Surgery

More children are getting surgical procedures to lose weight, according to a report published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Metabolic and bariatric surgeries have been on the rise among youths aged 10 to 19 since 2016, the report says. From 2020 to 2021, the number shot up by 19%.

The procedures change parts of the digestive system, helping the person feel more full and less hungry – thereby contributing to weight loss.

Among American children, obesity affects 20%, or 15 million people between 2 and 19. In addition, more are becoming afflicted with severe obesity, with a body mass index 20% higher than the marker for obesity.

“Behavioral lifestyle interventions alone do not result in long-term, clinically important weight loss among youth with severe obesity,” the study’s authors wrote. “Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the treatment of obesity this year for the first time in 15 years, CNN reported. “The new guidelines urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes and, for the first time, recommend surgery and medications for some young people,” CNN wrote.

Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of childhood obesity, the CDC says. Use of surgeries rose 42% among Black youths and 53% among Hispanic youths between 2020 and 2021.

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

More children are getting surgical procedures to lose weight, according to a report published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Metabolic and bariatric surgeries have been on the rise among youths aged 10 to 19 since 2016, the report says. From 2020 to 2021, the number shot up by 19%.

The procedures change parts of the digestive system, helping the person feel more full and less hungry – thereby contributing to weight loss.

Among American children, obesity affects 20%, or 15 million people between 2 and 19. In addition, more are becoming afflicted with severe obesity, with a body mass index 20% higher than the marker for obesity.

“Behavioral lifestyle interventions alone do not result in long-term, clinically important weight loss among youth with severe obesity,” the study’s authors wrote. “Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the treatment of obesity this year for the first time in 15 years, CNN reported. “The new guidelines urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes and, for the first time, recommend surgery and medications for some young people,” CNN wrote.

Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of childhood obesity, the CDC says. Use of surgeries rose 42% among Black youths and 53% among Hispanic youths between 2020 and 2021.

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

More children are getting surgical procedures to lose weight, according to a report published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Metabolic and bariatric surgeries have been on the rise among youths aged 10 to 19 since 2016, the report says. From 2020 to 2021, the number shot up by 19%.

The procedures change parts of the digestive system, helping the person feel more full and less hungry – thereby contributing to weight loss.

Among American children, obesity affects 20%, or 15 million people between 2 and 19. In addition, more are becoming afflicted with severe obesity, with a body mass index 20% higher than the marker for obesity.

“Behavioral lifestyle interventions alone do not result in long-term, clinically important weight loss among youth with severe obesity,” the study’s authors wrote. “Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the treatment of obesity this year for the first time in 15 years, CNN reported. “The new guidelines urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes and, for the first time, recommend surgery and medications for some young people,” CNN wrote.

Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of childhood obesity, the CDC says. Use of surgeries rose 42% among Black youths and 53% among Hispanic youths between 2020 and 2021.

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

In a first-of-its-kind in utero surgery, researchers have successfully repaired a cerebrovascular malformation, which often leads to heart failure, severe brain injury, or possibly death soon after birth.
 

The team from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital used ultrasound guidance to repair the vein of Galen malformation, which causes excessively high blood flow, resulting in both neurologic and cardiac complications. 

The surgery was performed in a fetus at 34 weeks’ gestational age, with remarkable results. Since birth, the baby girl, who was identified in utero as being at high risk of suffering serious complications of the malformation, has required no medication to treat heart failure and no postnatal surgery.

Repeated echocardiograms after birth displayed marked improvement in cardiac output, and brain MRI showed no brain injury and a normal neurologic exam.

“This is incredibly exciting. The hope is that this baby, and others with this condition who receive this in utero surgery in future, will go on to have a normal life,” lead researcher Darren B. Orbach, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“We were thrilled to see that the aggressive decline usually seen after birth simply did not appear. We are pleased to report that at 6 weeks, the infant is progressing remarkably well, on no medications, eating normally, gaining weight and is back home. There are no signs of any negative effects on the brain,” he added.

Dr. Orbach, codirector of the Cerebrovascular Surgery & Interventions Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described this first case report of the in utero vein of Galen malformation repair in a research letter, published online in the journal Stroke.
 

Vein of Galen malformation

Dr. Orbach explained that vein of Galen malformation, which occurs in around 1 in every 60,000 births, is a cerebrovascular anomaly in which the arterial system is directly connected to the venous system rather than to capillaries that are necessary to slow blood flow and deliver oxygen to surrounding brain tissue.

“The arterial and venous systems are fundamentally very different. The arterial system is high pressure, high flow; while the venous system is low pressure, low flow. They shouldn’t be directly connected,” he noted.

The vein of Galen malformation is the most extreme version of such an anomaly. Developing in early gestation, it is associated with a large increase in blood flow through the brain which grows over time and can sometimes result in twice the total cardiac output of the body or even more, Dr. Orbach said.

The placenta is believed to be protective as most babies don’t have overt physiologic problems in utero, but they can run into crisis after birth, with the abnormally high blood flow causing an immense stress to the heart.

Babies typically present with heart failure as their first major symptom soon after birth, Dr. Orbach said. “Although the anatomical problem is in the brain, the clinical manifestation is high-output heart failure. The heart is trying to do double its normal work, pumping the blood to the malformation and immediately back to the heart and that blood is not performing any useful function.

“These newborns can get very sick. They need multiple medications to support their cardiovascular system and we need to do procedures to try and reduce the blood flow,” he explained. 

Brain injury is also a common problem. “The brain circulation is very abnormal. The blood is being shunted through the malformation rather than circulating through the brain tissue which can become ischemic,” Dr. Orbach commented.

“The babies who get sick would have a very high mortality (up to 90%) without expert care. Even those who do receive expert care at a specialty center have a mortality rate of 30% to 40% and those who survive have a high risk of neurologic and cognitive impairment,” he added.

The current treatment for babies born with the condition involves transarterial embolization, by which a catheter is inserted into the arterial system to enable the malformation to be occluded by various techniques. 

But Dr. Orbach pointed out that some babies are born too sick to have the postnatal intervention. “The heart failure and brain injury is so overwhelming that no matter what we do, we cannot reverse it, and these babies normally do not survive. What we are doing with the fetal surgery is trying to help those babies who cannot be treated with the current postnatal approach,” he said.

The first stage of this research involved trying to identify these very-high-risk babies in utero, and the researchers found that on fetal MRI a particular measurement of one of the venous sinuses that drains the main malformation was a good predictor of how the baby would fare after birth. The babies predicted to do poorly from this test are the targets for the fetal surgery.

The technique used for the postnatal intervention is too technically challenging to perform in utero. “So we have developed a different approach for the in utero surgery that involves navigating into the accepting vein in the malformation with a needle under ultrasound guidance, and then packing the vein with metal coils to dramatically reduce the blood flow,” Dr. Orbach explained.

This procedure was performed in this first patient on March 15. The surgery was part of a clinical trial that is planned to include 20 cases in total.

“The immediate goal is to see whether we can transform those fetuses who are at very high risk of getting sick after birth into babies who do well in the [neonatal] ICU and are able to be sent home for elective treatment at a few months of age,” Dr. Orbach noted. “The study is continuing as it is vital that we continue and show efficacy and safety in other patients as well,” he added.

Dr. Orbach said the results of this first case were extremely encouraging. “Each stage was exciting – the technical success of the procedure, and then seeing the [blood] flow diminish on the ultrasound right there during the procedure; then the next day we did a fetal echocardiogram, and we could see that the abnormal cardiac output was dramatically reduced, and a fetal MRI scan also showed the malformation was already coming down in size.”

The baby was born prematurely 2 days after the procedure because of ruptured membranes with a birth weight of 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). She has not required any cardiovascular support or postnatal embolization.

“We were waiting with bated breath until the baby was born to see how she did clinically. I was trying to be conservative in my expectations, but it was quickly apparent that she was going to do great,” he said. Now at home, she has some oxygen treatment for the first few weeks, “but right now her neurological status is completely intact and essentially she looks like any other baby,” Dr. Orbach commented.

It is not yet known whether the infant will need any additional procedures. “We will follow her closely and make a decision on whether further treatment is needed based on whether the malformation is growing or not,” Dr. Orbach said. Longer term follow-up will also assess secondary problems sometimes seen, such as learning problems and seizures.

Although other fetal surgeries are now routinely performed, this is believed to be the first in utero surgery aimed at the cerebrovascular system.

“There were a lot of uncertainties,” Dr. Orbach said. “We didn’t even know if we would be able to see our instruments on ultrasound.” To model the procedure, the researchers had a phantom fetal skull and brain constructed with a vein of Galen malformation, which was key to obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval for the study.

If the study shows success in the other patients too, the technique could be rolled out to other centers. “There definitely needs to be fetal surgery and neurointerventional teams familiar with vein of Galen malformation in place, and ready to manage complications after delivery regardless of outcome. But we are not the only center with those capabilities, so if our trial pans out, yes, the hope is that other teams in specialist children’s hospitals around the world could do this too,” he added.
 

Pioneering work

Commenting on the case report in an American Heart Association press release, Colin Derdeyn, MD, a neurointerventional radiologist at University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, who performs vein of Galen malformation embolizations on neonates, said: “The key advance here is to intervene before the physiologic events of birth can cause life-threatening heart failure.”

Dr. Derdeyn, who is a past chair of the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council, cautioned that one successful case is not enough experience to conclude that the risks of this procedure are worth the benefits.

But, he added: “The positive hemodynamic changes that they observed in utero and after birth – reduction in flow, reduction in size of the draining vein, reversal of the abnormal reversed flow in the aorta – are really encouraging. These are some of the most exciting and surprising aspects of this case report. This is pioneering work being done in a very careful and responsible way.”

The study was funded by a grant from the Sage Schermerhorn Chair for Image-Guided Therapy.

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

In a first-of-its-kind in utero surgery, researchers have successfully repaired a cerebrovascular malformation, which often leads to heart failure, severe brain injury, or possibly death soon after birth.
 

The team from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital used ultrasound guidance to repair the vein of Galen malformation, which causes excessively high blood flow, resulting in both neurologic and cardiac complications. 

The surgery was performed in a fetus at 34 weeks’ gestational age, with remarkable results. Since birth, the baby girl, who was identified in utero as being at high risk of suffering serious complications of the malformation, has required no medication to treat heart failure and no postnatal surgery.

Repeated echocardiograms after birth displayed marked improvement in cardiac output, and brain MRI showed no brain injury and a normal neurologic exam.

“This is incredibly exciting. The hope is that this baby, and others with this condition who receive this in utero surgery in future, will go on to have a normal life,” lead researcher Darren B. Orbach, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“We were thrilled to see that the aggressive decline usually seen after birth simply did not appear. We are pleased to report that at 6 weeks, the infant is progressing remarkably well, on no medications, eating normally, gaining weight and is back home. There are no signs of any negative effects on the brain,” he added.

Dr. Orbach, codirector of the Cerebrovascular Surgery & Interventions Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described this first case report of the in utero vein of Galen malformation repair in a research letter, published online in the journal Stroke.
 

Vein of Galen malformation

Dr. Orbach explained that vein of Galen malformation, which occurs in around 1 in every 60,000 births, is a cerebrovascular anomaly in which the arterial system is directly connected to the venous system rather than to capillaries that are necessary to slow blood flow and deliver oxygen to surrounding brain tissue.

“The arterial and venous systems are fundamentally very different. The arterial system is high pressure, high flow; while the venous system is low pressure, low flow. They shouldn’t be directly connected,” he noted.

The vein of Galen malformation is the most extreme version of such an anomaly. Developing in early gestation, it is associated with a large increase in blood flow through the brain which grows over time and can sometimes result in twice the total cardiac output of the body or even more, Dr. Orbach said.

The placenta is believed to be protective as most babies don’t have overt physiologic problems in utero, but they can run into crisis after birth, with the abnormally high blood flow causing an immense stress to the heart.

Babies typically present with heart failure as their first major symptom soon after birth, Dr. Orbach said. “Although the anatomical problem is in the brain, the clinical manifestation is high-output heart failure. The heart is trying to do double its normal work, pumping the blood to the malformation and immediately back to the heart and that blood is not performing any useful function.

“These newborns can get very sick. They need multiple medications to support their cardiovascular system and we need to do procedures to try and reduce the blood flow,” he explained. 

Brain injury is also a common problem. “The brain circulation is very abnormal. The blood is being shunted through the malformation rather than circulating through the brain tissue which can become ischemic,” Dr. Orbach commented.

“The babies who get sick would have a very high mortality (up to 90%) without expert care. Even those who do receive expert care at a specialty center have a mortality rate of 30% to 40% and those who survive have a high risk of neurologic and cognitive impairment,” he added.

The current treatment for babies born with the condition involves transarterial embolization, by which a catheter is inserted into the arterial system to enable the malformation to be occluded by various techniques. 

But Dr. Orbach pointed out that some babies are born too sick to have the postnatal intervention. “The heart failure and brain injury is so overwhelming that no matter what we do, we cannot reverse it, and these babies normally do not survive. What we are doing with the fetal surgery is trying to help those babies who cannot be treated with the current postnatal approach,” he said.

The first stage of this research involved trying to identify these very-high-risk babies in utero, and the researchers found that on fetal MRI a particular measurement of one of the venous sinuses that drains the main malformation was a good predictor of how the baby would fare after birth. The babies predicted to do poorly from this test are the targets for the fetal surgery.

The technique used for the postnatal intervention is too technically challenging to perform in utero. “So we have developed a different approach for the in utero surgery that involves navigating into the accepting vein in the malformation with a needle under ultrasound guidance, and then packing the vein with metal coils to dramatically reduce the blood flow,” Dr. Orbach explained.

This procedure was performed in this first patient on March 15. The surgery was part of a clinical trial that is planned to include 20 cases in total.

“The immediate goal is to see whether we can transform those fetuses who are at very high risk of getting sick after birth into babies who do well in the [neonatal] ICU and are able to be sent home for elective treatment at a few months of age,” Dr. Orbach noted. “The study is continuing as it is vital that we continue and show efficacy and safety in other patients as well,” he added.

Dr. Orbach said the results of this first case were extremely encouraging. “Each stage was exciting – the technical success of the procedure, and then seeing the [blood] flow diminish on the ultrasound right there during the procedure; then the next day we did a fetal echocardiogram, and we could see that the abnormal cardiac output was dramatically reduced, and a fetal MRI scan also showed the malformation was already coming down in size.”

The baby was born prematurely 2 days after the procedure because of ruptured membranes with a birth weight of 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). She has not required any cardiovascular support or postnatal embolization.

“We were waiting with bated breath until the baby was born to see how she did clinically. I was trying to be conservative in my expectations, but it was quickly apparent that she was going to do great,” he said. Now at home, she has some oxygen treatment for the first few weeks, “but right now her neurological status is completely intact and essentially she looks like any other baby,” Dr. Orbach commented.

It is not yet known whether the infant will need any additional procedures. “We will follow her closely and make a decision on whether further treatment is needed based on whether the malformation is growing or not,” Dr. Orbach said. Longer term follow-up will also assess secondary problems sometimes seen, such as learning problems and seizures.

Although other fetal surgeries are now routinely performed, this is believed to be the first in utero surgery aimed at the cerebrovascular system.

“There were a lot of uncertainties,” Dr. Orbach said. “We didn’t even know if we would be able to see our instruments on ultrasound.” To model the procedure, the researchers had a phantom fetal skull and brain constructed with a vein of Galen malformation, which was key to obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval for the study.

If the study shows success in the other patients too, the technique could be rolled out to other centers. “There definitely needs to be fetal surgery and neurointerventional teams familiar with vein of Galen malformation in place, and ready to manage complications after delivery regardless of outcome. But we are not the only center with those capabilities, so if our trial pans out, yes, the hope is that other teams in specialist children’s hospitals around the world could do this too,” he added.
 

Pioneering work

Commenting on the case report in an American Heart Association press release, Colin Derdeyn, MD, a neurointerventional radiologist at University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, who performs vein of Galen malformation embolizations on neonates, said: “The key advance here is to intervene before the physiologic events of birth can cause life-threatening heart failure.”

Dr. Derdeyn, who is a past chair of the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council, cautioned that one successful case is not enough experience to conclude that the risks of this procedure are worth the benefits.

But, he added: “The positive hemodynamic changes that they observed in utero and after birth – reduction in flow, reduction in size of the draining vein, reversal of the abnormal reversed flow in the aorta – are really encouraging. These are some of the most exciting and surprising aspects of this case report. This is pioneering work being done in a very careful and responsible way.”

The study was funded by a grant from the Sage Schermerhorn Chair for Image-Guided Therapy.

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

In a first-of-its-kind in utero surgery, researchers have successfully repaired a cerebrovascular malformation, which often leads to heart failure, severe brain injury, or possibly death soon after birth.
 

The team from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital used ultrasound guidance to repair the vein of Galen malformation, which causes excessively high blood flow, resulting in both neurologic and cardiac complications. 

The surgery was performed in a fetus at 34 weeks’ gestational age, with remarkable results. Since birth, the baby girl, who was identified in utero as being at high risk of suffering serious complications of the malformation, has required no medication to treat heart failure and no postnatal surgery.

Repeated echocardiograms after birth displayed marked improvement in cardiac output, and brain MRI showed no brain injury and a normal neurologic exam.

“This is incredibly exciting. The hope is that this baby, and others with this condition who receive this in utero surgery in future, will go on to have a normal life,” lead researcher Darren B. Orbach, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“We were thrilled to see that the aggressive decline usually seen after birth simply did not appear. We are pleased to report that at 6 weeks, the infant is progressing remarkably well, on no medications, eating normally, gaining weight and is back home. There are no signs of any negative effects on the brain,” he added.

Dr. Orbach, codirector of the Cerebrovascular Surgery & Interventions Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described this first case report of the in utero vein of Galen malformation repair in a research letter, published online in the journal Stroke.
 

Vein of Galen malformation

Dr. Orbach explained that vein of Galen malformation, which occurs in around 1 in every 60,000 births, is a cerebrovascular anomaly in which the arterial system is directly connected to the venous system rather than to capillaries that are necessary to slow blood flow and deliver oxygen to surrounding brain tissue.

“The arterial and venous systems are fundamentally very different. The arterial system is high pressure, high flow; while the venous system is low pressure, low flow. They shouldn’t be directly connected,” he noted.

The vein of Galen malformation is the most extreme version of such an anomaly. Developing in early gestation, it is associated with a large increase in blood flow through the brain which grows over time and can sometimes result in twice the total cardiac output of the body or even more, Dr. Orbach said.

The placenta is believed to be protective as most babies don’t have overt physiologic problems in utero, but they can run into crisis after birth, with the abnormally high blood flow causing an immense stress to the heart.

Babies typically present with heart failure as their first major symptom soon after birth, Dr. Orbach said. “Although the anatomical problem is in the brain, the clinical manifestation is high-output heart failure. The heart is trying to do double its normal work, pumping the blood to the malformation and immediately back to the heart and that blood is not performing any useful function.

“These newborns can get very sick. They need multiple medications to support their cardiovascular system and we need to do procedures to try and reduce the blood flow,” he explained. 

Brain injury is also a common problem. “The brain circulation is very abnormal. The blood is being shunted through the malformation rather than circulating through the brain tissue which can become ischemic,” Dr. Orbach commented.

“The babies who get sick would have a very high mortality (up to 90%) without expert care. Even those who do receive expert care at a specialty center have a mortality rate of 30% to 40% and those who survive have a high risk of neurologic and cognitive impairment,” he added.

The current treatment for babies born with the condition involves transarterial embolization, by which a catheter is inserted into the arterial system to enable the malformation to be occluded by various techniques. 

But Dr. Orbach pointed out that some babies are born too sick to have the postnatal intervention. “The heart failure and brain injury is so overwhelming that no matter what we do, we cannot reverse it, and these babies normally do not survive. What we are doing with the fetal surgery is trying to help those babies who cannot be treated with the current postnatal approach,” he said.

The first stage of this research involved trying to identify these very-high-risk babies in utero, and the researchers found that on fetal MRI a particular measurement of one of the venous sinuses that drains the main malformation was a good predictor of how the baby would fare after birth. The babies predicted to do poorly from this test are the targets for the fetal surgery.

The technique used for the postnatal intervention is too technically challenging to perform in utero. “So we have developed a different approach for the in utero surgery that involves navigating into the accepting vein in the malformation with a needle under ultrasound guidance, and then packing the vein with metal coils to dramatically reduce the blood flow,” Dr. Orbach explained.

This procedure was performed in this first patient on March 15. The surgery was part of a clinical trial that is planned to include 20 cases in total.

“The immediate goal is to see whether we can transform those fetuses who are at very high risk of getting sick after birth into babies who do well in the [neonatal] ICU and are able to be sent home for elective treatment at a few months of age,” Dr. Orbach noted. “The study is continuing as it is vital that we continue and show efficacy and safety in other patients as well,” he added.

Dr. Orbach said the results of this first case were extremely encouraging. “Each stage was exciting – the technical success of the procedure, and then seeing the [blood] flow diminish on the ultrasound right there during the procedure; then the next day we did a fetal echocardiogram, and we could see that the abnormal cardiac output was dramatically reduced, and a fetal MRI scan also showed the malformation was already coming down in size.”

The baby was born prematurely 2 days after the procedure because of ruptured membranes with a birth weight of 1.9 kg (4.2 lb). She has not required any cardiovascular support or postnatal embolization.

“We were waiting with bated breath until the baby was born to see how she did clinically. I was trying to be conservative in my expectations, but it was quickly apparent that she was going to do great,” he said. Now at home, she has some oxygen treatment for the first few weeks, “but right now her neurological status is completely intact and essentially she looks like any other baby,” Dr. Orbach commented.

It is not yet known whether the infant will need any additional procedures. “We will follow her closely and make a decision on whether further treatment is needed based on whether the malformation is growing or not,” Dr. Orbach said. Longer term follow-up will also assess secondary problems sometimes seen, such as learning problems and seizures.

Although other fetal surgeries are now routinely performed, this is believed to be the first in utero surgery aimed at the cerebrovascular system.

“There were a lot of uncertainties,” Dr. Orbach said. “We didn’t even know if we would be able to see our instruments on ultrasound.” To model the procedure, the researchers had a phantom fetal skull and brain constructed with a vein of Galen malformation, which was key to obtaining Food and Drug Administration approval for the study.

If the study shows success in the other patients too, the technique could be rolled out to other centers. “There definitely needs to be fetal surgery and neurointerventional teams familiar with vein of Galen malformation in place, and ready to manage complications after delivery regardless of outcome. But we are not the only center with those capabilities, so if our trial pans out, yes, the hope is that other teams in specialist children’s hospitals around the world could do this too,” he added.
 

Pioneering work

Commenting on the case report in an American Heart Association press release, Colin Derdeyn, MD, a neurointerventional radiologist at University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, who performs vein of Galen malformation embolizations on neonates, said: “The key advance here is to intervene before the physiologic events of birth can cause life-threatening heart failure.”

Dr. Derdeyn, who is a past chair of the American Heart Association’s Stroke Council, cautioned that one successful case is not enough experience to conclude that the risks of this procedure are worth the benefits.

But, he added: “The positive hemodynamic changes that they observed in utero and after birth – reduction in flow, reduction in size of the draining vein, reversal of the abnormal reversed flow in the aorta – are really encouraging. These are some of the most exciting and surprising aspects of this case report. This is pioneering work being done in a very careful and responsible way.”

The study was funded by a grant from the Sage Schermerhorn Chair for Image-Guided Therapy.

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

A family physician whom a young patient’s mother accused of being impaired at work has won his lawsuit against a Kentucky hospital.
 

A jury on May 2 awarded John M. Farmer, MD, $3.7 million for emotional distress and contract damages against Baptist Health Madisonville and Baptist Health Medical Group for a series of actions they took against Dr. Farmer after the impairment complaint.

“It’s been the worst thing that I’ve ever gone through in my entire life,” Dr. Farmer said in an interview. “My career was disrupted, because I couldn’t finish residency on time, and I had difficulty finding full-time employment comparable to what I expected to obtain immediately following residency. It continues to significantly impact my life and my job, because I remain subject to random drug testing at any time and must check in every day to see whether I have to get drug tested.”

Dr. Farmer was in his third year of residency at the hospital when the mother of two young patients accused the doctor of being “on something” during a visit with her children, said Kathleen DeLaney, an Indianapolis-based attorney who represented Dr. Farmer in the case.

According to the lawsuit, the hospital violated its fitness for duty and drug testing policy by not immediately notifying Dr. Farmer of the complaint nor immediately testing him to prove whether or not there was a factual basis for the allegation. Repercussions from the unproven complaint damaged Dr. Farmer’s personal and professional reputation. It severely limited his job prospects and earning potential, the suit alleged.

Baptist Health spokeswoman Rebecca Towles Brown said Baptist Health is exploring its legal options after the jury’s decision. “We strongly disagree with the allegations made against Baptist Health in this case and are disappointed in the jury’s verdict. Baptist Health followed its medical staff policies and appropriately responded to concerns raised about Dr. Farmer’s well-being and behavior on the date in question. We are evaluating our postverdict options, as we believe the facts as they occurred do not support the verdict. Our primary focus remains providing high-quality care to our patients and families.”
 

What sparked the complaint?

On Nov. 4, 2019, Dr. Farmer worked a full day in the clinic at Baptist Health, visiting and treating patients and interacting with colleagues, according to court documents. In the late afternoon, he conducted a routine appointment with two children while their mother, her boyfriend, and a medical student were present.

Following the afternoon appointment, the mother issued a complaint to an office manager that Dr. Farmer was impaired, noting that he was “touching his nose a lot,” according to the lawsuit.

The next morning, hospital administrators met with Dr. Farmer and asked whether he was impaired the day before, to which he replied, “Absolutely not,” court documents state. Dr. Farmer asked to be given a urine drug screen immediately, but administrators allegedly said he needed to be tested at the Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation in Louisville.

Dr. Farmer immediately made the 3-hour drive to the facility, and Baptist Health placed him on leave, pending the evaluation. The health foundation sent Dr. Farmer to a third-party vendor to complete a urine drug screen, which returned a result of “dilute.” (A “dilute” result occurs when the urine concentration is weak because of too much water in the urine and testers are unable to detect whether alcohol or drugs are present.)

He was then instructed to go to a separate alcohol treatment facility for a 96-hour evaluation, where he was ultimately diagnosed with mild alcohol use disorder, according to Ms. DeLaney. The facility did not recommend that he receive any inpatient care.

Hospital administrators later sent a letter to the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure alerting them of the patient’s complaint. The board opened an investigation, and Farmer was required to sign an interim order in which he agreed not to practice medicine until approved by the board, according to court documents. The order was reported to the National Practitioner’s Data Bank.

To maintain his employment and complete his residency, Dr. Farmer was ultimately required to sign a 2-year agreement with Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation, which included regular testing, monitoring, and therapy. The board later extended the agreement to 5 years and made Dr. Farmer’s compliance a condition of retaining his medical license, according to legal records.

Dr. Farmer sued Baptist Health Medical Group and Baptist Heath Madisonville in 2021, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage.

At trial, coworkers, including Farmer’s attending physicians, testified that Dr. Farmer was not impaired on the date in question, Ms. DeLaney said. A key fact highlighted at trial is that Dr. Farmer has ADHD.

“My client has ADHD, so he’s normally a twitchy person,” she said. “There was lots of testimony about how he moves a lot and that he’s fidgety and doesn’t stand still. The two attending doctors that were supervising him at clinic that afternoon both said 100% he was not impaired; he was his usual self. They told the residency director that right after the incident. They both testified at trial they thought that would be the end of the matter.”

Baptist Health would not comment about whether it followed its fitness for duty and drug testing policy or whether leaders spoke with other medical professionals who worked with Dr. Farmer on the day of the complaint.

Dr. Farmer said he feels vindicated by the verdict and grateful to the jury.

“I intend to continue practicing as a family medicine doctor and hope to continue to grow and advance in my career,” he said.
 

Have you been falsely accused? Here’s what to do

Dr. Farmer is not alone in fighting back against allegations by hospitals regarding conduct associated with impairment.

In 2020, an ob.gyn. who had been accused of being under the influence while working won $4.75 million in fraud and defamation damages against St. Vincent Carmel (Ind.) Hospital and St. Vincent Carmel Medical Group for its treatment following an impairment complaint by a nurse.

It’s unclear how prevalent such scenarios are because frequently, physicians are embarrassed and keep quiet about the situation and how they were treated, said Louise B. Andrew, MD, JD, an emergency physician/internist and attorney who consults on physician health and wellness, litigation stress, and disability discrimination.

“Physicians are unlikely to reveal that it’s happened to them unless they happen to have had a good outcome” she said. “All we know is that we’re hearing more and more about it, and that might be because people are becoming more open and outraged when it happens. It’s quite easy for anyone in a hospital environment or in an office environment, for a competitor, a coworker, or even a disgruntled patient to allege a physician has ‘glazed eyes’ or ‘alcohol on the breath,’ and that’s all it takes to start the ball rolling.”

If you are falsely accused of being impaired at work or are suddenly confronted with a complaint, the first step is to remain calm, said Kernan Manion, MD, executive director for the Center for Physician Rights, a nonprofit organization that assists physicians who have been subject to unfair medical board, health program, or peer review processes.

“The first thing is to keep your wits about you,” he said, “because often, docs get frightened or angry, and they overact. You have to gain your composure and ask for documentation about the nature of the allegation.”

Obtain in writing any and all information that supports the allegation. Physicians who are asked to report to a physician health program should ask the reason they are being referred and whether it is for a medical evaluation or another type of evaluation, he said. If it’s a medical reason, the process needs to follow medical parameters in terms of confidentiality.

“The bottom line is that a doctor should not take everything at face value and follow the organization’s orders unquestioning,” Dr. Manion said. “They have a right to get their concerns addressed.”

Physicians who are accused of using substances on duty or being under the influence while working have to right to undergo testing immediately, Dr. Andrew said.

“If you’re told on the spot: ‘You need to submit to testing,’ then you should do it, but make sure it’s done properly,” she said. “Ensure that forensically, you give two samples and that they are sealed and the chain of evidence is maintained. The reason for that is if one of them is a false positive, the second one can be reviewed separately.”

If administrators do not allow for prompt testing, get yourself tested immediately on your own, she said.

As far as leaves of absence are concerned, ensure you know what type of leave is being executed, Dr. Manion said. Ask the nature of the leave and whether the leave counts as a suspension that will go against your medical license and be reportable to the NPDB. In such cases, the only reason to suspend a doctor’s privileges is because they are considered a danger to others, or, in other words, there’s been an allegation of unsafe care.

“If there is an allegation of unsafe care, the physician should ask for documentation of the patient safety issues in question and why they are being deemed unsafe to practice,” he said.

Ms. DeLaney recommended physicians not report to or communicate with any state medical association, physician health foundation, or licensing authority without first getting legal advice.

In addition, doctors will likely be tested for acute and long-term drug and alcohol use, so it’s a good idea to avoid any activity or substances that could result in a dilute sample or a positive result on a drug or alcohol test, she said.

As for broader solutions, it’s important that more physicians come out of the shadows and tell their stories when these injustices take place, said Dr. Andrew.

“Doctors need to be more open about this when it happens, which is not easy,” she said. “More need to be suing, which is certainly not cheap. Also, when they do come to settlements, they should not sign nondisclosure agreements so that they can talk about what happened and it can be publicized. This way, more doctors are aware of the types of tactics used against physicians and what other doctors have done that can help.”

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

A family physician whom a young patient’s mother accused of being impaired at work has won his lawsuit against a Kentucky hospital.
 

A jury on May 2 awarded John M. Farmer, MD, $3.7 million for emotional distress and contract damages against Baptist Health Madisonville and Baptist Health Medical Group for a series of actions they took against Dr. Farmer after the impairment complaint.

“It’s been the worst thing that I’ve ever gone through in my entire life,” Dr. Farmer said in an interview. “My career was disrupted, because I couldn’t finish residency on time, and I had difficulty finding full-time employment comparable to what I expected to obtain immediately following residency. It continues to significantly impact my life and my job, because I remain subject to random drug testing at any time and must check in every day to see whether I have to get drug tested.”

Dr. Farmer was in his third year of residency at the hospital when the mother of two young patients accused the doctor of being “on something” during a visit with her children, said Kathleen DeLaney, an Indianapolis-based attorney who represented Dr. Farmer in the case.

According to the lawsuit, the hospital violated its fitness for duty and drug testing policy by not immediately notifying Dr. Farmer of the complaint nor immediately testing him to prove whether or not there was a factual basis for the allegation. Repercussions from the unproven complaint damaged Dr. Farmer’s personal and professional reputation. It severely limited his job prospects and earning potential, the suit alleged.

Baptist Health spokeswoman Rebecca Towles Brown said Baptist Health is exploring its legal options after the jury’s decision. “We strongly disagree with the allegations made against Baptist Health in this case and are disappointed in the jury’s verdict. Baptist Health followed its medical staff policies and appropriately responded to concerns raised about Dr. Farmer’s well-being and behavior on the date in question. We are evaluating our postverdict options, as we believe the facts as they occurred do not support the verdict. Our primary focus remains providing high-quality care to our patients and families.”
 

What sparked the complaint?

On Nov. 4, 2019, Dr. Farmer worked a full day in the clinic at Baptist Health, visiting and treating patients and interacting with colleagues, according to court documents. In the late afternoon, he conducted a routine appointment with two children while their mother, her boyfriend, and a medical student were present.

Following the afternoon appointment, the mother issued a complaint to an office manager that Dr. Farmer was impaired, noting that he was “touching his nose a lot,” according to the lawsuit.

The next morning, hospital administrators met with Dr. Farmer and asked whether he was impaired the day before, to which he replied, “Absolutely not,” court documents state. Dr. Farmer asked to be given a urine drug screen immediately, but administrators allegedly said he needed to be tested at the Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation in Louisville.

Dr. Farmer immediately made the 3-hour drive to the facility, and Baptist Health placed him on leave, pending the evaluation. The health foundation sent Dr. Farmer to a third-party vendor to complete a urine drug screen, which returned a result of “dilute.” (A “dilute” result occurs when the urine concentration is weak because of too much water in the urine and testers are unable to detect whether alcohol or drugs are present.)

He was then instructed to go to a separate alcohol treatment facility for a 96-hour evaluation, where he was ultimately diagnosed with mild alcohol use disorder, according to Ms. DeLaney. The facility did not recommend that he receive any inpatient care.

Hospital administrators later sent a letter to the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure alerting them of the patient’s complaint. The board opened an investigation, and Farmer was required to sign an interim order in which he agreed not to practice medicine until approved by the board, according to court documents. The order was reported to the National Practitioner’s Data Bank.

To maintain his employment and complete his residency, Dr. Farmer was ultimately required to sign a 2-year agreement with Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation, which included regular testing, monitoring, and therapy. The board later extended the agreement to 5 years and made Dr. Farmer’s compliance a condition of retaining his medical license, according to legal records.

Dr. Farmer sued Baptist Health Medical Group and Baptist Heath Madisonville in 2021, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage.

At trial, coworkers, including Farmer’s attending physicians, testified that Dr. Farmer was not impaired on the date in question, Ms. DeLaney said. A key fact highlighted at trial is that Dr. Farmer has ADHD.

“My client has ADHD, so he’s normally a twitchy person,” she said. “There was lots of testimony about how he moves a lot and that he’s fidgety and doesn’t stand still. The two attending doctors that were supervising him at clinic that afternoon both said 100% he was not impaired; he was his usual self. They told the residency director that right after the incident. They both testified at trial they thought that would be the end of the matter.”

Baptist Health would not comment about whether it followed its fitness for duty and drug testing policy or whether leaders spoke with other medical professionals who worked with Dr. Farmer on the day of the complaint.

Dr. Farmer said he feels vindicated by the verdict and grateful to the jury.

“I intend to continue practicing as a family medicine doctor and hope to continue to grow and advance in my career,” he said.
 

Have you been falsely accused? Here’s what to do

Dr. Farmer is not alone in fighting back against allegations by hospitals regarding conduct associated with impairment.

In 2020, an ob.gyn. who had been accused of being under the influence while working won $4.75 million in fraud and defamation damages against St. Vincent Carmel (Ind.) Hospital and St. Vincent Carmel Medical Group for its treatment following an impairment complaint by a nurse.

It’s unclear how prevalent such scenarios are because frequently, physicians are embarrassed and keep quiet about the situation and how they were treated, said Louise B. Andrew, MD, JD, an emergency physician/internist and attorney who consults on physician health and wellness, litigation stress, and disability discrimination.

“Physicians are unlikely to reveal that it’s happened to them unless they happen to have had a good outcome” she said. “All we know is that we’re hearing more and more about it, and that might be because people are becoming more open and outraged when it happens. It’s quite easy for anyone in a hospital environment or in an office environment, for a competitor, a coworker, or even a disgruntled patient to allege a physician has ‘glazed eyes’ or ‘alcohol on the breath,’ and that’s all it takes to start the ball rolling.”

If you are falsely accused of being impaired at work or are suddenly confronted with a complaint, the first step is to remain calm, said Kernan Manion, MD, executive director for the Center for Physician Rights, a nonprofit organization that assists physicians who have been subject to unfair medical board, health program, or peer review processes.

“The first thing is to keep your wits about you,” he said, “because often, docs get frightened or angry, and they overact. You have to gain your composure and ask for documentation about the nature of the allegation.”

Obtain in writing any and all information that supports the allegation. Physicians who are asked to report to a physician health program should ask the reason they are being referred and whether it is for a medical evaluation or another type of evaluation, he said. If it’s a medical reason, the process needs to follow medical parameters in terms of confidentiality.

“The bottom line is that a doctor should not take everything at face value and follow the organization’s orders unquestioning,” Dr. Manion said. “They have a right to get their concerns addressed.”

Physicians who are accused of using substances on duty or being under the influence while working have to right to undergo testing immediately, Dr. Andrew said.

“If you’re told on the spot: ‘You need to submit to testing,’ then you should do it, but make sure it’s done properly,” she said. “Ensure that forensically, you give two samples and that they are sealed and the chain of evidence is maintained. The reason for that is if one of them is a false positive, the second one can be reviewed separately.”

If administrators do not allow for prompt testing, get yourself tested immediately on your own, she said.

As far as leaves of absence are concerned, ensure you know what type of leave is being executed, Dr. Manion said. Ask the nature of the leave and whether the leave counts as a suspension that will go against your medical license and be reportable to the NPDB. In such cases, the only reason to suspend a doctor’s privileges is because they are considered a danger to others, or, in other words, there’s been an allegation of unsafe care.

“If there is an allegation of unsafe care, the physician should ask for documentation of the patient safety issues in question and why they are being deemed unsafe to practice,” he said.

Ms. DeLaney recommended physicians not report to or communicate with any state medical association, physician health foundation, or licensing authority without first getting legal advice.

In addition, doctors will likely be tested for acute and long-term drug and alcohol use, so it’s a good idea to avoid any activity or substances that could result in a dilute sample or a positive result on a drug or alcohol test, she said.

As for broader solutions, it’s important that more physicians come out of the shadows and tell their stories when these injustices take place, said Dr. Andrew.

“Doctors need to be more open about this when it happens, which is not easy,” she said. “More need to be suing, which is certainly not cheap. Also, when they do come to settlements, they should not sign nondisclosure agreements so that they can talk about what happened and it can be publicized. This way, more doctors are aware of the types of tactics used against physicians and what other doctors have done that can help.”

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

A family physician whom a young patient’s mother accused of being impaired at work has won his lawsuit against a Kentucky hospital.
 

A jury on May 2 awarded John M. Farmer, MD, $3.7 million for emotional distress and contract damages against Baptist Health Madisonville and Baptist Health Medical Group for a series of actions they took against Dr. Farmer after the impairment complaint.

“It’s been the worst thing that I’ve ever gone through in my entire life,” Dr. Farmer said in an interview. “My career was disrupted, because I couldn’t finish residency on time, and I had difficulty finding full-time employment comparable to what I expected to obtain immediately following residency. It continues to significantly impact my life and my job, because I remain subject to random drug testing at any time and must check in every day to see whether I have to get drug tested.”

Dr. Farmer was in his third year of residency at the hospital when the mother of two young patients accused the doctor of being “on something” during a visit with her children, said Kathleen DeLaney, an Indianapolis-based attorney who represented Dr. Farmer in the case.

According to the lawsuit, the hospital violated its fitness for duty and drug testing policy by not immediately notifying Dr. Farmer of the complaint nor immediately testing him to prove whether or not there was a factual basis for the allegation. Repercussions from the unproven complaint damaged Dr. Farmer’s personal and professional reputation. It severely limited his job prospects and earning potential, the suit alleged.

Baptist Health spokeswoman Rebecca Towles Brown said Baptist Health is exploring its legal options after the jury’s decision. “We strongly disagree with the allegations made against Baptist Health in this case and are disappointed in the jury’s verdict. Baptist Health followed its medical staff policies and appropriately responded to concerns raised about Dr. Farmer’s well-being and behavior on the date in question. We are evaluating our postverdict options, as we believe the facts as they occurred do not support the verdict. Our primary focus remains providing high-quality care to our patients and families.”
 

What sparked the complaint?

On Nov. 4, 2019, Dr. Farmer worked a full day in the clinic at Baptist Health, visiting and treating patients and interacting with colleagues, according to court documents. In the late afternoon, he conducted a routine appointment with two children while their mother, her boyfriend, and a medical student were present.

Following the afternoon appointment, the mother issued a complaint to an office manager that Dr. Farmer was impaired, noting that he was “touching his nose a lot,” according to the lawsuit.

The next morning, hospital administrators met with Dr. Farmer and asked whether he was impaired the day before, to which he replied, “Absolutely not,” court documents state. Dr. Farmer asked to be given a urine drug screen immediately, but administrators allegedly said he needed to be tested at the Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation in Louisville.

Dr. Farmer immediately made the 3-hour drive to the facility, and Baptist Health placed him on leave, pending the evaluation. The health foundation sent Dr. Farmer to a third-party vendor to complete a urine drug screen, which returned a result of “dilute.” (A “dilute” result occurs when the urine concentration is weak because of too much water in the urine and testers are unable to detect whether alcohol or drugs are present.)

He was then instructed to go to a separate alcohol treatment facility for a 96-hour evaluation, where he was ultimately diagnosed with mild alcohol use disorder, according to Ms. DeLaney. The facility did not recommend that he receive any inpatient care.

Hospital administrators later sent a letter to the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure alerting them of the patient’s complaint. The board opened an investigation, and Farmer was required to sign an interim order in which he agreed not to practice medicine until approved by the board, according to court documents. The order was reported to the National Practitioner’s Data Bank.

To maintain his employment and complete his residency, Dr. Farmer was ultimately required to sign a 2-year agreement with Kentucky Physicians Health Foundation, which included regular testing, monitoring, and therapy. The board later extended the agreement to 5 years and made Dr. Farmer’s compliance a condition of retaining his medical license, according to legal records.

Dr. Farmer sued Baptist Health Medical Group and Baptist Heath Madisonville in 2021, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage.

At trial, coworkers, including Farmer’s attending physicians, testified that Dr. Farmer was not impaired on the date in question, Ms. DeLaney said. A key fact highlighted at trial is that Dr. Farmer has ADHD.

“My client has ADHD, so he’s normally a twitchy person,” she said. “There was lots of testimony about how he moves a lot and that he’s fidgety and doesn’t stand still. The two attending doctors that were supervising him at clinic that afternoon both said 100% he was not impaired; he was his usual self. They told the residency director that right after the incident. They both testified at trial they thought that would be the end of the matter.”

Baptist Health would not comment about whether it followed its fitness for duty and drug testing policy or whether leaders spoke with other medical professionals who worked with Dr. Farmer on the day of the complaint.

Dr. Farmer said he feels vindicated by the verdict and grateful to the jury.

“I intend to continue practicing as a family medicine doctor and hope to continue to grow and advance in my career,” he said.
 

Have you been falsely accused? Here’s what to do

Dr. Farmer is not alone in fighting back against allegations by hospitals regarding conduct associated with impairment.

In 2020, an ob.gyn. who had been accused of being under the influence while working won $4.75 million in fraud and defamation damages against St. Vincent Carmel (Ind.) Hospital and St. Vincent Carmel Medical Group for its treatment following an impairment complaint by a nurse.

It’s unclear how prevalent such scenarios are because frequently, physicians are embarrassed and keep quiet about the situation and how they were treated, said Louise B. Andrew, MD, JD, an emergency physician/internist and attorney who consults on physician health and wellness, litigation stress, and disability discrimination.

“Physicians are unlikely to reveal that it’s happened to them unless they happen to have had a good outcome” she said. “All we know is that we’re hearing more and more about it, and that might be because people are becoming more open and outraged when it happens. It’s quite easy for anyone in a hospital environment or in an office environment, for a competitor, a coworker, or even a disgruntled patient to allege a physician has ‘glazed eyes’ or ‘alcohol on the breath,’ and that’s all it takes to start the ball rolling.”

If you are falsely accused of being impaired at work or are suddenly confronted with a complaint, the first step is to remain calm, said Kernan Manion, MD, executive director for the Center for Physician Rights, a nonprofit organization that assists physicians who have been subject to unfair medical board, health program, or peer review processes.

“The first thing is to keep your wits about you,” he said, “because often, docs get frightened or angry, and they overact. You have to gain your composure and ask for documentation about the nature of the allegation.”

Obtain in writing any and all information that supports the allegation. Physicians who are asked to report to a physician health program should ask the reason they are being referred and whether it is for a medical evaluation or another type of evaluation, he said. If it’s a medical reason, the process needs to follow medical parameters in terms of confidentiality.

“The bottom line is that a doctor should not take everything at face value and follow the organization’s orders unquestioning,” Dr. Manion said. “They have a right to get their concerns addressed.”

Physicians who are accused of using substances on duty or being under the influence while working have to right to undergo testing immediately, Dr. Andrew said.

“If you’re told on the spot: ‘You need to submit to testing,’ then you should do it, but make sure it’s done properly,” she said. “Ensure that forensically, you give two samples and that they are sealed and the chain of evidence is maintained. The reason for that is if one of them is a false positive, the second one can be reviewed separately.”

If administrators do not allow for prompt testing, get yourself tested immediately on your own, she said.

As far as leaves of absence are concerned, ensure you know what type of leave is being executed, Dr. Manion said. Ask the nature of the leave and whether the leave counts as a suspension that will go against your medical license and be reportable to the NPDB. In such cases, the only reason to suspend a doctor’s privileges is because they are considered a danger to others, or, in other words, there’s been an allegation of unsafe care.

“If there is an allegation of unsafe care, the physician should ask for documentation of the patient safety issues in question and why they are being deemed unsafe to practice,” he said.

Ms. DeLaney recommended physicians not report to or communicate with any state medical association, physician health foundation, or licensing authority without first getting legal advice.

In addition, doctors will likely be tested for acute and long-term drug and alcohol use, so it’s a good idea to avoid any activity or substances that could result in a dilute sample or a positive result on a drug or alcohol test, she said.

As for broader solutions, it’s important that more physicians come out of the shadows and tell their stories when these injustices take place, said Dr. Andrew.

“Doctors need to be more open about this when it happens, which is not easy,” she said. “More need to be suing, which is certainly not cheap. Also, when they do come to settlements, they should not sign nondisclosure agreements so that they can talk about what happened and it can be publicized. This way, more doctors are aware of the types of tactics used against physicians and what other doctors have done that can help.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Beta Bionics’s iLet ACE Pump and the iLet Dosing Decision Software for people ages 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes.
 

Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.

Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).

The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.

Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.

Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”

That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”

On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”

The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Beta Bionics’s iLet ACE Pump and the iLet Dosing Decision Software for people ages 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes.
 

Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.

Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).

The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.

Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.

Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”

That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”

On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”

The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Beta Bionics’s iLet ACE Pump and the iLet Dosing Decision Software for people ages 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes.
 

Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.

Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).

The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.

Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.

Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”

That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”

On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”

The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulation that would ban noncompete agreements across the country seems like potential good news for doctors. Of course, many hospitals and employers are against it. As a result, the FTC’s sweeping proposal has tongues wagging on both sides of the issue.

Many physicians are thrilled that they may soon have more control over their career and not be stuck in jobs where they feel frustrated, underpaid, or blocked in their progress.

If passed, the proposed ban would allow physicians to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place. As of 2018, as many as 45% of primary care physicians had inked such agreements with their employers.

Typically, the agreements prevent physicians from practicing medicine with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area. No matter how attractive an alternate offer of employment might be, doctors are bound by the agreements to say no if the offer exists in that defined area and time period.

The period for public comment on the proposed regulation ended on April 19, and there is currently no set date for a decision.

In a Medscape poll of 558 physicians, more than 9 out of 10 respondents said that they were either currently bound by a noncompete clause or that they had been bound by one in the past that had forced them to temporarily stop working, commute long distances, move to a different area, or switch fields.

The new proposal would make it illegal for an employer, such as a hospital or large group, to enter a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

It also would not only ban future noncompete agreements but also retroactively invalidate existing ones. The FTC reasons that noncompete clauses could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. If the ruling were to move forward, it would represent part of President Biden’s “worker-forward” priorities, focusing on how competition can be a good thing for employees. The President billed the FTC’s announcement as a “huge win for workers.”

In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower consumer prices across the board by as much as $150 billion per year and return nearly $300 million to workers each year.

However, even if passed, the draft rule would keep in place nonsolicitation rules that many health care organizations have put into place. That means that, if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to switch to him or her in the new job.

Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such nonsolicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a noncompete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stays, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the noncompete law. So there’s value in reading all the fine print should the ban move forward.
 

Could the ban bring potential downsides?

Most physicians view the potential to break free of a noncompete agreement as a victory. Peter Glennon, an employment litigation attorney with The Glennon Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y., says not so fast. “If you ask anyone if they’d prefer a noncompete agreement, of course they’re going to say no,” he said in an interview. “It sounds like a restriction, one that can hold you back.”

Mr. Glennon believes that there are actually upsides to physician noncompetes. For instance, many noncompetes come with sign-on bonuses that could potentially disappear without the agreements. There’s also the fact that when some physicians sign a noncompete agreement, they then receive pro bono training and continuing education along with marketing and promotion of their skills. Without signing a noncompete, employers may be less incentivized to provide all those benefits to their physician employers.

Those benefits – and the noncompetes – also vary by specialty, Mr. Glennon said. “In 2021, Washington, DC, banned noncompetes for doctors making less than $250,000. So, most generalists there can walk across the street and get a new job. For specialists like cardiologists or neurosurgeons, however, advanced training and marketing benefits matter, so many of them don’t want to lose noncompetes.”

Still, most physicians hope that the FTC’s ban takes hold. Manan Shah, MD, founder, and chief medical officer at Wyndly, an allergy relief startup practice, is one of them.

“Initially, it might disincentivize hospital systems from helping new physicians build up their name and practice because they might be concerned about a physician leaving and starting anew,” he said. “But in the long term, hospitals require physicians to bring their patients to them for care, so the best hospitals will always compete for the best physicians and support them as they build up their practice.”

Dr. Shah views noncompetes as overly prohibitive to physicians. “Right now, if a physician starts a job at a large hospital system and realizes they want to switch jobs, the noncompete distances are so wide they often have to move cities to continue practicing,” he said. “Picking up and starting over in a new city isn’t an option for everyone and can be especially difficult for someone with a family.”

Where Mr. Glennon argued that a physician leaving a team-based practice might harm patients, Shah takes a different perspective. “Imagine you have a doctor whom you trust and have been working with,” he said. “If something changes at their hospital and they decide to move, you literally have to find a new doctor instead of just being able to see them at another location down the street.”

Another potential burden of the noncompete agreements is that they could possibly squelch doctor’s desires to hang up their own shingle. According to Dr. Shah, the agreements make it so that if a physician wants to work independently, it’s nearly impossible to fly solo. “This is frustrating because independent practices have been shown to be more cost effective and allow patients to build better relationships with their doctors,” he claimed.

A 2016 study from Annals of Family Medicine supports that claim, at least for small general practices. Another study appearing in JAMA concurred. It does point out, however, that the cost equation is nuanced and that benefits of larger systems include more resilience to economic downturns and can provide more specialized care.
 

Will nonprofit hospitals be subject to this noncompete ban?

Further complicating the noncompete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions versus their for-profit peers. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would be exempt from the rule because the FTC Act provides that it can enforce against “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” which are further defined as entities “organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members.”

The fallout from this, said Dr. Shah, is that it “would disproportionately affect health care providers, since many hospital systems are nonprofits. This is disconcerting because we know that many nonprofit systems make large profits anyway and can offer executive teams’ lucrative packages, while the nurses, assistants, and physicians providing the care are generally not well compensated.”

So far, about nine states plus Washington, D.C., have already put noncompete bans in place, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each varies in its specifics. Some, like Indiana, outright ban them, whereas others limit them based on variables like income and industry. “We’re seeing these states responding to local market conditions,” said Darryl Drevna, senior director of regulatory affairs at the American Medical Group Association. “Health care is a hyperlocal market. Depending on the situation, the bans adapt and respond specific to those states.”

Should the federal ban take hold, however, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Some opponents of the federal ban proposal question its authority to begin with, however, Mr. Glennon included. “Many people believe the FTC is overstepping,” he said. “Some people believe that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets.”

Mr. Drevna noted that the FTC has taken an aggressive stance, one that will ultimately wind up in the courts. “How it works out is anyone’s guess,” he said. “Ideally, the FTC will consider the comments and concerns of groups like AMGA and realize that states are best suited to regulate in this area.”

In general, the ban’s supporters are employees/physicians; those who oppose it are their employers. Joining the AMGA in speaking out against the noncompete ban is the American Hospital Association, whereas the American College of Emergency Physicians has come out largely in support of the ban.

Still, doctors like Dr. Shah remain hopeful. “I am optimistic that perhaps my colleagues will not continue to be stuck in overrestrictive noncompetes, but I am also realistic,” he said. “Hospital systems are already coming out strongly against this and they have deep pockets, so I won’t be surprised if it does not come to pass.”

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

The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulation that would ban noncompete agreements across the country seems like potential good news for doctors. Of course, many hospitals and employers are against it. As a result, the FTC’s sweeping proposal has tongues wagging on both sides of the issue.

Many physicians are thrilled that they may soon have more control over their career and not be stuck in jobs where they feel frustrated, underpaid, or blocked in their progress.

If passed, the proposed ban would allow physicians to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place. As of 2018, as many as 45% of primary care physicians had inked such agreements with their employers.

Typically, the agreements prevent physicians from practicing medicine with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area. No matter how attractive an alternate offer of employment might be, doctors are bound by the agreements to say no if the offer exists in that defined area and time period.

The period for public comment on the proposed regulation ended on April 19, and there is currently no set date for a decision.

In a Medscape poll of 558 physicians, more than 9 out of 10 respondents said that they were either currently bound by a noncompete clause or that they had been bound by one in the past that had forced them to temporarily stop working, commute long distances, move to a different area, or switch fields.

The new proposal would make it illegal for an employer, such as a hospital or large group, to enter a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

It also would not only ban future noncompete agreements but also retroactively invalidate existing ones. The FTC reasons that noncompete clauses could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. If the ruling were to move forward, it would represent part of President Biden’s “worker-forward” priorities, focusing on how competition can be a good thing for employees. The President billed the FTC’s announcement as a “huge win for workers.”

In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower consumer prices across the board by as much as $150 billion per year and return nearly $300 million to workers each year.

However, even if passed, the draft rule would keep in place nonsolicitation rules that many health care organizations have put into place. That means that, if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to switch to him or her in the new job.

Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such nonsolicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a noncompete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stays, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the noncompete law. So there’s value in reading all the fine print should the ban move forward.
 

Could the ban bring potential downsides?

Most physicians view the potential to break free of a noncompete agreement as a victory. Peter Glennon, an employment litigation attorney with The Glennon Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y., says not so fast. “If you ask anyone if they’d prefer a noncompete agreement, of course they’re going to say no,” he said in an interview. “It sounds like a restriction, one that can hold you back.”

Mr. Glennon believes that there are actually upsides to physician noncompetes. For instance, many noncompetes come with sign-on bonuses that could potentially disappear without the agreements. There’s also the fact that when some physicians sign a noncompete agreement, they then receive pro bono training and continuing education along with marketing and promotion of their skills. Without signing a noncompete, employers may be less incentivized to provide all those benefits to their physician employers.

Those benefits – and the noncompetes – also vary by specialty, Mr. Glennon said. “In 2021, Washington, DC, banned noncompetes for doctors making less than $250,000. So, most generalists there can walk across the street and get a new job. For specialists like cardiologists or neurosurgeons, however, advanced training and marketing benefits matter, so many of them don’t want to lose noncompetes.”

Still, most physicians hope that the FTC’s ban takes hold. Manan Shah, MD, founder, and chief medical officer at Wyndly, an allergy relief startup practice, is one of them.

“Initially, it might disincentivize hospital systems from helping new physicians build up their name and practice because they might be concerned about a physician leaving and starting anew,” he said. “But in the long term, hospitals require physicians to bring their patients to them for care, so the best hospitals will always compete for the best physicians and support them as they build up their practice.”

Dr. Shah views noncompetes as overly prohibitive to physicians. “Right now, if a physician starts a job at a large hospital system and realizes they want to switch jobs, the noncompete distances are so wide they often have to move cities to continue practicing,” he said. “Picking up and starting over in a new city isn’t an option for everyone and can be especially difficult for someone with a family.”

Where Mr. Glennon argued that a physician leaving a team-based practice might harm patients, Shah takes a different perspective. “Imagine you have a doctor whom you trust and have been working with,” he said. “If something changes at their hospital and they decide to move, you literally have to find a new doctor instead of just being able to see them at another location down the street.”

Another potential burden of the noncompete agreements is that they could possibly squelch doctor’s desires to hang up their own shingle. According to Dr. Shah, the agreements make it so that if a physician wants to work independently, it’s nearly impossible to fly solo. “This is frustrating because independent practices have been shown to be more cost effective and allow patients to build better relationships with their doctors,” he claimed.

A 2016 study from Annals of Family Medicine supports that claim, at least for small general practices. Another study appearing in JAMA concurred. It does point out, however, that the cost equation is nuanced and that benefits of larger systems include more resilience to economic downturns and can provide more specialized care.
 

Will nonprofit hospitals be subject to this noncompete ban?

Further complicating the noncompete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions versus their for-profit peers. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would be exempt from the rule because the FTC Act provides that it can enforce against “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” which are further defined as entities “organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members.”

The fallout from this, said Dr. Shah, is that it “would disproportionately affect health care providers, since many hospital systems are nonprofits. This is disconcerting because we know that many nonprofit systems make large profits anyway and can offer executive teams’ lucrative packages, while the nurses, assistants, and physicians providing the care are generally not well compensated.”

So far, about nine states plus Washington, D.C., have already put noncompete bans in place, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each varies in its specifics. Some, like Indiana, outright ban them, whereas others limit them based on variables like income and industry. “We’re seeing these states responding to local market conditions,” said Darryl Drevna, senior director of regulatory affairs at the American Medical Group Association. “Health care is a hyperlocal market. Depending on the situation, the bans adapt and respond specific to those states.”

Should the federal ban take hold, however, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Some opponents of the federal ban proposal question its authority to begin with, however, Mr. Glennon included. “Many people believe the FTC is overstepping,” he said. “Some people believe that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets.”

Mr. Drevna noted that the FTC has taken an aggressive stance, one that will ultimately wind up in the courts. “How it works out is anyone’s guess,” he said. “Ideally, the FTC will consider the comments and concerns of groups like AMGA and realize that states are best suited to regulate in this area.”

In general, the ban’s supporters are employees/physicians; those who oppose it are their employers. Joining the AMGA in speaking out against the noncompete ban is the American Hospital Association, whereas the American College of Emergency Physicians has come out largely in support of the ban.

Still, doctors like Dr. Shah remain hopeful. “I am optimistic that perhaps my colleagues will not continue to be stuck in overrestrictive noncompetes, but I am also realistic,” he said. “Hospital systems are already coming out strongly against this and they have deep pockets, so I won’t be surprised if it does not come to pass.”

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

The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulation that would ban noncompete agreements across the country seems like potential good news for doctors. Of course, many hospitals and employers are against it. As a result, the FTC’s sweeping proposal has tongues wagging on both sides of the issue.

Many physicians are thrilled that they may soon have more control over their career and not be stuck in jobs where they feel frustrated, underpaid, or blocked in their progress.

If passed, the proposed ban would allow physicians to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place. As of 2018, as many as 45% of primary care physicians had inked such agreements with their employers.

Typically, the agreements prevent physicians from practicing medicine with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area. No matter how attractive an alternate offer of employment might be, doctors are bound by the agreements to say no if the offer exists in that defined area and time period.

The period for public comment on the proposed regulation ended on April 19, and there is currently no set date for a decision.

In a Medscape poll of 558 physicians, more than 9 out of 10 respondents said that they were either currently bound by a noncompete clause or that they had been bound by one in the past that had forced them to temporarily stop working, commute long distances, move to a different area, or switch fields.

The new proposal would make it illegal for an employer, such as a hospital or large group, to enter a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

It also would not only ban future noncompete agreements but also retroactively invalidate existing ones. The FTC reasons that noncompete clauses could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. If the ruling were to move forward, it would represent part of President Biden’s “worker-forward” priorities, focusing on how competition can be a good thing for employees. The President billed the FTC’s announcement as a “huge win for workers.”

In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower consumer prices across the board by as much as $150 billion per year and return nearly $300 million to workers each year.

However, even if passed, the draft rule would keep in place nonsolicitation rules that many health care organizations have put into place. That means that, if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to switch to him or her in the new job.

Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such nonsolicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a noncompete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stays, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the noncompete law. So there’s value in reading all the fine print should the ban move forward.
 

Could the ban bring potential downsides?

Most physicians view the potential to break free of a noncompete agreement as a victory. Peter Glennon, an employment litigation attorney with The Glennon Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y., says not so fast. “If you ask anyone if they’d prefer a noncompete agreement, of course they’re going to say no,” he said in an interview. “It sounds like a restriction, one that can hold you back.”

Mr. Glennon believes that there are actually upsides to physician noncompetes. For instance, many noncompetes come with sign-on bonuses that could potentially disappear without the agreements. There’s also the fact that when some physicians sign a noncompete agreement, they then receive pro bono training and continuing education along with marketing and promotion of their skills. Without signing a noncompete, employers may be less incentivized to provide all those benefits to their physician employers.

Those benefits – and the noncompetes – also vary by specialty, Mr. Glennon said. “In 2021, Washington, DC, banned noncompetes for doctors making less than $250,000. So, most generalists there can walk across the street and get a new job. For specialists like cardiologists or neurosurgeons, however, advanced training and marketing benefits matter, so many of them don’t want to lose noncompetes.”

Still, most physicians hope that the FTC’s ban takes hold. Manan Shah, MD, founder, and chief medical officer at Wyndly, an allergy relief startup practice, is one of them.

“Initially, it might disincentivize hospital systems from helping new physicians build up their name and practice because they might be concerned about a physician leaving and starting anew,” he said. “But in the long term, hospitals require physicians to bring their patients to them for care, so the best hospitals will always compete for the best physicians and support them as they build up their practice.”

Dr. Shah views noncompetes as overly prohibitive to physicians. “Right now, if a physician starts a job at a large hospital system and realizes they want to switch jobs, the noncompete distances are so wide they often have to move cities to continue practicing,” he said. “Picking up and starting over in a new city isn’t an option for everyone and can be especially difficult for someone with a family.”

Where Mr. Glennon argued that a physician leaving a team-based practice might harm patients, Shah takes a different perspective. “Imagine you have a doctor whom you trust and have been working with,” he said. “If something changes at their hospital and they decide to move, you literally have to find a new doctor instead of just being able to see them at another location down the street.”

Another potential burden of the noncompete agreements is that they could possibly squelch doctor’s desires to hang up their own shingle. According to Dr. Shah, the agreements make it so that if a physician wants to work independently, it’s nearly impossible to fly solo. “This is frustrating because independent practices have been shown to be more cost effective and allow patients to build better relationships with their doctors,” he claimed.

A 2016 study from Annals of Family Medicine supports that claim, at least for small general practices. Another study appearing in JAMA concurred. It does point out, however, that the cost equation is nuanced and that benefits of larger systems include more resilience to economic downturns and can provide more specialized care.
 

Will nonprofit hospitals be subject to this noncompete ban?

Further complicating the noncompete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions versus their for-profit peers. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would be exempt from the rule because the FTC Act provides that it can enforce against “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” which are further defined as entities “organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members.”

The fallout from this, said Dr. Shah, is that it “would disproportionately affect health care providers, since many hospital systems are nonprofits. This is disconcerting because we know that many nonprofit systems make large profits anyway and can offer executive teams’ lucrative packages, while the nurses, assistants, and physicians providing the care are generally not well compensated.”

So far, about nine states plus Washington, D.C., have already put noncompete bans in place, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each varies in its specifics. Some, like Indiana, outright ban them, whereas others limit them based on variables like income and industry. “We’re seeing these states responding to local market conditions,” said Darryl Drevna, senior director of regulatory affairs at the American Medical Group Association. “Health care is a hyperlocal market. Depending on the situation, the bans adapt and respond specific to those states.”

Should the federal ban take hold, however, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Some opponents of the federal ban proposal question its authority to begin with, however, Mr. Glennon included. “Many people believe the FTC is overstepping,” he said. “Some people believe that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets.”

Mr. Drevna noted that the FTC has taken an aggressive stance, one that will ultimately wind up in the courts. “How it works out is anyone’s guess,” he said. “Ideally, the FTC will consider the comments and concerns of groups like AMGA and realize that states are best suited to regulate in this area.”

In general, the ban’s supporters are employees/physicians; those who oppose it are their employers. Joining the AMGA in speaking out against the noncompete ban is the American Hospital Association, whereas the American College of Emergency Physicians has come out largely in support of the ban.

Still, doctors like Dr. Shah remain hopeful. “I am optimistic that perhaps my colleagues will not continue to be stuck in overrestrictive noncompetes, but I am also realistic,” he said. “Hospital systems are already coming out strongly against this and they have deep pockets, so I won’t be surprised if it does not come to pass.”

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

On average, physicians reported in the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023 that they worked 50 hours per week. Five specialties, including critical care, cardiology, and general surgery reported working 55 or more hours weekly.

But there’s a small segment of physicians that has bucked the norm. They’ve scaled back their hours to part time, clocking in only 25-30 hours a week.

In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that part-time physician careers were rising. At the time, part-time doctors made up 21% of the physician workforce, up from 13% in 2005.

In a more recent survey from the California Health Care Foundation, only 12% of California physicians said they devoted 20-29 hours a week to patient care. 

Amy Knoup, a senior recruitment adviser with Provider Solutions & Development), has been helping doctors find jobs for over a decade, and she’s noticed a trend.

“Not only are more physicians seeking part-time roles than they were 10 years ago, but more large health care systems are also offering part time or per diem as well,” said Ms. Knoup.
 

Who’s working part time, and why?

Ten years ago, the fastest growing segment of part-timers were men nearing retirement and early- to mid-career women.

Pediatricians led the part-time pack in 2002, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study. At the time, 15% of pediatricians reported their hours as part time. However, the numbers may have increased over the years. For example, a 2021 study by the department of pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, and Boston University found that almost 30% of graduating pediatricians sought part-time work at the end of their training. 

At PS&D, Ms. Knoup said she has noticed a trend toward part-timers among primary care, behavioral health, and outpatient specialties such as endocrinology. “We’re also seeing it with the inpatient side in roles that are more shift based like hospitalists, radiologists, and critical care and ER doctors.”

Another trend Ms. Knoup has noticed is with early-career doctors. “They have a different mindset,” she said. “Younger generations are acutely aware of burnout. They may have experienced it in residency or during the pandemic. They’ve had a taste of that and don’t want to go down that road again, so they’re seeking part-time roles. It’s an intentional choice.” 

Tracey O’Connell, MD, a radiologist, always knew that she wanted to work part time. “I had a baby as a resident, and I was pregnant with my second child as a fellow,” she said. “I was already feeling overwhelmed with medical training and having a family.”

Dr. O’Connell worked in private practice for 16 years on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with no nights or weekends. 

“I still found it completely overwhelming,” she said. “Even though I had more days not working than working, I felt like the demands of medical life had advanced faster than human beings could adapt, and I still feel that way.”

Today she runs a part-time teleradiology practice from home but spends more time on her second career as a life coach. “Most of my clients are physicians looking for more fulfillment and sustainable ways of practicing medicine while maintaining their own identity as human beings, not just the all-consuming identity of ‘doctor,’ ” she said. 

On the other end of the career spectrum is Lois Goodman, MD, an ob.gyn. in her late 70s. After 42 years in a group practice, she started her solo practice at 72, seeing patients 3 days per week. “I’m just happy to be working. That’s a tremendous payoff for me. I need to keep working for my mental health.”
 

How does part-time work affect physician shortages and care delivery?

Reducing clinical effort is one of the strategies physicians use to scale down overload. Still, it’s not viable as a long-term solution, said Christine Sinsky, MD, AMA’s vice president of professional satisfaction and a nationally regarded researcher on physician burnout.

“If all the physicians in a community went from working 100% FTE clinical to 50% FTE clinical, then the people in that community would have half the access to care that they had,” said Dr. Sinsky. “There’s less capacity in the system to care for patients.”

Some could argue, then, that part-time physician work may contribute to physician shortage predictions. An Association of American Medical Colleges report estimates there will be a shortage of 37,800 to 124,000 physicians by 2034.

But physicians working part-time express a contrasting point of view. “I don’t believe that part-time workers are responsible for the health care shortage but rather, a great solution,” said Dr. O’Connell. “Because in order to continue working for a long time rather than quitting when the demands exceed human capacity, working part time is a great compromise to offer a life of more sustainable well-being and longevity as a physician, and still live a wholehearted life.”
 

Pros and cons of being a part-time physician

Pros

Less burnout: The American Medical Association has tracked burnout rates for 22 years. By the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians reported burnout symptoms, compared with 38% the year before. Going part time appears to reduce burnout, suggests a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Better work-life balance: Rachel Miller, MD, an ob.gyn., worked 60-70 hours weekly for 9 years. In 2022, she went to work as an OB hospitalist for a health care system that welcomes part-time clinicians. Since then, she has achieved a better work-life balance, putting in 26-28 hours a week. Dr. Miller now spends more time with her kids and in her additional role as an executive coach to leaders in the medical field. 

More focus: “When I’m at work, I’m 100% mentally in and focused,” said Dr. Miller. “My interactions with patients are different because I’m not burned out. My demeanor and my willingness to connect are stronger.”

Better health: Mehmet Cilingiroglu, MD, with CardioSolution, traded full-time work for part time when health issues and a kidney transplant sidelined his 30-year career in 2018. “Despite my significant health issues, I’ve been able to continue working at a pace that suits me rather than having to retire,” he said. “Part-time physicians can still enjoy patient care, research, innovation, education, and training while balancing that with other areas of life.” 

Errin Weisman, a DO who gave up full-time work in 2016, said cutting back makes her feel healthier, happier, and more energized. “Part-time work helps me to bring my A game each day I work and deliver the best care.” She’s also a life coach encouraging other physicians to find balance in their professional and personal lives.
 

Cons

Cut in pay: Obviously, the No. 1 con is you’ll make less working part time, so adjusting to a salary decrease can be a huge issue, especially if you don’t have other sources of income. Physicians paying off student loans, those caring for children or elderly parents, or those in their prime earning years needing to save for retirement may not be able to go part time.

Diminished career: The chance for promotions or being well known in your field can be diminished, as well as a loss of proficiency if you’re only performing surgery or procedures part time. In some specialties, working part time and not keeping up with (or being able to practice) newer technology developments can harm your career or reputation in the long run.

Missing out: While working part time has many benefits, physicians also experience a wide range of drawbacks. Dr. Goodman, for example, said she misses delivering babies and doing surgeries. Dr. Miller said she gave up some aspects of her specialty, like performing hysterectomies, participating in complex cases, and no longer having an office like she did as a full-time ob.gyn.

Loss of fellowship: Dr. O’Connell said she missed the camaraderie and sense of belonging when she scaled back her hours. “I felt like a fish out of water, that my values didn’t align with the group’s values,” she said. This led to self-doubt, frustrated colleagues, and a reduction in benefits.

Lost esteem: Dr. O’Connell also felt she was expected to work overtime without additional pay and was no longer eligible for bonuses. “I was treated as a team player when I was needed, but not when it came to perks and benefits and insider privilege,” she said. There may be a loss of esteem among colleagues and supervisors.

Overcoming stigma: Because part-time physician work is still not prevalent among colleagues, some may resist the idea, have less respect for it, perceive it as not being serious about your career as a physician, or associate it with being lazy or entitled.

Summing it up

Every physician must weigh the value and drawbacks of part-time work, but the more physicians who go this route, the more part-time medicine gains traction and the more physicians can learn about its values versus its drawbacks.

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

On average, physicians reported in the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023 that they worked 50 hours per week. Five specialties, including critical care, cardiology, and general surgery reported working 55 or more hours weekly.

But there’s a small segment of physicians that has bucked the norm. They’ve scaled back their hours to part time, clocking in only 25-30 hours a week.

In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that part-time physician careers were rising. At the time, part-time doctors made up 21% of the physician workforce, up from 13% in 2005.

In a more recent survey from the California Health Care Foundation, only 12% of California physicians said they devoted 20-29 hours a week to patient care. 

Amy Knoup, a senior recruitment adviser with Provider Solutions & Development), has been helping doctors find jobs for over a decade, and she’s noticed a trend.

“Not only are more physicians seeking part-time roles than they were 10 years ago, but more large health care systems are also offering part time or per diem as well,” said Ms. Knoup.
 

Who’s working part time, and why?

Ten years ago, the fastest growing segment of part-timers were men nearing retirement and early- to mid-career women.

Pediatricians led the part-time pack in 2002, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study. At the time, 15% of pediatricians reported their hours as part time. However, the numbers may have increased over the years. For example, a 2021 study by the department of pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, and Boston University found that almost 30% of graduating pediatricians sought part-time work at the end of their training. 

At PS&D, Ms. Knoup said she has noticed a trend toward part-timers among primary care, behavioral health, and outpatient specialties such as endocrinology. “We’re also seeing it with the inpatient side in roles that are more shift based like hospitalists, radiologists, and critical care and ER doctors.”

Another trend Ms. Knoup has noticed is with early-career doctors. “They have a different mindset,” she said. “Younger generations are acutely aware of burnout. They may have experienced it in residency or during the pandemic. They’ve had a taste of that and don’t want to go down that road again, so they’re seeking part-time roles. It’s an intentional choice.” 

Tracey O’Connell, MD, a radiologist, always knew that she wanted to work part time. “I had a baby as a resident, and I was pregnant with my second child as a fellow,” she said. “I was already feeling overwhelmed with medical training and having a family.”

Dr. O’Connell worked in private practice for 16 years on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with no nights or weekends. 

“I still found it completely overwhelming,” she said. “Even though I had more days not working than working, I felt like the demands of medical life had advanced faster than human beings could adapt, and I still feel that way.”

Today she runs a part-time teleradiology practice from home but spends more time on her second career as a life coach. “Most of my clients are physicians looking for more fulfillment and sustainable ways of practicing medicine while maintaining their own identity as human beings, not just the all-consuming identity of ‘doctor,’ ” she said. 

On the other end of the career spectrum is Lois Goodman, MD, an ob.gyn. in her late 70s. After 42 years in a group practice, she started her solo practice at 72, seeing patients 3 days per week. “I’m just happy to be working. That’s a tremendous payoff for me. I need to keep working for my mental health.”
 

How does part-time work affect physician shortages and care delivery?

Reducing clinical effort is one of the strategies physicians use to scale down overload. Still, it’s not viable as a long-term solution, said Christine Sinsky, MD, AMA’s vice president of professional satisfaction and a nationally regarded researcher on physician burnout.

“If all the physicians in a community went from working 100% FTE clinical to 50% FTE clinical, then the people in that community would have half the access to care that they had,” said Dr. Sinsky. “There’s less capacity in the system to care for patients.”

Some could argue, then, that part-time physician work may contribute to physician shortage predictions. An Association of American Medical Colleges report estimates there will be a shortage of 37,800 to 124,000 physicians by 2034.

But physicians working part-time express a contrasting point of view. “I don’t believe that part-time workers are responsible for the health care shortage but rather, a great solution,” said Dr. O’Connell. “Because in order to continue working for a long time rather than quitting when the demands exceed human capacity, working part time is a great compromise to offer a life of more sustainable well-being and longevity as a physician, and still live a wholehearted life.”
 

Pros and cons of being a part-time physician

Pros

Less burnout: The American Medical Association has tracked burnout rates for 22 years. By the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians reported burnout symptoms, compared with 38% the year before. Going part time appears to reduce burnout, suggests a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Better work-life balance: Rachel Miller, MD, an ob.gyn., worked 60-70 hours weekly for 9 years. In 2022, she went to work as an OB hospitalist for a health care system that welcomes part-time clinicians. Since then, she has achieved a better work-life balance, putting in 26-28 hours a week. Dr. Miller now spends more time with her kids and in her additional role as an executive coach to leaders in the medical field. 

More focus: “When I’m at work, I’m 100% mentally in and focused,” said Dr. Miller. “My interactions with patients are different because I’m not burned out. My demeanor and my willingness to connect are stronger.”

Better health: Mehmet Cilingiroglu, MD, with CardioSolution, traded full-time work for part time when health issues and a kidney transplant sidelined his 30-year career in 2018. “Despite my significant health issues, I’ve been able to continue working at a pace that suits me rather than having to retire,” he said. “Part-time physicians can still enjoy patient care, research, innovation, education, and training while balancing that with other areas of life.” 

Errin Weisman, a DO who gave up full-time work in 2016, said cutting back makes her feel healthier, happier, and more energized. “Part-time work helps me to bring my A game each day I work and deliver the best care.” She’s also a life coach encouraging other physicians to find balance in their professional and personal lives.
 

Cons

Cut in pay: Obviously, the No. 1 con is you’ll make less working part time, so adjusting to a salary decrease can be a huge issue, especially if you don’t have other sources of income. Physicians paying off student loans, those caring for children or elderly parents, or those in their prime earning years needing to save for retirement may not be able to go part time.

Diminished career: The chance for promotions or being well known in your field can be diminished, as well as a loss of proficiency if you’re only performing surgery or procedures part time. In some specialties, working part time and not keeping up with (or being able to practice) newer technology developments can harm your career or reputation in the long run.

Missing out: While working part time has many benefits, physicians also experience a wide range of drawbacks. Dr. Goodman, for example, said she misses delivering babies and doing surgeries. Dr. Miller said she gave up some aspects of her specialty, like performing hysterectomies, participating in complex cases, and no longer having an office like she did as a full-time ob.gyn.

Loss of fellowship: Dr. O’Connell said she missed the camaraderie and sense of belonging when she scaled back her hours. “I felt like a fish out of water, that my values didn’t align with the group’s values,” she said. This led to self-doubt, frustrated colleagues, and a reduction in benefits.

Lost esteem: Dr. O’Connell also felt she was expected to work overtime without additional pay and was no longer eligible for bonuses. “I was treated as a team player when I was needed, but not when it came to perks and benefits and insider privilege,” she said. There may be a loss of esteem among colleagues and supervisors.

Overcoming stigma: Because part-time physician work is still not prevalent among colleagues, some may resist the idea, have less respect for it, perceive it as not being serious about your career as a physician, or associate it with being lazy or entitled.

Summing it up

Every physician must weigh the value and drawbacks of part-time work, but the more physicians who go this route, the more part-time medicine gains traction and the more physicians can learn about its values versus its drawbacks.

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

On average, physicians reported in the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023 that they worked 50 hours per week. Five specialties, including critical care, cardiology, and general surgery reported working 55 or more hours weekly.

But there’s a small segment of physicians that has bucked the norm. They’ve scaled back their hours to part time, clocking in only 25-30 hours a week.

In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that part-time physician careers were rising. At the time, part-time doctors made up 21% of the physician workforce, up from 13% in 2005.

In a more recent survey from the California Health Care Foundation, only 12% of California physicians said they devoted 20-29 hours a week to patient care. 

Amy Knoup, a senior recruitment adviser with Provider Solutions & Development), has been helping doctors find jobs for over a decade, and she’s noticed a trend.

“Not only are more physicians seeking part-time roles than they were 10 years ago, but more large health care systems are also offering part time or per diem as well,” said Ms. Knoup.
 

Who’s working part time, and why?

Ten years ago, the fastest growing segment of part-timers were men nearing retirement and early- to mid-career women.

Pediatricians led the part-time pack in 2002, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study. At the time, 15% of pediatricians reported their hours as part time. However, the numbers may have increased over the years. For example, a 2021 study by the department of pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, and Boston University found that almost 30% of graduating pediatricians sought part-time work at the end of their training. 

At PS&D, Ms. Knoup said she has noticed a trend toward part-timers among primary care, behavioral health, and outpatient specialties such as endocrinology. “We’re also seeing it with the inpatient side in roles that are more shift based like hospitalists, radiologists, and critical care and ER doctors.”

Another trend Ms. Knoup has noticed is with early-career doctors. “They have a different mindset,” she said. “Younger generations are acutely aware of burnout. They may have experienced it in residency or during the pandemic. They’ve had a taste of that and don’t want to go down that road again, so they’re seeking part-time roles. It’s an intentional choice.” 

Tracey O’Connell, MD, a radiologist, always knew that she wanted to work part time. “I had a baby as a resident, and I was pregnant with my second child as a fellow,” she said. “I was already feeling overwhelmed with medical training and having a family.”

Dr. O’Connell worked in private practice for 16 years on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with no nights or weekends. 

“I still found it completely overwhelming,” she said. “Even though I had more days not working than working, I felt like the demands of medical life had advanced faster than human beings could adapt, and I still feel that way.”

Today she runs a part-time teleradiology practice from home but spends more time on her second career as a life coach. “Most of my clients are physicians looking for more fulfillment and sustainable ways of practicing medicine while maintaining their own identity as human beings, not just the all-consuming identity of ‘doctor,’ ” she said. 

On the other end of the career spectrum is Lois Goodman, MD, an ob.gyn. in her late 70s. After 42 years in a group practice, she started her solo practice at 72, seeing patients 3 days per week. “I’m just happy to be working. That’s a tremendous payoff for me. I need to keep working for my mental health.”
 

How does part-time work affect physician shortages and care delivery?

Reducing clinical effort is one of the strategies physicians use to scale down overload. Still, it’s not viable as a long-term solution, said Christine Sinsky, MD, AMA’s vice president of professional satisfaction and a nationally regarded researcher on physician burnout.

“If all the physicians in a community went from working 100% FTE clinical to 50% FTE clinical, then the people in that community would have half the access to care that they had,” said Dr. Sinsky. “There’s less capacity in the system to care for patients.”

Some could argue, then, that part-time physician work may contribute to physician shortage predictions. An Association of American Medical Colleges report estimates there will be a shortage of 37,800 to 124,000 physicians by 2034.

But physicians working part-time express a contrasting point of view. “I don’t believe that part-time workers are responsible for the health care shortage but rather, a great solution,” said Dr. O’Connell. “Because in order to continue working for a long time rather than quitting when the demands exceed human capacity, working part time is a great compromise to offer a life of more sustainable well-being and longevity as a physician, and still live a wholehearted life.”
 

Pros and cons of being a part-time physician

Pros

Less burnout: The American Medical Association has tracked burnout rates for 22 years. By the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians reported burnout symptoms, compared with 38% the year before. Going part time appears to reduce burnout, suggests a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Better work-life balance: Rachel Miller, MD, an ob.gyn., worked 60-70 hours weekly for 9 years. In 2022, she went to work as an OB hospitalist for a health care system that welcomes part-time clinicians. Since then, she has achieved a better work-life balance, putting in 26-28 hours a week. Dr. Miller now spends more time with her kids and in her additional role as an executive coach to leaders in the medical field. 

More focus: “When I’m at work, I’m 100% mentally in and focused,” said Dr. Miller. “My interactions with patients are different because I’m not burned out. My demeanor and my willingness to connect are stronger.”

Better health: Mehmet Cilingiroglu, MD, with CardioSolution, traded full-time work for part time when health issues and a kidney transplant sidelined his 30-year career in 2018. “Despite my significant health issues, I’ve been able to continue working at a pace that suits me rather than having to retire,” he said. “Part-time physicians can still enjoy patient care, research, innovation, education, and training while balancing that with other areas of life.” 

Errin Weisman, a DO who gave up full-time work in 2016, said cutting back makes her feel healthier, happier, and more energized. “Part-time work helps me to bring my A game each day I work and deliver the best care.” She’s also a life coach encouraging other physicians to find balance in their professional and personal lives.
 

Cons

Cut in pay: Obviously, the No. 1 con is you’ll make less working part time, so adjusting to a salary decrease can be a huge issue, especially if you don’t have other sources of income. Physicians paying off student loans, those caring for children or elderly parents, or those in their prime earning years needing to save for retirement may not be able to go part time.

Diminished career: The chance for promotions or being well known in your field can be diminished, as well as a loss of proficiency if you’re only performing surgery or procedures part time. In some specialties, working part time and not keeping up with (or being able to practice) newer technology developments can harm your career or reputation in the long run.

Missing out: While working part time has many benefits, physicians also experience a wide range of drawbacks. Dr. Goodman, for example, said she misses delivering babies and doing surgeries. Dr. Miller said she gave up some aspects of her specialty, like performing hysterectomies, participating in complex cases, and no longer having an office like she did as a full-time ob.gyn.

Loss of fellowship: Dr. O’Connell said she missed the camaraderie and sense of belonging when she scaled back her hours. “I felt like a fish out of water, that my values didn’t align with the group’s values,” she said. This led to self-doubt, frustrated colleagues, and a reduction in benefits.

Lost esteem: Dr. O’Connell also felt she was expected to work overtime without additional pay and was no longer eligible for bonuses. “I was treated as a team player when I was needed, but not when it came to perks and benefits and insider privilege,” she said. There may be a loss of esteem among colleagues and supervisors.

Overcoming stigma: Because part-time physician work is still not prevalent among colleagues, some may resist the idea, have less respect for it, perceive it as not being serious about your career as a physician, or associate it with being lazy or entitled.

Summing it up

Every physician must weigh the value and drawbacks of part-time work, but the more physicians who go this route, the more part-time medicine gains traction and the more physicians can learn about its values versus its drawbacks.

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

WASHINGTON – Congenital diaphragmatic hernia affects many areas of pediatrics. In a trio of posters presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia addressed initial ventilation and infant outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit, prenatal brain immaturity and later cognitive development, and antibiotic use.

Initial ventilation mode shows little impact on NICU outcomes

In one study, K. Taylor Wild, MD, and colleagues investigated whether high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) as an initial mode of ventilation in the delivery room improved gas exchange and neonatal ICU (NICU) outcomes in infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). In 2019, HFOV became standard practice at CHOP.

The researchers reviewed data on infants with severe CDH who were born at CHOP between 2014 and 2022. Of these, 75 were placed on HFOV and 114 on CMV. The mean gestational age at birth in both groups was approximately 38 weeks, and the mean birth weight was approximately 3 kg.

Compared with CMV, use of HFOV in the delivery room was associated with significantly higher pH (7.05 vs. 7.16, P = .03) and significantly lower CO₂ (85.2 vs. 64.5, P = .005). However, after adjusting for CDH severity, no significant differences appeared in length of stay and overall survival to discharge. The higher rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in the HFOV group, compared with the CMV group (48% vs. 29.9%), may reflect more severe disease, the researchers noted.
 

Prenatal brain immaturity associates with developmental delay

In a second study, Sandy Johng, MD, and colleagues found a significant association between prenatal brain immaturity in babies with CDH and developmental scores at age 12 months and older. The researchers reviewed data from a single-center patient registry for 48 infants for whom prenatal neuroimaging results were available. Based on the imaging, a fetal Total Maturation Score (fTMS) was generated and used as a measure of prenatal brain immaturity.

Results from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-III (BSID-III) – a composite of cognitive, motor, and language scores – were available for 26 neonates at ages 12 months and under as well as at 12 months and older.

In a linear regression model, the researchers found a significant association between difference in fTMS and BSID-III composite language scores in infants 12 months and older. After adjusting for ECMO treatment, an increase in fTMS of one unit was associated with a 6.5-point increase in language scores at age 12 months and older (P < .01). No significant differences were observed between fTMS difference and language scores in infants under 12 months, or in cognitive or motor scores at any age, the researchers noted. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the study is the first to show an association between prenatal imaging and neurodevelopmental outcomes for infants with CDH. Results suggest that the risk for neurodevelopmental impairment in this population may start in utero, the researchers concluded.
 

Antibiotic use stays stable

In a third study, Sabrina Flohr, MPH, and colleagues reviewed antibiotic use among infants with CDH who are at increased risk for infection. In many cases, distinguishing between infection and inherent clinical illness is challenging and may lead to unnecessarily high rates of antibiotic use, the researchers noted.

They reviewed data from 381 infants with CDH born at CHOP between January 2013 and November 2022 who were treated and survived in the NICU. Overall, 97.1% of the newborns received antibiotics for a median of 13 days. Nearly two-thirds (63.5%) received antibiotics in the first 72 hours, and 98.1% received them after 72 hours. Ampicillin and gentamicin were the antibiotics used most often in the first 72 hours (approximately 50% for both). After 72 hours, the most commonly used antibiotics were cefazolin (91.6%), vancomycin (67.7%), and cefepime (65.7%).

The results show that antibiotic use among newborns with CDH did not change significantly over time, and the choices of later antibiotics likely reflect perioperative prophylaxis and broad-spectrum treatment, the researchers noted.
 

Studies show larger trends

“These are three interesting studies regarding congenital diaphragmatic hernia from a center that does a high volume of repairs,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

“Each individual case can be consuming, but it is important to look for an aggregate of cases to see the larger trends in practices and outcomes,” said Dr. Joos, who was not involved in any of the studies.

The findings of the ventilation study surprised Dr. Joos. “Although high-frequency oscillatory ventilation improves initial gas exchange in the delivery room, compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, it was not associated with any larger NICU outcome,” he said. “This surprised me because my intuition would be that the HFOV would lead to less barotrauma and therefore better outcomes with the underformed lungs associated with this disorder.”

The imaging study demonstrates the need for more research on the association between CDH and neurologic outcomes, said Dr. Joos.

“Prenatal neuroimaging that shows delayed maturation with congenital diaphragmatic hernia correlates with lower language scores in early childhood, and suggests that this may be a predictor of neurologic outcome independent of the postnatal course,” he said.

Data from the antibiotics study reflect current trends, said Dr. Joos. “Antibiotics use is extremely common during the postnatal course of CDH and surgical repair,” he said. “The choice of antibiotics mirrors what we see in other neonatal conditions with regard to treatment for possible early neonatal sepsis, postsurgical prophylaxis, and later broad-spectrum empiric coverage,” he noted.

“I look forward to more studies to come out of large-volume centers like CHOP or aggregated results from many centers to help figure out best practices for this rare but very complicated and often devastating malformation,” he said.

The three posters received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

WASHINGTON – Congenital diaphragmatic hernia affects many areas of pediatrics. In a trio of posters presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia addressed initial ventilation and infant outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit, prenatal brain immaturity and later cognitive development, and antibiotic use.

Initial ventilation mode shows little impact on NICU outcomes

In one study, K. Taylor Wild, MD, and colleagues investigated whether high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) as an initial mode of ventilation in the delivery room improved gas exchange and neonatal ICU (NICU) outcomes in infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). In 2019, HFOV became standard practice at CHOP.

The researchers reviewed data on infants with severe CDH who were born at CHOP between 2014 and 2022. Of these, 75 were placed on HFOV and 114 on CMV. The mean gestational age at birth in both groups was approximately 38 weeks, and the mean birth weight was approximately 3 kg.

Compared with CMV, use of HFOV in the delivery room was associated with significantly higher pH (7.05 vs. 7.16, P = .03) and significantly lower CO₂ (85.2 vs. 64.5, P = .005). However, after adjusting for CDH severity, no significant differences appeared in length of stay and overall survival to discharge. The higher rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in the HFOV group, compared with the CMV group (48% vs. 29.9%), may reflect more severe disease, the researchers noted.
 

Prenatal brain immaturity associates with developmental delay

In a second study, Sandy Johng, MD, and colleagues found a significant association between prenatal brain immaturity in babies with CDH and developmental scores at age 12 months and older. The researchers reviewed data from a single-center patient registry for 48 infants for whom prenatal neuroimaging results were available. Based on the imaging, a fetal Total Maturation Score (fTMS) was generated and used as a measure of prenatal brain immaturity.

Results from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-III (BSID-III) – a composite of cognitive, motor, and language scores – were available for 26 neonates at ages 12 months and under as well as at 12 months and older.

In a linear regression model, the researchers found a significant association between difference in fTMS and BSID-III composite language scores in infants 12 months and older. After adjusting for ECMO treatment, an increase in fTMS of one unit was associated with a 6.5-point increase in language scores at age 12 months and older (P < .01). No significant differences were observed between fTMS difference and language scores in infants under 12 months, or in cognitive or motor scores at any age, the researchers noted. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the study is the first to show an association between prenatal imaging and neurodevelopmental outcomes for infants with CDH. Results suggest that the risk for neurodevelopmental impairment in this population may start in utero, the researchers concluded.
 

Antibiotic use stays stable

In a third study, Sabrina Flohr, MPH, and colleagues reviewed antibiotic use among infants with CDH who are at increased risk for infection. In many cases, distinguishing between infection and inherent clinical illness is challenging and may lead to unnecessarily high rates of antibiotic use, the researchers noted.

They reviewed data from 381 infants with CDH born at CHOP between January 2013 and November 2022 who were treated and survived in the NICU. Overall, 97.1% of the newborns received antibiotics for a median of 13 days. Nearly two-thirds (63.5%) received antibiotics in the first 72 hours, and 98.1% received them after 72 hours. Ampicillin and gentamicin were the antibiotics used most often in the first 72 hours (approximately 50% for both). After 72 hours, the most commonly used antibiotics were cefazolin (91.6%), vancomycin (67.7%), and cefepime (65.7%).

The results show that antibiotic use among newborns with CDH did not change significantly over time, and the choices of later antibiotics likely reflect perioperative prophylaxis and broad-spectrum treatment, the researchers noted.
 

Studies show larger trends

“These are three interesting studies regarding congenital diaphragmatic hernia from a center that does a high volume of repairs,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

“Each individual case can be consuming, but it is important to look for an aggregate of cases to see the larger trends in practices and outcomes,” said Dr. Joos, who was not involved in any of the studies.

The findings of the ventilation study surprised Dr. Joos. “Although high-frequency oscillatory ventilation improves initial gas exchange in the delivery room, compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, it was not associated with any larger NICU outcome,” he said. “This surprised me because my intuition would be that the HFOV would lead to less barotrauma and therefore better outcomes with the underformed lungs associated with this disorder.”

The imaging study demonstrates the need for more research on the association between CDH and neurologic outcomes, said Dr. Joos.

“Prenatal neuroimaging that shows delayed maturation with congenital diaphragmatic hernia correlates with lower language scores in early childhood, and suggests that this may be a predictor of neurologic outcome independent of the postnatal course,” he said.

Data from the antibiotics study reflect current trends, said Dr. Joos. “Antibiotics use is extremely common during the postnatal course of CDH and surgical repair,” he said. “The choice of antibiotics mirrors what we see in other neonatal conditions with regard to treatment for possible early neonatal sepsis, postsurgical prophylaxis, and later broad-spectrum empiric coverage,” he noted.

“I look forward to more studies to come out of large-volume centers like CHOP or aggregated results from many centers to help figure out best practices for this rare but very complicated and often devastating malformation,” he said.

The three posters received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

WASHINGTON – Congenital diaphragmatic hernia affects many areas of pediatrics. In a trio of posters presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia addressed initial ventilation and infant outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit, prenatal brain immaturity and later cognitive development, and antibiotic use.

Initial ventilation mode shows little impact on NICU outcomes

In one study, K. Taylor Wild, MD, and colleagues investigated whether high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) as an initial mode of ventilation in the delivery room improved gas exchange and neonatal ICU (NICU) outcomes in infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). In 2019, HFOV became standard practice at CHOP.

The researchers reviewed data on infants with severe CDH who were born at CHOP between 2014 and 2022. Of these, 75 were placed on HFOV and 114 on CMV. The mean gestational age at birth in both groups was approximately 38 weeks, and the mean birth weight was approximately 3 kg.

Compared with CMV, use of HFOV in the delivery room was associated with significantly higher pH (7.05 vs. 7.16, P = .03) and significantly lower CO₂ (85.2 vs. 64.5, P = .005). However, after adjusting for CDH severity, no significant differences appeared in length of stay and overall survival to discharge. The higher rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in the HFOV group, compared with the CMV group (48% vs. 29.9%), may reflect more severe disease, the researchers noted.
 

Prenatal brain immaturity associates with developmental delay

In a second study, Sandy Johng, MD, and colleagues found a significant association between prenatal brain immaturity in babies with CDH and developmental scores at age 12 months and older. The researchers reviewed data from a single-center patient registry for 48 infants for whom prenatal neuroimaging results were available. Based on the imaging, a fetal Total Maturation Score (fTMS) was generated and used as a measure of prenatal brain immaturity.

Results from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-III (BSID-III) – a composite of cognitive, motor, and language scores – were available for 26 neonates at ages 12 months and under as well as at 12 months and older.

In a linear regression model, the researchers found a significant association between difference in fTMS and BSID-III composite language scores in infants 12 months and older. After adjusting for ECMO treatment, an increase in fTMS of one unit was associated with a 6.5-point increase in language scores at age 12 months and older (P < .01). No significant differences were observed between fTMS difference and language scores in infants under 12 months, or in cognitive or motor scores at any age, the researchers noted. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the study is the first to show an association between prenatal imaging and neurodevelopmental outcomes for infants with CDH. Results suggest that the risk for neurodevelopmental impairment in this population may start in utero, the researchers concluded.
 

Antibiotic use stays stable

In a third study, Sabrina Flohr, MPH, and colleagues reviewed antibiotic use among infants with CDH who are at increased risk for infection. In many cases, distinguishing between infection and inherent clinical illness is challenging and may lead to unnecessarily high rates of antibiotic use, the researchers noted.

They reviewed data from 381 infants with CDH born at CHOP between January 2013 and November 2022 who were treated and survived in the NICU. Overall, 97.1% of the newborns received antibiotics for a median of 13 days. Nearly two-thirds (63.5%) received antibiotics in the first 72 hours, and 98.1% received them after 72 hours. Ampicillin and gentamicin were the antibiotics used most often in the first 72 hours (approximately 50% for both). After 72 hours, the most commonly used antibiotics were cefazolin (91.6%), vancomycin (67.7%), and cefepime (65.7%).

The results show that antibiotic use among newborns with CDH did not change significantly over time, and the choices of later antibiotics likely reflect perioperative prophylaxis and broad-spectrum treatment, the researchers noted.
 

Studies show larger trends

“These are three interesting studies regarding congenital diaphragmatic hernia from a center that does a high volume of repairs,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

“Each individual case can be consuming, but it is important to look for an aggregate of cases to see the larger trends in practices and outcomes,” said Dr. Joos, who was not involved in any of the studies.

The findings of the ventilation study surprised Dr. Joos. “Although high-frequency oscillatory ventilation improves initial gas exchange in the delivery room, compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, it was not associated with any larger NICU outcome,” he said. “This surprised me because my intuition would be that the HFOV would lead to less barotrauma and therefore better outcomes with the underformed lungs associated with this disorder.”

The imaging study demonstrates the need for more research on the association between CDH and neurologic outcomes, said Dr. Joos.

“Prenatal neuroimaging that shows delayed maturation with congenital diaphragmatic hernia correlates with lower language scores in early childhood, and suggests that this may be a predictor of neurologic outcome independent of the postnatal course,” he said.

Data from the antibiotics study reflect current trends, said Dr. Joos. “Antibiotics use is extremely common during the postnatal course of CDH and surgical repair,” he said. “The choice of antibiotics mirrors what we see in other neonatal conditions with regard to treatment for possible early neonatal sepsis, postsurgical prophylaxis, and later broad-spectrum empiric coverage,” he noted.

“I look forward to more studies to come out of large-volume centers like CHOP or aggregated results from many centers to help figure out best practices for this rare but very complicated and often devastating malformation,” he said.

The three posters received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.