising more than 5000 patients with IDD, found that health checks increased the detection of serious conditions, improved screening for sensory impairments, and increased the immunization rate.¹³ Although many patients with IDD generally understand the need for a periodic health examination, you can enhance their experience by better explaining the rationale for the health check; scheduling sufficient time for the appointment, based on the individual clinical situation; and discussing the value of laboratory testing and referrals to specialists.¹⁴

Tailoring preventive care

Many of the preventive services recommendations typically utilized by family physicians, such as guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force, have been developed for the general population at average risk of conditions of interest.¹⁵ Adults with IDD, depending on the cause of their developmental disability and their behavioral risk profile, might be at significantly higher (or lower) risk of cancer, heart disease, or other conditions than the general population. To address these differences, preventive care guidelines tailored to patients with certain developmental disabilities have been created, including guidelines specific to adults with Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, Smith-Magenis syndrome, and 22q11.2 deletion (DiGeorge) syndrome.¹⁶

Clarifying the molecular genetic etiology of many developmental disabilities has led to more precise understandings about physical and behavioral health issues associated with specific developmental disabilities. For that reason, patients without a known cause for their IDD might benefit from referral to a geneticist—even in early or middle adulthood. Variables generally associated with a higher likelihood of an abnormal genetic test result include¹⁷:

• a family history of developmental disability
• a congenital malformation or dysmorphic features
• a dual diagnosis of developmental disability and co-occurring mental illness
• hypotonia
• severe or profound IDD.

Continue to: Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests...

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests often requires ingenuity and the collective creativity of the patient, family members, staff, and family physician to allay fears and anxieties. Examples: Women who have been advised to undergo screening mammography might feel less anxious by undergoing tandem screening with their sister or mother, and colorectal cancer screening might be more easily accomplished using a fecal DNA test rather than by colonoscopy. Procedural desensitization strategies and preventive care instructional materials targeting people with IDD are posted on YouTube (for example, the “DD CARES Best Practices” series [see www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPJy4zvg4io]) and other websites.

Management of chronic disease

Evidence of health disparities in patients with IDD includes suboptimal management of chronic diseases, such as diabetes¹⁸ and hypertension,¹⁹ despite contact with a primary care physician. Nonadherence to a medication regimen might be more common in patients who live with their family or in a residential setting where there is a lower degree of supervision—that is, compared to a residence that maintains 24-hour staffing with daily nursing care and supervision. For a patient who is not so closely supervised, reviewing the medication refill history with the pharmacy, or using the so-called brown-bag technique of counting pill bottles brought to appointments, can ensure medication adherence.

CASE

As you interview Ms. S, you note that she is shy, avoids eye contact, and appears generally anxious. You calm her by noticing and complimenting her jewelry and fingernail polish. Ms. S smiles and talks about her favorite polish colors.

Evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health issues begins with assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress or stereotypies.

Her mother reports that, when Ms. S is stressed, she talks to herself alone in her bedroom. However, you do not observe evidence of schizoaffective disorder, and begin to wonder whether she needs to be taking risperidone.

Essentials of mental health care

It is estimated that one-third of adults with IDD have significant mental and behavioral health care needs.²⁰ Patients with IDD suffer the same psychiatric disorders as the general population; some also engage in problematic behaviors, such as self-injurious actions, physical or verbal aggression (or both), property destruction, and resistance to caregiving assistance.

Continue to: Mental and behavioral health problems...

Mental and behavioral health problems can have a profound impact on the quality of life of patients with IDD, their peers, and their family and other caregivers. If untreated, these problems can lead to premature institutionalization, loss of employment or desired program participation, fractured social relationships, and caregiver withdrawal and burnout.

Initial evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health problems begins with careful assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress, stereotypies, and other problematic behaviors. Common sources of pain and discomfort include dental and other oral disease, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis, constipation, allergic disease, headache, musculoskeletal pathology, lower urinary tract disease, and gynecologic disorders.¹¹ Identification and optimal treatment of medical conditions might not eliminate problematic behaviors but often decrease their frequency and intensity.

Psychoactive medications are prescribed for many patients with IDD. Many have behavioral adverse effects, such as akathisia, aggression, and disinhibition—leading to a prescribing cascade of psychoactive medication polypharmacy and escalating dosages.²¹ Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis, explicit outcome targets, or adequate clinical monitoring for effectiveness; in addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.²¹ Even a family physician who is not the prescriber can perform an important advocacy role by critically reviewing psychoactive medications, documenting adverse effects, insisting on a clear therapeutic target, and calling for discontinuation of medications that appear to be ineffective.

Evaluation of mental and behavioral health problems requires a developmental perspective to interpret specific, observable behaviors with a proper clinical lens. For example, many patients with IDD engage in self-talk (soliloquizing) as a means of processing the world around them. This practice might escalate during a time of physical or psychological stress, and the unwary clinician might misinterpret this behavior as psychotic, leading to inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medication. Other psychotoform behaviors that, superficially, mimic but are typically not truly psychotic, include talk with or about imaginary friends and repetitive retelling of sometimes elaborate or grandiose tales or assertions. The failure of clinicians to recognize developmentally determined expressions of distress often leads to a misdiagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic illness and, consequently, inappropriate psychopharmacotherapy. 

Family physicians, familiar with the use of psychiatric scales for diagnosis and treatment monitoring, should use similar scales that have been developed specifically for patients with IDD (TABLE 3¹¹). In addition, a psychiatric diagnosis manual, the Diagnostic Manual—Intellectual Disability 2, specific to people with IDD (and analogous to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition) provides modification of diagnostic criteria to account for patients who have difficulty articulating their internal emotional state and inner thoughts.²²

Continue to: Problematic behaviors

Problematic behaviors that are not features of a bona fide psychiatric disorder are often best understood through functional behavioral analysis, which examines antecedents and consequences of problematic behaviors and identifies their predictable outcomes, such as gaining attention, avoiding a task, or securing a desired item. Rather than being given a prescription for psychoactive medication, many adult patients with IDD and problematic behaviors might be best served by having you order consultation with a certified behavior analyst. The analyst will conduct an evaluation and, along with family or residential staff and the patient, craft a behavioral support plan to address core drivers of the undesired behavior. Behavioral support plans might be enriched by multidisciplinary input from a speech and language pathologist, habilitation professionals, occupational and physical therapists, a neuropsychologist, and others.²³

Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis. In addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.

Resources to help you address the physical, mental, and behavioral health problems of these patients are available online through Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s “Toolkit for primary care providers” (https://iddtoolkit.vkcsites.org).

CASE

During your examination, you review Ms. S’s vital signs, including body mass index (BMI). You calculate that she is morbidly obese—BMI, 37—in the setting of a known comorbidity, diabetes.

Ms. S tells you that she is interested in having a healthy lifestyle, but feels frustrated because she does not know how to make the necessary changes. You discuss with her how some medications, including risperidone, can promote weight gain, and that it is important for her mental health provider to carefully reassess whether she needs to continue the drug.

Weight management in a patient population that tends to be sedentary

Patients with IDD are more likely to live a sedentary lifestyle. Compared to adults who do not have IDD, adults with IDD—especially women and patients with Down syndrome—are reported to have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁴

Continue to: As in the general population...

Similarly, undesired weight loss demands careful evaluation and management because such loss can reflect a medically significant condition, such as gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, dysphagia, neglect, and cancer.²⁷

Boosting the amount and effectiveness of physical activity

Young people with IDD participate in physical activity less often than their neurotypical peers; as a result, they tend to be less fit and have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁸ Based on a meta-analysis, interventions that focus on sport and movement skills training, such as soccer, basketball, and ball-throwing programs, might be more effective than general physical activity programs.²⁸ In addition to year-round sports training and athletic competitions, Special Olympics conducts vital health screenings of athletes and supports community-based initiatives that address bias against patients with IDD, promote inclusion, and foster social relationships (www.specialolympics.org/our-work/inclusive-health?locale=en).

Success in weight management involves multidisciplinary treatment, including nutritional support, physical activity, behavioral changes, and close follow-up.

Emphasize regular activity. In adulthood, fewer than 10% of patients with IDD exercise regularly.²¹ According to the second edition of Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans,²⁹ “all adults, with or without a disability, should get at least 150 minutes of aerobic physical activity a week. Activities can be broken down into smaller amounts, such as about 25 minutes a day every day.”³⁰ Supplementation with muscle-strengthening activities (eg, yoga, weight training, and resistance-band training) provides further health benefit, such as improvement in posture and prevention of future injury.³¹ An ideal exercise program proposed by Tyler and Baker is based on a daily, “3-2-1” schedule (ie, of every hour of activity, 30 minutes should be of aerobic exercise; 20 minutes, of strength building; and 10 minutes, of flexibility).¹¹ By participating in any type of physical activity, there is potential for considerable health benefit in reducing psychosocial stressors, improving mental health, counteracting metabolic syndromes, and, ultimately, reducing morbidity and mortality related to physical inactivity.

CASE

With permission from Ms. S, you send your progress notes by fax to her mental health provider at the community mental health center and request a call to discuss her case—in particular, to examine potential alternatives to risperidone. With Ms. S’s input, you also co-create an exercise prescription that includes a daily 20-minute walking program with her mother.

At the follow-up visit that is scheduled in 3 months, you anticipate adding a resistance component and balance activity to the exercise prescription to enrich Ms. S’s physical activity regimen.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carl V. Tyler Jr., MD, 14601 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, OH, 44107; [email protected]

Some adults who have an intellectual or other developmental disability (IDD) require extensive subspecialty care; many, however, depend primarily on their family physician for the bulk of their health care. With that reliance in mind, this article provides (1) an overview of important services that family physicians can provide for their adult patients with IDD and (2) pragmatic clinical suggestions for tailoring that care. Note: We highlight only some high-impact areas of clinical focus; refer to the 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines for a comprehensive approach to optimizing primary care for this population.¹

CASE

Laura S, a 24-year-old woman with Down syndrome, is visiting your clinic with her mother to establish care. Ms. S has several medical comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, repaired congenital heart disease, schizoaffective disorder, and hypothyroidism. She is under the care of multiple specialists, including a cardiologist and an endocrinologist. Her medications include the atypical antipsychotic risperidone, which was prescribed for her through the services of a community mental health center.

Ms. S is due for multiple preventive health screenings. She indicates that she feels nervous today talking about these screenings with a new physician.

First step in care: Proficiency in the lexicon of IDD

Three core concepts of IDD are impairment, disability, and handicap. According to the World Health Organization²:

• impairment “is any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function.”
• disability “is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.”
• handicap therefore “represents socialization of an impairment or disability, and as such it reflects the consequences for the individual—cultural, social, economic, and environmental—that stem from the presence of impairment and disability.”

Essential transition: Pediatric to adult health care

Health care transition (HCT) is the planned process of transferring care from a pediatric to an adult-based health care setting,³ comprising 3 phases:

• preparation
• transfer from pediatric to adult care
• integration into adult-based care.

Two critical components of a smooth HCT include initiating the transition early in adolescence and providing transition-support resources, which are often lacking, even in large, integrated health systems.⁴ Got Transition, created by the National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health, outlines core elements of an organized HCT process (www.gottransition.org) specific to young adults with IDD, including young adults with autism spectrum disorder.^5,6 

Even young people who are served by a family physician and who intend to remain in that family practice as they age into adulthood require HCT services that include⁶:

• assessment of readiness to transition to adult care
• update of the medical history
• assessment and promotion of self-care skills
• consent discussions and optimized participation in decision-making
• transition of specialty care from pediatric to adult specialists.

Continue to: For an ideal HCT...

For an ideal health care transition, full engagement of the patient, the medical home, and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical.

For an ideal HCT, full engagement of the patient, the medical home (physicians, nursing staff, and care coordinators), and the patient’s family (including the primary caregiver or guardian) is critical. In addition to preventive care visits and management of chronic disease, additional domains that require explicit attention in transitioning young people with IDD include health insurance, transportation, employment, and postsecondary education.

Young people who have special health care needs and receive high-quality HCT demonstrate improvements in adherence to care, disease-specific measures, quality of life, self-care skills, satisfaction with care, and health care utilization.⁷TABLE 1³ lists resources identified by Berens and colleagues that are helpful in facilitating the transition.

Teach and practice disability etiquette

Societal prejudice harms people with IDD—leading to self-deprecation, alienation from the larger community, and isolation from others with IDD.⁸ To promote acceptance and inclusivity in residential communities, the workplace, recreational venues, and clinical settings, disability etiquette should be utilized—a set of guidelines on how to interact with patients with IDD. These include speaking to the patient directly, using clear language in an adult voice, and avoiding stereotypes about people with disabilities.⁹ The entire health care team, including all front-facing staff (receptionists and care and financial coordinators) and clinical staff (physicians, nurses, medical assistants), need to be educated in, and practice, disability etiquette.

Preparing for in-person visits. Pre-­visit preparation, ideally by means of dialogue between health care staff and the patient or caregiver (or both), typically by telephone and in advance of the scheduled visit, is often critical for a successful first face-to-face encounter. (See “Pre-visit telephone questionnaire and script for a new adult patient with IDD,” page 287, which we developed for use in our office practice.) Outcomes of the pre-visit preparation should include identifying:

• words or actions that can trigger anxiety or panic
• de-escalation techniques, such as specific calming words and actions
• strategies for optimal communication, physical access, and physical examination.

Initial appointments should focus on building trust and rapport with the health care team and desensitizing the patient to the clinical environment.¹⁰ Examination techniques used with pediatric patients can be applied to this population: for example, demonstrating an examination maneuver first on the parent or caregiver; beginning the examination with the least invasive or anxiety-­provoking components; and stating what you plan to do next—before you do it.

Continue to: Systematic health checks provide great value

A health check is a systematic and comprehensive health assessment that is provided annually to adults with IDD, and includes:

• specific review of signs and symptoms of health conditions that often co-­occur in adults with IDD (TABLE 2Calibri¹¹)
• screening for changes in adaptive functioning and secondary disability
• lifestyle counseling
• medication review and counseling
• immunization update
• discussion of caregiver concerns.

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests for a patient with IDD often requires ingenuity and creativity to allay fears and anxieties.

Regarding the last point: Many caregivers are the aging parents of the adult patient with IDD—people who have their own emerging health and support needs. You should initiate conversations about advanced planning for the needs of patients, which often involves engaging siblings and other family members to assume a greater role in caregiving.¹²

Benefits of the health check. A systematic review of 38 studies, comprising more than 5000 patients with IDD, found that health checks increased the detection of serious conditions, improved screening for sensory impairments, and increased the immunization rate.¹³ Although many patients with IDD generally understand the need for a periodic health examination, you can enhance their experience by better explaining the rationale for the health check; scheduling sufficient time for the appointment, based on the individual clinical situation; and discussing the value of laboratory testing and referrals to specialists.¹⁴

Tailoring preventive care

Many of the preventive services recommendations typically utilized by family physicians, such as guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force, have been developed for the general population at average risk of conditions of interest.¹⁵ Adults with IDD, depending on the cause of their developmental disability and their behavioral risk profile, might be at significantly higher (or lower) risk of cancer, heart disease, or other conditions than the general population. To address these differences, preventive care guidelines tailored to patients with certain developmental disabilities have been created, including guidelines specific to adults with Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, Smith-Magenis syndrome, and 22q11.2 deletion (DiGeorge) syndrome.¹⁶

Clarifying the molecular genetic etiology of many developmental disabilities has led to more precise understandings about physical and behavioral health issues associated with specific developmental disabilities. For that reason, patients without a known cause for their IDD might benefit from referral to a geneticist—even in early or middle adulthood. Variables generally associated with a higher likelihood of an abnormal genetic test result include¹⁷:

• a family history of developmental disability
• a congenital malformation or dysmorphic features
• a dual diagnosis of developmental disability and co-occurring mental illness
• hypotonia
• severe or profound IDD.

Continue to: Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests...

Successful implementation of preventive health screening tests often requires ingenuity and the collective creativity of the patient, family members, staff, and family physician to allay fears and anxieties. Examples: Women who have been advised to undergo screening mammography might feel less anxious by undergoing tandem screening with their sister or mother, and colorectal cancer screening might be more easily accomplished using a fecal DNA test rather than by colonoscopy. Procedural desensitization strategies and preventive care instructional materials targeting people with IDD are posted on YouTube (for example, the “DD CARES Best Practices” series [see www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPJy4zvg4io]) and other websites.

Management of chronic disease

Evidence of health disparities in patients with IDD includes suboptimal management of chronic diseases, such as diabetes¹⁸ and hypertension,¹⁹ despite contact with a primary care physician. Nonadherence to a medication regimen might be more common in patients who live with their family or in a residential setting where there is a lower degree of supervision—that is, compared to a residence that maintains 24-hour staffing with daily nursing care and supervision. For a patient who is not so closely supervised, reviewing the medication refill history with the pharmacy, or using the so-called brown-bag technique of counting pill bottles brought to appointments, can ensure medication adherence.

CASE

As you interview Ms. S, you note that she is shy, avoids eye contact, and appears generally anxious. You calm her by noticing and complimenting her jewelry and fingernail polish. Ms. S smiles and talks about her favorite polish colors.

Evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health issues begins with assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress or stereotypies.

Her mother reports that, when Ms. S is stressed, she talks to herself alone in her bedroom. However, you do not observe evidence of schizoaffective disorder, and begin to wonder whether she needs to be taking risperidone.

Essentials of mental health care

It is estimated that one-third of adults with IDD have significant mental and behavioral health care needs.²⁰ Patients with IDD suffer the same psychiatric disorders as the general population; some also engage in problematic behaviors, such as self-injurious actions, physical or verbal aggression (or both), property destruction, and resistance to caregiving assistance.

Continue to: Mental and behavioral health problems...

Mental and behavioral health problems can have a profound impact on the quality of life of patients with IDD, their peers, and their family and other caregivers. If untreated, these problems can lead to premature institutionalization, loss of employment or desired program participation, fractured social relationships, and caregiver withdrawal and burnout.

Initial evaluation of suspected mental and behavioral health problems begins with careful assessment for medical conditions that might be causing pain and distress, stereotypies, and other problematic behaviors. Common sources of pain and discomfort include dental and other oral disease, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis, constipation, allergic disease, headache, musculoskeletal pathology, lower urinary tract disease, and gynecologic disorders.¹¹ Identification and optimal treatment of medical conditions might not eliminate problematic behaviors but often decrease their frequency and intensity.

Psychoactive medications are prescribed for many patients with IDD. Many have behavioral adverse effects, such as akathisia, aggression, and disinhibition—leading to a prescribing cascade of psychoactive medication polypharmacy and escalating dosages.²¹ Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis, explicit outcome targets, or adequate clinical monitoring for effectiveness; in addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.²¹ Even a family physician who is not the prescriber can perform an important advocacy role by critically reviewing psychoactive medications, documenting adverse effects, insisting on a clear therapeutic target, and calling for discontinuation of medications that appear to be ineffective.

Evaluation of mental and behavioral health problems requires a developmental perspective to interpret specific, observable behaviors with a proper clinical lens. For example, many patients with IDD engage in self-talk (soliloquizing) as a means of processing the world around them. This practice might escalate during a time of physical or psychological stress, and the unwary clinician might misinterpret this behavior as psychotic, leading to inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medication. Other psychotoform behaviors that, superficially, mimic but are typically not truly psychotic, include talk with or about imaginary friends and repetitive retelling of sometimes elaborate or grandiose tales or assertions. The failure of clinicians to recognize developmentally determined expressions of distress often leads to a misdiagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic illness and, consequently, inappropriate psychopharmacotherapy. 

Family physicians, familiar with the use of psychiatric scales for diagnosis and treatment monitoring, should use similar scales that have been developed specifically for patients with IDD (TABLE 3¹¹). In addition, a psychiatric diagnosis manual, the Diagnostic Manual—Intellectual Disability 2, specific to people with IDD (and analogous to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition) provides modification of diagnostic criteria to account for patients who have difficulty articulating their internal emotional state and inner thoughts.²²

Continue to: Problematic behaviors

Problematic behaviors that are not features of a bona fide psychiatric disorder are often best understood through functional behavioral analysis, which examines antecedents and consequences of problematic behaviors and identifies their predictable outcomes, such as gaining attention, avoiding a task, or securing a desired item. Rather than being given a prescription for psychoactive medication, many adult patients with IDD and problematic behaviors might be best served by having you order consultation with a certified behavior analyst. The analyst will conduct an evaluation and, along with family or residential staff and the patient, craft a behavioral support plan to address core drivers of the undesired behavior. Behavioral support plans might be enriched by multidisciplinary input from a speech and language pathologist, habilitation professionals, occupational and physical therapists, a neuropsychologist, and others.²³

Antipsychotic medications are often initiated without a careful diagnosis. In addition, they often lead to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and massive weight gain.

Resources to help you address the physical, mental, and behavioral health problems of these patients are available online through Vanderbilt Kennedy Center’s “Toolkit for primary care providers” (https://iddtoolkit.vkcsites.org).

CASE

During your examination, you review Ms. S’s vital signs, including body mass index (BMI). You calculate that she is morbidly obese—BMI, 37—in the setting of a known comorbidity, diabetes.

Ms. S tells you that she is interested in having a healthy lifestyle, but feels frustrated because she does not know how to make the necessary changes. You discuss with her how some medications, including risperidone, can promote weight gain, and that it is important for her mental health provider to carefully reassess whether she needs to continue the drug.

Weight management in a patient population that tends to be sedentary

Patients with IDD are more likely to live a sedentary lifestyle. Compared to adults who do not have IDD, adults with IDD—especially women and patients with Down syndrome—are reported to have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁴

Continue to: As in the general population...

Similarly, undesired weight loss demands careful evaluation and management because such loss can reflect a medically significant condition, such as gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, dysphagia, neglect, and cancer.²⁷

Boosting the amount and effectiveness of physical activity

Young people with IDD participate in physical activity less often than their neurotypical peers; as a result, they tend to be less fit and have a higher prevalence of obesity.²⁸ Based on a meta-analysis, interventions that focus on sport and movement skills training, such as soccer, basketball, and ball-throwing programs, might be more effective than general physical activity programs.²⁸ In addition to year-round sports training and athletic competitions, Special Olympics conducts vital health screenings of athletes and supports community-based initiatives that address bias against patients with IDD, promote inclusion, and foster social relationships (www.specialolympics.org/our-work/inclusive-health?locale=en).

Success in weight management involves multidisciplinary treatment, including nutritional support, physical activity, behavioral changes, and close follow-up.

Emphasize regular activity. In adulthood, fewer than 10% of patients with IDD exercise regularly.²¹ According to the second edition of Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans,²⁹ “all adults, with or without a disability, should get at least 150 minutes of aerobic physical activity a week. Activities can be broken down into smaller amounts, such as about 25 minutes a day every day.”³⁰ Supplementation with muscle-strengthening activities (eg, yoga, weight training, and resistance-band training) provides further health benefit, such as improvement in posture and prevention of future injury.³¹ An ideal exercise program proposed by Tyler and Baker is based on a daily, “3-2-1” schedule (ie, of every hour of activity, 30 minutes should be of aerobic exercise; 20 minutes, of strength building; and 10 minutes, of flexibility).¹¹ By participating in any type of physical activity, there is potential for considerable health benefit in reducing psychosocial stressors, improving mental health, counteracting metabolic syndromes, and, ultimately, reducing morbidity and mortality related to physical inactivity.

CASE

With permission from Ms. S, you send your progress notes by fax to her mental health provider at the community mental health center and request a call to discuss her case—in particular, to examine potential alternatives to risperidone. With Ms. S’s input, you also co-create an exercise prescription that includes a daily 20-minute walking program with her mother.

At the follow-up visit that is scheduled in 3 months, you anticipate adding a resistance component and balance activity to the exercise prescription to enrich Ms. S’s physical activity regimen.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carl V. Tyler Jr., MD, 14601 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, OH, 44107; [email protected]

The historical mistreatment of Black bodies in gynecologic care has bled into present day inequities—from surgeries performed on enslaved Black women and sterilization of low-income Black women under federally funded programs, to higher rates of adverse health-related outcomes among Black women compared with their non-Black counterparts.^1-3 Not only is the foundation of gynecology imperfect, so too is its current-day structure.

It is not enough to identify and describe racial inequities in health care; action plans to provide equitable care are called for. In this report, we aim to 1) contextualize the data on disparities in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, specifically hysterectomy and myomectomy candidates and postsurgical outcomes, and 2) provide recommendations to close racial gaps in gynecologic treatment for more equitable experiences for minority women.

Black women and uterine fibroids

Uterine leiomyomas, or fibroids, are not only the most common benign pelvic tumor but they also cause a significant medical and financial burden in the United States, with estimated direct costs of $4.1 ̶ 9.4 billion.⁴ Fibroids can affect fertility and cause pain, bulk symptoms, heavy bleeding, anemia requiring blood transfusion, and poor pregnancy outcomes. The burden of disease for uterine fibroids is greatest for Black women. While race is a social construct, women with African ancestry (who we tend to identify as having darker skin) have disproportionately higher rates of uterine fibroids. Black women experience symptoms at a younger age, spanning more of their reproductive years compared with their non-Black counterparts and their disease is often more severe compared with White women.⁵

The incidence of fibroids is 2 to 3 times higher in Black women compared with White women.⁵ According to ultrasound-based studies, the prevalence of fibroids among women aged 18 to 30 years was 26% among Black and 7% among White asymptomatic women.⁶ Earlier onset and more severe symptoms mean that there is a larger potential for impact on fertility for Black women. This coupled with the historical context of mistreatment of Black bodies makes the need for personalized medicine and culturally sensitive care critical. The disproportionately higher rates of uterine fibroids in Black women has been attributed to many factors, including socioeconomic status, health-care access, genetics, and lifestyle and environmental exposures, but the underlying causes of racial/ethnic differences remain unclear.⁷ Amazingly little data exist not only on patient preferences for management approach but also on the influence of genetic and epigenetic mediators and environmental factors that may play a role in fibroid development to guide optimal management and treatment outcomes for Black women with uterine fibroids.⁸

Inequitable management of uterine fibroids

Although tumor size, location, and patient risk factors are used to determine the best treatment approach, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines suggest that the use of alternative treatments to surgery should be first-line management instead of hysterectomy for most benign conditions.⁹ Conservative management will often help alleviate symptoms, slow the growth of fibroid(s), or bridge women to menopause, and treatment options include hormonal contraception, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, hysteroscopic resection, uterine artery embolization, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound, and myomectomy.

The rate of conservative management prior to hysterectomy varies by setting, reflecting potential bias in treatment decisions. Some medical settings have reported a 29% alternative management rate prior to hysterectomy, while others report much higher rates.¹⁰ A study using patient data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) showed that, within a large, diverse, and integrated health care system, more than 80% of patients received alternative treatments before undergoing hysterectomy; for those with symptomatic leiomyomas, 74.1% used alternative treatments prior to hysterectomy, and in logistic regression there was not a difference by race.¹¹ Nationally, Black women are more likely to have hysterectomy or myomectomy compared with a nonsurgical uterine-sparing therapy.^12,13

With about 600,000 cases per year within the United States, the hysterectomy is the most frequently performed benign gynecologic surgery.¹⁴ The most common indication is for “symptomatic fibroid uterus.” The approach to decision making for route of hysterectomy involves multiple patient and surgeon factors, including history of vaginal delivery, body mass index, history of previous surgery, uterine size, informed patient preference, and surgeon volume.^15-17 ACOG recommends a minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) whenever feasible given its benefits in postoperative pain, recovery time, and blood loss. Myomectomy, particularly among women in their reproductive years desiring management of leiomyomas, is a uterine-sparing procedure versus hysterectomy. Minimally invasive myomectomy (MIM), compared with an open abdominal route, provides for lower drop in hemoglobin levels, shorter hospital stay, less adhesion formation, and decreased postoperative pain.¹⁸

Racial variations in hysterectomy rates persist overall and according to hysterectomy type. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to undergo hysterectomy for leiomyomas than other racial groups.¹⁹ These differences in rates have been shown to persist even when burden of disease is the same. One study found that Black women had increased odds of hysterectomy compared with their White counterparts even when there was no difference in mean fibroid volume by race,²⁰ calling into question provider bias. Even in a universal insurance setting, Black patients have been found to have higher rates of open hysterectomies.²¹ Previous studies found that, despite growing frequency of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomies, patients of a minority race had decreased odds of undergoing a MIH compared with their White counterparts.²²

While little data exist on route of myomectomy by race, a recent study found minority women were more likely to undergo abdominal myomectomy compared with White women; Black women were twice as likely to undergo abdominal myomectomy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7–2.0), Asian American women were more than twice as likely (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8–2.8), and Hispanic American women were 50% more likely to undergo abdominal myomectomy (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2–1.9) when compared with White women.²³ These differences remained after controlling for potential confounders, and there appeared to be an interaction between race and fibroid weight such that racial bias alone may not explain the differences.

Finally, Black women have higher perioperative complication rates compared with non-Black women. Postoperative complications including blood transfusion after myomectomy have been shown to be twice as high among Black women compared with White women. However, once uterine size, comorbidities, and fibroid number were controlled, race was not associated with higher complications. Black women, compared with White women, have been found to have 50% increased odds of morbidity after an abdominal myomectomy.²⁴

Continue to: How to ensure that BIPOC women get the best management...

Eliminating disparities and providing equitable and patient-centered care for Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) women will require research, education, training, and targeted quality improvement initiatives.

Research into fibroids and comparative treatment outcomes

Uterine fibroids, despite their major public health impact, remain understudied. With Black women carrying the highest fibroid prevalence and severity burden, especially in their childbearing years, it is imperative that research efforts be focused on outcomes by race and ethnicity. Given the significant economic impact of fibroids, more efforts should be directed toward primary prevention of fibroid formation as well as secondary prevention and limitation of fibroid growth by affordable, effective, and safe means. For example, Bratka and colleagues researched the role of vitamin D in inhibiting growth of leiomyoma cells in animal models.²⁵ Other innovative forms of management under investigation include aromatase inhibitors, green tea, cabergoline, elagolix, paricalcitol, and epigallocatechin gallate.²⁶ Considerations such as stress, diet, and environmental risk factors have yet to be investigated in large studies.

Research contributing to evidence-based guidelines that address the needs of different patient populations affected by uterine fibroids is critical.⁸ Additionally, research conducted by Black women about Black women should be prioritized. In March 2021, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2021 was introduced to fund $150 million in research supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This is an opportunity to develop a research database to inform evidence-based culturally informed care regarding fertility counseling, medical management, and optimal surgical approach, as well as to award funding to minority researchers. There are disparities in distribution of funds from the NIH to minority researchers. Under-represented minorities are awarded fewer NIH grants compared with their counterparts despite initiatives to increase funding. Furthermore, in 2011, Black applicants for NIH funding were two-thirds as likely as White applicants to receive grants from 2000 ̶ 2006, even when accounting for publication record and training.²⁷ Funding BIPOC researchers fuels diversity-driven investigation and can be useful in the charge to increase fibroid research.

Education and training: Changing the work force

Achieving equity requires change in provider work force. In a study of trends across multiple specialties including obstetrics and gynecology, Blacks and Latinx are more under-represented in 2016 than in 1990 across all specialties except for Black women in obstetrics and gynecology.²⁸ It is well documented that under-represented minorities are more likely to engage in practice, research, service, and mentorship activities aligned with their identity.²⁹ As a higher proportion of under-represented minority obstetricians and gynecologists practice in medically underserved areas,³⁰ this presents a unique opportunity for gynecologists to improve care for and increase research involvement among BIPOC women.

Increasing BIPOC representation in medical and health care institutions and practices is not enough, however, to achieve health equity. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges demonstrate that between 1978 and 2017 the total number of full-time obstetrics and gynecology faculty rose nearly fourfold from 1,688 to 6,347; however, the greatest rise in proportion of faculty who were nontenured was among women who were under-represented minorities.³¹ Additionally, there are disparities in wage by race even after controlling for hours worked and state of residence.³² Medical and academic centers and health care institutions and practices should proactively and systematically engage in the recruitment and retention of under-represented minority physicians and people in leadership roles. This will involve creating safe and inclusive work environments, with equal pay and promotion structures.

Quality initiatives to address provider bias

Provider bias should be addressed in clinical decision making and counseling of patients. Studies focused on ultrasonography have shown an estimated cumulative incidence of fibroids by age 50 of greater than 80% for Black women and nearly 70% for White women.⁵ Due to the prevalence and burden of fibroids among Black women there may be a provider bias in approach to management. Addressing this bias requires quality improvement efforts and investigation into patient and provider factors in management of fibroids. Black women have been a vulnerable population in medicine due to instances of mistreatment, and often times mistrust can play a role in how a patient views his or her care decisions. A patient-centered strategy allows patient factors such as age, uterine size, and cultural background to be considered such that a provider can tailor an approach that is best for the patient. Previous minority women focus groups have demonstrated that women have a strong desire for elective treatment;³³ therefore, providers should listen openly to patients about their values and their perspectives on how fibroids affect their lives. Provider bias toward surgical volume, incentive for surgery, and implicit bias need to be addressed at every institution to work toward equitable and cost-effective care.

Integrated health care systems like Southern and Northern California Permanente Medical Group, using quality initiatives, have increased their minimally invasive surgery rates. Southern California Permanente Medical Group reached a 78% rate of MIH in a system of more than 350 surgeons performing benign indication hysterectomies as reported in 2011.³⁴ Similarly, a study within KPNC, an institution with an MIH rate greater than 95%,³⁵ found that racial disparities in route of MIH were eliminated through a quality improvement initiative described in detail in 2018 (FIGURE and TABLE).³⁶

Conclusions

There are recognized successes in the gynecology field’s efforts to address racial disparities. Prior studies provide insight into opportunities to improve care in medical management of leiomyomas, minimally invasive route of hysterectomy and myomectomy, postsurgical outcomes, and institutional leadership. Particularly, when systemwide approaches are taken in the delivery of health care it is possible to significantly diminish racial disparities in gynecology.³⁵ Much work remains to be done for our health care systems to provide equitable care.

The historical mistreatment of Black bodies in gynecologic care has bled into present day inequities—from surgeries performed on enslaved Black women and sterilization of low-income Black women under federally funded programs, to higher rates of adverse health-related outcomes among Black women compared with their non-Black counterparts.^1-3 Not only is the foundation of gynecology imperfect, so too is its current-day structure.

It is not enough to identify and describe racial inequities in health care; action plans to provide equitable care are called for. In this report, we aim to 1) contextualize the data on disparities in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, specifically hysterectomy and myomectomy candidates and postsurgical outcomes, and 2) provide recommendations to close racial gaps in gynecologic treatment for more equitable experiences for minority women.

Black women and uterine fibroids

Uterine leiomyomas, or fibroids, are not only the most common benign pelvic tumor but they also cause a significant medical and financial burden in the United States, with estimated direct costs of $4.1 ̶ 9.4 billion.⁴ Fibroids can affect fertility and cause pain, bulk symptoms, heavy bleeding, anemia requiring blood transfusion, and poor pregnancy outcomes. The burden of disease for uterine fibroids is greatest for Black women. While race is a social construct, women with African ancestry (who we tend to identify as having darker skin) have disproportionately higher rates of uterine fibroids. Black women experience symptoms at a younger age, spanning more of their reproductive years compared with their non-Black counterparts and their disease is often more severe compared with White women.⁵

The incidence of fibroids is 2 to 3 times higher in Black women compared with White women.⁵ According to ultrasound-based studies, the prevalence of fibroids among women aged 18 to 30 years was 26% among Black and 7% among White asymptomatic women.⁶ Earlier onset and more severe symptoms mean that there is a larger potential for impact on fertility for Black women. This coupled with the historical context of mistreatment of Black bodies makes the need for personalized medicine and culturally sensitive care critical. The disproportionately higher rates of uterine fibroids in Black women has been attributed to many factors, including socioeconomic status, health-care access, genetics, and lifestyle and environmental exposures, but the underlying causes of racial/ethnic differences remain unclear.⁷ Amazingly little data exist not only on patient preferences for management approach but also on the influence of genetic and epigenetic mediators and environmental factors that may play a role in fibroid development to guide optimal management and treatment outcomes for Black women with uterine fibroids.⁸

Inequitable management of uterine fibroids

Although tumor size, location, and patient risk factors are used to determine the best treatment approach, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines suggest that the use of alternative treatments to surgery should be first-line management instead of hysterectomy for most benign conditions.⁹ Conservative management will often help alleviate symptoms, slow the growth of fibroid(s), or bridge women to menopause, and treatment options include hormonal contraception, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, hysteroscopic resection, uterine artery embolization, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound, and myomectomy.

The rate of conservative management prior to hysterectomy varies by setting, reflecting potential bias in treatment decisions. Some medical settings have reported a 29% alternative management rate prior to hysterectomy, while others report much higher rates.¹⁰ A study using patient data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) showed that, within a large, diverse, and integrated health care system, more than 80% of patients received alternative treatments before undergoing hysterectomy; for those with symptomatic leiomyomas, 74.1% used alternative treatments prior to hysterectomy, and in logistic regression there was not a difference by race.¹¹ Nationally, Black women are more likely to have hysterectomy or myomectomy compared with a nonsurgical uterine-sparing therapy.^12,13

With about 600,000 cases per year within the United States, the hysterectomy is the most frequently performed benign gynecologic surgery.¹⁴ The most common indication is for “symptomatic fibroid uterus.” The approach to decision making for route of hysterectomy involves multiple patient and surgeon factors, including history of vaginal delivery, body mass index, history of previous surgery, uterine size, informed patient preference, and surgeon volume.^15-17 ACOG recommends a minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) whenever feasible given its benefits in postoperative pain, recovery time, and blood loss. Myomectomy, particularly among women in their reproductive years desiring management of leiomyomas, is a uterine-sparing procedure versus hysterectomy. Minimally invasive myomectomy (MIM), compared with an open abdominal route, provides for lower drop in hemoglobin levels, shorter hospital stay, less adhesion formation, and decreased postoperative pain.¹⁸

Racial variations in hysterectomy rates persist overall and according to hysterectomy type. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to undergo hysterectomy for leiomyomas than other racial groups.¹⁹ These differences in rates have been shown to persist even when burden of disease is the same. One study found that Black women had increased odds of hysterectomy compared with their White counterparts even when there was no difference in mean fibroid volume by race,²⁰ calling into question provider bias. Even in a universal insurance setting, Black patients have been found to have higher rates of open hysterectomies.²¹ Previous studies found that, despite growing frequency of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomies, patients of a minority race had decreased odds of undergoing a MIH compared with their White counterparts.²²

While little data exist on route of myomectomy by race, a recent study found minority women were more likely to undergo abdominal myomectomy compared with White women; Black women were twice as likely to undergo abdominal myomectomy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7–2.0), Asian American women were more than twice as likely (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8–2.8), and Hispanic American women were 50% more likely to undergo abdominal myomectomy (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2–1.9) when compared with White women.²³ These differences remained after controlling for potential confounders, and there appeared to be an interaction between race and fibroid weight such that racial bias alone may not explain the differences.

Finally, Black women have higher perioperative complication rates compared with non-Black women. Postoperative complications including blood transfusion after myomectomy have been shown to be twice as high among Black women compared with White women. However, once uterine size, comorbidities, and fibroid number were controlled, race was not associated with higher complications. Black women, compared with White women, have been found to have 50% increased odds of morbidity after an abdominal myomectomy.²⁴

Continue to: How to ensure that BIPOC women get the best management...

Eliminating disparities and providing equitable and patient-centered care for Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) women will require research, education, training, and targeted quality improvement initiatives.

Research into fibroids and comparative treatment outcomes

Uterine fibroids, despite their major public health impact, remain understudied. With Black women carrying the highest fibroid prevalence and severity burden, especially in their childbearing years, it is imperative that research efforts be focused on outcomes by race and ethnicity. Given the significant economic impact of fibroids, more efforts should be directed toward primary prevention of fibroid formation as well as secondary prevention and limitation of fibroid growth by affordable, effective, and safe means. For example, Bratka and colleagues researched the role of vitamin D in inhibiting growth of leiomyoma cells in animal models.²⁵ Other innovative forms of management under investigation include aromatase inhibitors, green tea, cabergoline, elagolix, paricalcitol, and epigallocatechin gallate.²⁶ Considerations such as stress, diet, and environmental risk factors have yet to be investigated in large studies.

Research contributing to evidence-based guidelines that address the needs of different patient populations affected by uterine fibroids is critical.⁸ Additionally, research conducted by Black women about Black women should be prioritized. In March 2021, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2021 was introduced to fund $150 million in research supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This is an opportunity to develop a research database to inform evidence-based culturally informed care regarding fertility counseling, medical management, and optimal surgical approach, as well as to award funding to minority researchers. There are disparities in distribution of funds from the NIH to minority researchers. Under-represented minorities are awarded fewer NIH grants compared with their counterparts despite initiatives to increase funding. Furthermore, in 2011, Black applicants for NIH funding were two-thirds as likely as White applicants to receive grants from 2000 ̶ 2006, even when accounting for publication record and training.²⁷ Funding BIPOC researchers fuels diversity-driven investigation and can be useful in the charge to increase fibroid research.

Education and training: Changing the work force

Achieving equity requires change in provider work force. In a study of trends across multiple specialties including obstetrics and gynecology, Blacks and Latinx are more under-represented in 2016 than in 1990 across all specialties except for Black women in obstetrics and gynecology.²⁸ It is well documented that under-represented minorities are more likely to engage in practice, research, service, and mentorship activities aligned with their identity.²⁹ As a higher proportion of under-represented minority obstetricians and gynecologists practice in medically underserved areas,³⁰ this presents a unique opportunity for gynecologists to improve care for and increase research involvement among BIPOC women.

Increasing BIPOC representation in medical and health care institutions and practices is not enough, however, to achieve health equity. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges demonstrate that between 1978 and 2017 the total number of full-time obstetrics and gynecology faculty rose nearly fourfold from 1,688 to 6,347; however, the greatest rise in proportion of faculty who were nontenured was among women who were under-represented minorities.³¹ Additionally, there are disparities in wage by race even after controlling for hours worked and state of residence.³² Medical and academic centers and health care institutions and practices should proactively and systematically engage in the recruitment and retention of under-represented minority physicians and people in leadership roles. This will involve creating safe and inclusive work environments, with equal pay and promotion structures.

Quality initiatives to address provider bias

Provider bias should be addressed in clinical decision making and counseling of patients. Studies focused on ultrasonography have shown an estimated cumulative incidence of fibroids by age 50 of greater than 80% for Black women and nearly 70% for White women.⁵ Due to the prevalence and burden of fibroids among Black women there may be a provider bias in approach to management. Addressing this bias requires quality improvement efforts and investigation into patient and provider factors in management of fibroids. Black women have been a vulnerable population in medicine due to instances of mistreatment, and often times mistrust can play a role in how a patient views his or her care decisions. A patient-centered strategy allows patient factors such as age, uterine size, and cultural background to be considered such that a provider can tailor an approach that is best for the patient. Previous minority women focus groups have demonstrated that women have a strong desire for elective treatment;³³ therefore, providers should listen openly to patients about their values and their perspectives on how fibroids affect their lives. Provider bias toward surgical volume, incentive for surgery, and implicit bias need to be addressed at every institution to work toward equitable and cost-effective care.

Integrated health care systems like Southern and Northern California Permanente Medical Group, using quality initiatives, have increased their minimally invasive surgery rates. Southern California Permanente Medical Group reached a 78% rate of MIH in a system of more than 350 surgeons performing benign indication hysterectomies as reported in 2011.³⁴ Similarly, a study within KPNC, an institution with an MIH rate greater than 95%,³⁵ found that racial disparities in route of MIH were eliminated through a quality improvement initiative described in detail in 2018 (FIGURE and TABLE).³⁶

Conclusions

There are recognized successes in the gynecology field’s efforts to address racial disparities. Prior studies provide insight into opportunities to improve care in medical management of leiomyomas, minimally invasive route of hysterectomy and myomectomy, postsurgical outcomes, and institutional leadership. Particularly, when systemwide approaches are taken in the delivery of health care it is possible to significantly diminish racial disparities in gynecology.³⁵ Much work remains to be done for our health care systems to provide equitable care.

The historical mistreatment of Black bodies in gynecologic care has bled into present day inequities—from surgeries performed on enslaved Black women and sterilization of low-income Black women under federally funded programs, to higher rates of adverse health-related outcomes among Black women compared with their non-Black counterparts.^1-3 Not only is the foundation of gynecology imperfect, so too is its current-day structure.

It is not enough to identify and describe racial inequities in health care; action plans to provide equitable care are called for. In this report, we aim to 1) contextualize the data on disparities in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery, specifically hysterectomy and myomectomy candidates and postsurgical outcomes, and 2) provide recommendations to close racial gaps in gynecologic treatment for more equitable experiences for minority women.

Black women and uterine fibroids

Uterine leiomyomas, or fibroids, are not only the most common benign pelvic tumor but they also cause a significant medical and financial burden in the United States, with estimated direct costs of $4.1 ̶ 9.4 billion.⁴ Fibroids can affect fertility and cause pain, bulk symptoms, heavy bleeding, anemia requiring blood transfusion, and poor pregnancy outcomes. The burden of disease for uterine fibroids is greatest for Black women. While race is a social construct, women with African ancestry (who we tend to identify as having darker skin) have disproportionately higher rates of uterine fibroids. Black women experience symptoms at a younger age, spanning more of their reproductive years compared with their non-Black counterparts and their disease is often more severe compared with White women.⁵

The incidence of fibroids is 2 to 3 times higher in Black women compared with White women.⁵ According to ultrasound-based studies, the prevalence of fibroids among women aged 18 to 30 years was 26% among Black and 7% among White asymptomatic women.⁶ Earlier onset and more severe symptoms mean that there is a larger potential for impact on fertility for Black women. This coupled with the historical context of mistreatment of Black bodies makes the need for personalized medicine and culturally sensitive care critical. The disproportionately higher rates of uterine fibroids in Black women has been attributed to many factors, including socioeconomic status, health-care access, genetics, and lifestyle and environmental exposures, but the underlying causes of racial/ethnic differences remain unclear.⁷ Amazingly little data exist not only on patient preferences for management approach but also on the influence of genetic and epigenetic mediators and environmental factors that may play a role in fibroid development to guide optimal management and treatment outcomes for Black women with uterine fibroids.⁸

Inequitable management of uterine fibroids

Although tumor size, location, and patient risk factors are used to determine the best treatment approach, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines suggest that the use of alternative treatments to surgery should be first-line management instead of hysterectomy for most benign conditions.⁹ Conservative management will often help alleviate symptoms, slow the growth of fibroid(s), or bridge women to menopause, and treatment options include hormonal contraception, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, hysteroscopic resection, uterine artery embolization, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound, and myomectomy.

The rate of conservative management prior to hysterectomy varies by setting, reflecting potential bias in treatment decisions. Some medical settings have reported a 29% alternative management rate prior to hysterectomy, while others report much higher rates.¹⁰ A study using patient data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) showed that, within a large, diverse, and integrated health care system, more than 80% of patients received alternative treatments before undergoing hysterectomy; for those with symptomatic leiomyomas, 74.1% used alternative treatments prior to hysterectomy, and in logistic regression there was not a difference by race.¹¹ Nationally, Black women are more likely to have hysterectomy or myomectomy compared with a nonsurgical uterine-sparing therapy.^12,13

With about 600,000 cases per year within the United States, the hysterectomy is the most frequently performed benign gynecologic surgery.¹⁴ The most common indication is for “symptomatic fibroid uterus.” The approach to decision making for route of hysterectomy involves multiple patient and surgeon factors, including history of vaginal delivery, body mass index, history of previous surgery, uterine size, informed patient preference, and surgeon volume.^15-17 ACOG recommends a minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) whenever feasible given its benefits in postoperative pain, recovery time, and blood loss. Myomectomy, particularly among women in their reproductive years desiring management of leiomyomas, is a uterine-sparing procedure versus hysterectomy. Minimally invasive myomectomy (MIM), compared with an open abdominal route, provides for lower drop in hemoglobin levels, shorter hospital stay, less adhesion formation, and decreased postoperative pain.¹⁸

Racial variations in hysterectomy rates persist overall and according to hysterectomy type. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to undergo hysterectomy for leiomyomas than other racial groups.¹⁹ These differences in rates have been shown to persist even when burden of disease is the same. One study found that Black women had increased odds of hysterectomy compared with their White counterparts even when there was no difference in mean fibroid volume by race,²⁰ calling into question provider bias. Even in a universal insurance setting, Black patients have been found to have higher rates of open hysterectomies.²¹ Previous studies found that, despite growing frequency of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomies, patients of a minority race had decreased odds of undergoing a MIH compared with their White counterparts.²²

While little data exist on route of myomectomy by race, a recent study found minority women were more likely to undergo abdominal myomectomy compared with White women; Black women were twice as likely to undergo abdominal myomectomy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7–2.0), Asian American women were more than twice as likely (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8–2.8), and Hispanic American women were 50% more likely to undergo abdominal myomectomy (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2–1.9) when compared with White women.²³ These differences remained after controlling for potential confounders, and there appeared to be an interaction between race and fibroid weight such that racial bias alone may not explain the differences.

Finally, Black women have higher perioperative complication rates compared with non-Black women. Postoperative complications including blood transfusion after myomectomy have been shown to be twice as high among Black women compared with White women. However, once uterine size, comorbidities, and fibroid number were controlled, race was not associated with higher complications. Black women, compared with White women, have been found to have 50% increased odds of morbidity after an abdominal myomectomy.²⁴

Continue to: How to ensure that BIPOC women get the best management...

Eliminating disparities and providing equitable and patient-centered care for Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) women will require research, education, training, and targeted quality improvement initiatives.

Research into fibroids and comparative treatment outcomes

Uterine fibroids, despite their major public health impact, remain understudied. With Black women carrying the highest fibroid prevalence and severity burden, especially in their childbearing years, it is imperative that research efforts be focused on outcomes by race and ethnicity. Given the significant economic impact of fibroids, more efforts should be directed toward primary prevention of fibroid formation as well as secondary prevention and limitation of fibroid growth by affordable, effective, and safe means. For example, Bratka and colleagues researched the role of vitamin D in inhibiting growth of leiomyoma cells in animal models.²⁵ Other innovative forms of management under investigation include aromatase inhibitors, green tea, cabergoline, elagolix, paricalcitol, and epigallocatechin gallate.²⁶ Considerations such as stress, diet, and environmental risk factors have yet to be investigated in large studies.

Research contributing to evidence-based guidelines that address the needs of different patient populations affected by uterine fibroids is critical.⁸ Additionally, research conducted by Black women about Black women should be prioritized. In March 2021, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2021 was introduced to fund $150 million in research supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This is an opportunity to develop a research database to inform evidence-based culturally informed care regarding fertility counseling, medical management, and optimal surgical approach, as well as to award funding to minority researchers. There are disparities in distribution of funds from the NIH to minority researchers. Under-represented minorities are awarded fewer NIH grants compared with their counterparts despite initiatives to increase funding. Furthermore, in 2011, Black applicants for NIH funding were two-thirds as likely as White applicants to receive grants from 2000 ̶ 2006, even when accounting for publication record and training.²⁷ Funding BIPOC researchers fuels diversity-driven investigation and can be useful in the charge to increase fibroid research.

Education and training: Changing the work force

Achieving equity requires change in provider work force. In a study of trends across multiple specialties including obstetrics and gynecology, Blacks and Latinx are more under-represented in 2016 than in 1990 across all specialties except for Black women in obstetrics and gynecology.²⁸ It is well documented that under-represented minorities are more likely to engage in practice, research, service, and mentorship activities aligned with their identity.²⁹ As a higher proportion of under-represented minority obstetricians and gynecologists practice in medically underserved areas,³⁰ this presents a unique opportunity for gynecologists to improve care for and increase research involvement among BIPOC women.

Increasing BIPOC representation in medical and health care institutions and practices is not enough, however, to achieve health equity. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges demonstrate that between 1978 and 2017 the total number of full-time obstetrics and gynecology faculty rose nearly fourfold from 1,688 to 6,347; however, the greatest rise in proportion of faculty who were nontenured was among women who were under-represented minorities.³¹ Additionally, there are disparities in wage by race even after controlling for hours worked and state of residence.³² Medical and academic centers and health care institutions and practices should proactively and systematically engage in the recruitment and retention of under-represented minority physicians and people in leadership roles. This will involve creating safe and inclusive work environments, with equal pay and promotion structures.

Quality initiatives to address provider bias

Provider bias should be addressed in clinical decision making and counseling of patients. Studies focused on ultrasonography have shown an estimated cumulative incidence of fibroids by age 50 of greater than 80% for Black women and nearly 70% for White women.⁵ Due to the prevalence and burden of fibroids among Black women there may be a provider bias in approach to management. Addressing this bias requires quality improvement efforts and investigation into patient and provider factors in management of fibroids. Black women have been a vulnerable population in medicine due to instances of mistreatment, and often times mistrust can play a role in how a patient views his or her care decisions. A patient-centered strategy allows patient factors such as age, uterine size, and cultural background to be considered such that a provider can tailor an approach that is best for the patient. Previous minority women focus groups have demonstrated that women have a strong desire for elective treatment;³³ therefore, providers should listen openly to patients about their values and their perspectives on how fibroids affect their lives. Provider bias toward surgical volume, incentive for surgery, and implicit bias need to be addressed at every institution to work toward equitable and cost-effective care.

Integrated health care systems like Southern and Northern California Permanente Medical Group, using quality initiatives, have increased their minimally invasive surgery rates. Southern California Permanente Medical Group reached a 78% rate of MIH in a system of more than 350 surgeons performing benign indication hysterectomies as reported in 2011.³⁴ Similarly, a study within KPNC, an institution with an MIH rate greater than 95%,³⁵ found that racial disparities in route of MIH were eliminated through a quality improvement initiative described in detail in 2018 (FIGURE and TABLE).³⁶

Conclusions

There are recognized successes in the gynecology field’s efforts to address racial disparities. Prior studies provide insight into opportunities to improve care in medical management of leiomyomas, minimally invasive route of hysterectomy and myomectomy, postsurgical outcomes, and institutional leadership. Particularly, when systemwide approaches are taken in the delivery of health care it is possible to significantly diminish racial disparities in gynecology.³⁵ Much work remains to be done for our health care systems to provide equitable care.

Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.

Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).

Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).

Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.

“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.

The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
 

Personal experience

The study was “inspired by experiences that I endured over a period of time and am grateful to have survived,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.

Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”

To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.

Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.

Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.

“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
 

Systemic sexism

Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.

The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).

“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.

“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.

She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
 

Multiple deterrents

Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).

Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.

When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.

The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).

Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
 

Support available

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”

Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.

“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”

She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.

“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.

Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.

Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).

Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).

Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.

“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.

The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
 

Personal experience

The study was “inspired by experiences that I endured over a period of time and am grateful to have survived,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.

Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”

To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.

Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.

Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.

“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
 

Systemic sexism

Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.

The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).

“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.

“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.

She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
 

Multiple deterrents

Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).

Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.

When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.

The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).

Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
 

Support available

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”

Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.

“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”

She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.

“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.

Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.

Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).

Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).

Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.

“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.

The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
 

Personal experience

The study was “inspired by experiences that I endured over a period of time and am grateful to have survived,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.

Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”

To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.

Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.

Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.

“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
 

Systemic sexism

Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.

The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).

“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.

“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.

She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
 

Multiple deterrents

Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).

Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.

When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.

The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).

Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
 

Support available

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”

Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.

“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”

She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.

“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.

Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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