OBG Management

“EFFECTIVE TREATMENT OF RECURRENT BACTERIAL VAGINOSIS”
ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JULY 2017)

Appreciates treatment options for recurrent BV

I thank Dr. Barbieri for his editorial on effective treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis (BV). I practice only outpatient gynecology, and recurrent BV is the most frustrating condition I have to deal with. Now I have 3 treatment options in my armamentarium for taking care of patients. I clipped the article pages from OBG Management and am keeping them available for easy access when needed.

I have a related question: I see trichomonal vaginitis rarely, maybe 1 to 2 cases in a year. What do you think the reason is?

Vimal Goyle, MD
New York, New York

Beyond BV: Candidiasis and diabetes medications

Thank you for addressing the recurrent BV problem. After many years of throwing antibiotics at this problem I have been underwhelmed. Patients do not want to keep chasing their tails between BV and yeast. I have been suggesting that patients place plain yogurt containing Lactobacillus in a tampon applicator and apply it to the vagina weekly at night, after the original “overgrowth” has been treated, to return the “good bacteria” to the vagina. This avoids overuse of antibiotics (an impending epidemic of resistant organisms), boric acid (a dangerous pill to have around toddlers), and the expense that comes with multiple visits and multiple courses of antibiotics. I believe that in Canada a vaginal ovule with vitamin C and probiotics is available (something to ponder).

Another problem is recurrent yeast infections. We are seeing that many new diabetes medications are increasing the clearance of glucose and are causing severe and intractable Candida vulvovaginitis. In addition, I would like to know the best topical treatments and skin care for yeast in the folds of the panniculus in the morbidly obese. Unfortunately, these patients often have poor or no insurance and therefore cannot afford the cost of many effective remedies.

John Lewis, MD
Bedford, Massachusetts

Another treatment protocol for BV

For recurrent BV, I treat with standard metronidazole 500 mg orally twice daily for 7 days, then immediately start boric acid suppositories for 3 days in a row followed by 1 weekly for 6 weeks, and that usually takes care of it. However, a few caveats: I instruct patients to keep a supply of boric acid suppositories on hand, and if they start to experience symptoms again, to repeat the 3-day, then weekly-for-6 weeks regimen, so essentially they can manage a recurrence themselves.

For patients who come in thinking they have a recurrent yeast infection or BV, which was initially treated elsewhere, I culture for Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma. I often find that one of those organisms is responsible for the infection, requiring completely different treatment.

I also frequently check the vaginal pH, because patients like to see a visual on what I am talking about.

Rebecca Levy-Gantt, DO
Napa, California

Clindamycin appears superior for BV recurrence prevention

In my practice for the past number of years I have been treating BV with clindamycin vaginal cream instead of metronidazole. I have found that the number of women returning with recurrent BV has dropped dramatically. Furthermore, since switching medications, I cannot recall the last time someone required a maintenance dosing regimen. Although anecdotal, the difference between metronidazole and clindamycin treatment seems striking to me.

Daniel N. Sacks, MD
West Palm Beach, Florida

Uses BV regimens in stepwise fashion

To answer Dr. Barbieri’s instant poll question, my preference for treating BV is to start off with Regimen 1 (metronidazole treatment followed by twice weekly vaginal metronidazole for 6 months), as described in his editorial. If problem reports resolve but recur at a later date, then I use Regimen 2 (metronidazole treatment plus 21 days of boric acid vaginal capsules followed by twice weekly vaginal metronidazole for 6 months). I am aware of Regimen 3 (single-dose oral metronidazole plus fluconazole followed by once-monthly metronidazole and fluconazole) but rarely use it.

Carole W. Campbell, DNP, CNM
Gadsden, Alabama

“EFFECTIVE TREATMENT OF RECURRENT BACTERIAL VAGINOSIS”
ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JULY 2017)

Appreciates treatment options for recurrent BV

I thank Dr. Barbieri for his editorial on effective treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis (BV). I practice only outpatient gynecology, and recurrent BV is the most frustrating condition I have to deal with. Now I have 3 treatment options in my armamentarium for taking care of patients. I clipped the article pages from OBG Management and am keeping them available for easy access when needed.

I have a related question: I see trichomonal vaginitis rarely, maybe 1 to 2 cases in a year. What do you think the reason is?

Vimal Goyle, MD
New York, New York

Beyond BV: Candidiasis and diabetes medications

Thank you for addressing the recurrent BV problem. After many years of throwing antibiotics at this problem I have been underwhelmed. Patients do not want to keep chasing their tails between BV and yeast. I have been suggesting that patients place plain yogurt containing Lactobacillus in a tampon applicator and apply it to the vagina weekly at night, after the original “overgrowth” has been treated, to return the “good bacteria” to the vagina. This avoids overuse of antibiotics (an impending epidemic of resistant organisms), boric acid (a dangerous pill to have around toddlers), and the expense that comes with multiple visits and multiple courses of antibiotics. I believe that in Canada a vaginal ovule with vitamin C and probiotics is available (something to ponder).

Another problem is recurrent yeast infections. We are seeing that many new diabetes medications are increasing the clearance of glucose and are causing severe and intractable Candida vulvovaginitis. In addition, I would like to know the best topical treatments and skin care for yeast in the folds of the panniculus in the morbidly obese. Unfortunately, these patients often have poor or no insurance and therefore cannot afford the cost of many effective remedies.

John Lewis, MD
Bedford, Massachusetts

Another treatment protocol for BV

For recurrent BV, I treat with standard metronidazole 500 mg orally twice daily for 7 days, then immediately start boric acid suppositories for 3 days in a row followed by 1 weekly for 6 weeks, and that usually takes care of it. However, a few caveats: I instruct patients to keep a supply of boric acid suppositories on hand, and if they start to experience symptoms again, to repeat the 3-day, then weekly-for-6 weeks regimen, so essentially they can manage a recurrence themselves.

For patients who come in thinking they have a recurrent yeast infection or BV, which was initially treated elsewhere, I culture for Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma. I often find that one of those organisms is responsible for the infection, requiring completely different treatment.

I also frequently check the vaginal pH, because patients like to see a visual on what I am talking about.

Rebecca Levy-Gantt, DO
Napa, California

Clindamycin appears superior for BV recurrence prevention

In my practice for the past number of years I have been treating BV with clindamycin vaginal cream instead of metronidazole. I have found that the number of women returning with recurrent BV has dropped dramatically. Furthermore, since switching medications, I cannot recall the last time someone required a maintenance dosing regimen. Although anecdotal, the difference between metronidazole and clindamycin treatment seems striking to me.

Daniel N. Sacks, MD
West Palm Beach, Florida

Uses BV regimens in stepwise fashion

To answer Dr. Barbieri’s instant poll question, my preference for treating BV is to start off with Regimen 1 (metronidazole treatment followed by twice weekly vaginal metronidazole for 6 months), as described in his editorial. If problem reports resolve but recur at a later date, then I use Regimen 2 (metronidazole treatment plus 21 days of boric acid vaginal capsules followed by twice weekly vaginal metronidazole for 6 months). I am aware of Regimen 3 (single-dose oral metronidazole plus fluconazole followed by once-monthly metronidazole and fluconazole) but rarely use it.

Carole W. Campbell, DNP, CNM
Gadsden, Alabama

“EFFECTIVE TREATMENT OF RECURRENT BACTERIAL VAGINOSIS”
ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; JULY 2017)

Appreciates treatment options for recurrent BV

I thank Dr. Barbieri for his editorial on effective treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis (BV). I practice only outpatient gynecology, and recurrent BV is the most frustrating condition I have to deal with. Now I have 3 treatment options in my armamentarium for taking care of patients. I clipped the article pages from OBG Management and am keeping them available for easy access when needed.

I have a related question: I see trichomonal vaginitis rarely, maybe 1 to 2 cases in a year. What do you think the reason is?

Vimal Goyle, MD
New York, New York

Beyond BV: Candidiasis and diabetes medications

Thank you for addressing the recurrent BV problem. After many years of throwing antibiotics at this problem I have been underwhelmed. Patients do not want to keep chasing their tails between BV and yeast. I have been suggesting that patients place plain yogurt containing Lactobacillus in a tampon applicator and apply it to the vagina weekly at night, after the original “overgrowth” has been treated, to return the “good bacteria” to the vagina. This avoids overuse of antibiotics (an impending epidemic of resistant organisms), boric acid (a dangerous pill to have around toddlers), and the expense that comes with multiple visits and multiple courses of antibiotics. I believe that in Canada a vaginal ovule with vitamin C and probiotics is available (something to ponder).

Another problem is recurrent yeast infections. We are seeing that many new diabetes medications are increasing the clearance of glucose and are causing severe and intractable Candida vulvovaginitis. In addition, I would like to know the best topical treatments and skin care for yeast in the folds of the panniculus in the morbidly obese. Unfortunately, these patients often have poor or no insurance and therefore cannot afford the cost of many effective remedies.

John Lewis, MD
Bedford, Massachusetts

Another treatment protocol for BV

For recurrent BV, I treat with standard metronidazole 500 mg orally twice daily for 7 days, then immediately start boric acid suppositories for 3 days in a row followed by 1 weekly for 6 weeks, and that usually takes care of it. However, a few caveats: I instruct patients to keep a supply of boric acid suppositories on hand, and if they start to experience symptoms again, to repeat the 3-day, then weekly-for-6 weeks regimen, so essentially they can manage a recurrence themselves.

For patients who come in thinking they have a recurrent yeast infection or BV, which was initially treated elsewhere, I culture for Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma. I often find that one of those organisms is responsible for the infection, requiring completely different treatment.

I also frequently check the vaginal pH, because patients like to see a visual on what I am talking about.

Rebecca Levy-Gantt, DO
Napa, California

Clindamycin appears superior for BV recurrence prevention

In my practice for the past number of years I have been treating BV with clindamycin vaginal cream instead of metronidazole. I have found that the number of women returning with recurrent BV has dropped dramatically. Furthermore, since switching medications, I cannot recall the last time someone required a maintenance dosing regimen. Although anecdotal, the difference between metronidazole and clindamycin treatment seems striking to me.

Daniel N. Sacks, MD
West Palm Beach, Florida

Uses BV regimens in stepwise fashion

To answer Dr. Barbieri’s instant poll question, my preference for treating BV is to start off with Regimen 1 (metronidazole treatment followed by twice weekly vaginal metronidazole for 6 months), as described in his editorial. If problem reports resolve but recur at a later date, then I use Regimen 2 (metronidazole treatment plus 21 days of boric acid vaginal capsules followed by twice weekly vaginal metronidazole for 6 months). I am aware of Regimen 3 (single-dose oral metronidazole plus fluconazole followed by once-monthly metronidazole and fluconazole) but rarely use it.

Carole W. Campbell, DNP, CNM
Gadsden, Alabama

“CARING FOR THE TRANSGENDER PATIENT: THE ROLE OF THE GYNECOLOGIST”
CECILE A. UNGER, MD, MPH (JUNE 2017)

Calls for respect for transgender patients

We must keep in mind that transgender males are still sexually anatomically female, with all of the medical needs of any other female. Transgender is merely a social construct. We must treat them with kindness and respect.

Laurence Burns, DO
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“CARING FOR THE TRANSGENDER PATIENT: THE ROLE OF THE GYNECOLOGIST”
CECILE A. UNGER, MD, MPH (JUNE 2017)

Calls for respect for transgender patients

We must keep in mind that transgender males are still sexually anatomically female, with all of the medical needs of any other female. Transgender is merely a social construct. We must treat them with kindness and respect.

Laurence Burns, DO
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“CARING FOR THE TRANSGENDER PATIENT: THE ROLE OF THE GYNECOLOGIST”
CECILE A. UNGER, MD, MPH (JUNE 2017)

Calls for respect for transgender patients

We must keep in mind that transgender males are still sexually anatomically female, with all of the medical needs of any other female. Transgender is merely a social construct. We must treat them with kindness and respect.

Laurence Burns, DO
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Suture found in bladder after hysterectomy

A 40-year-old woman underwent a hysterectomy due to dysmenorrhea. Despite the presence of blood in the catheter bag after the procedure, the surgeon did not consult a urologist or perform a cystoscopy. Later, when the patient reported urinary retention, urinary leakage, and dyspareunia, a urologist performed a cystoscopy and discovered a suture in the bladder wall and a vesicovaginal fistula.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

During the procedure, the gynecologic surgeon inadvertently placed a suture in the bladder wall. The presence of blood in the Foley catheter required an immediate urology consult and cystoscopy, during which the presence of the errant suture would have been discovered. Repair surgery then would have prevented subsequent injuries.

PHYSICIANS' DEFENSE:

The surgeon used reasonable judgment, as there were explanations for the blood in the catheter due to a difficult catheter placement and lysis of bladder adhesions.

VERDICT:

A Michigan defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
How to avoid intestinal and urinary tract injuries during gynecologic laparoscopy

Bowel injury during tubal ligation

A 40-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic tubal ligation using cauterization at an outpatient surgery center. Two hours after the procedure, her BP began to drop. She was promptly transferred to a hospital and underwent emergency surgery that revealed a bowel injury. Part of the patient’s small intestine was resected.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

The gynecologic surgeon committed a medical error when she injured the bowel during trocar insertion.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

The bowel injury was a known complication of the surgery.

VERDICT:

A Louisiana defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
How to avoid major vessel injury during gynecologic laparoscopy

Colon injured twice: $1M settlement

A 59-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic total hysterectomy and salpingectomy. Her history included an umbilical hernia repair.

Two days after surgery, the patient experienced abdominal pain, chills, abdominal distention, and a foul-smelling discharge from her umbilical suture site. She went to the emergency department where a computed tomography scan revealed 2 injuries in the bowel. Emergency laparotomy included transverse colon resection and right colon colostomy with Hartmann’s pouch. She wore an ostomy bag for 8 months. She developed an infection because of the colostomy and also required operations to resolve a bowel obstruction and repair incisional hernias.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

The gynecologic surgeon was negligent when performing the surgery. When he inserted the Veress needle and trocar through the patient’s umbilicus, the transverse colon was injured twice with a 3-cm anterior tear and a 1-cm posterior laceration. The injuries were not discovered during the procedure. He should have been more careful knowing that she had undergone prior umbilical hernia surgery.

PHYSICIANS' DEFENSE:

The case was settled before the trial began.

VERDICT:

A $1 million Virginia settlement was reached.

Chronic pain after sling procedure: $2M verdict

A 63-year-old woman reported urinary incontinence to her gynecologist, who performed a transobturator midurethral sling procedure. After surgery, the patient experienced pelvic pain, urinary urgency, intermittent incontinence, and dyspareunia. She returned to the gynecologist twice. He performed a cystoscopy after the second visit but found nothing wrong.

The patient sought a second opinion. A gynecologic surgeon found a large mass in the patient’s bladder consisting of a crystallized piece of tape that had been used to secure the sling supporting the bladder. The mass was removed and the patient reported that, although surgery alleviated many symptoms, she was not pain-free.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

The gynecologist negligently inserted the end of the sling through one wall of her bladder and failed to detect the malpositioning during surgery or later. He failed to diagnose and treat bladder stones that resulted from the sling’s malpositioning. He failed to perform a cystoscopy when she first reported symptoms and improperly performed cystoscopy at the second visit.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

There was no negligence on the part of the gynecologist. The patient did not report ongoing symptoms until 1 year after sling insertion.

VERDICT:

A $2 million Pennsylvania verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Suture found in bladder after hysterectomy

A 40-year-old woman underwent a hysterectomy due to dysmenorrhea. Despite the presence of blood in the catheter bag after the procedure, the surgeon did not consult a urologist or perform a cystoscopy. Later, when the patient reported urinary retention, urinary leakage, and dyspareunia, a urologist performed a cystoscopy and discovered a suture in the bladder wall and a vesicovaginal fistula.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

During the procedure, the gynecologic surgeon inadvertently placed a suture in the bladder wall. The presence of blood in the Foley catheter required an immediate urology consult and cystoscopy, during which the presence of the errant suture would have been discovered. Repair surgery then would have prevented subsequent injuries.

PHYSICIANS' DEFENSE:

The surgeon used reasonable judgment, as there were explanations for the blood in the catheter due to a difficult catheter placement and lysis of bladder adhesions.

VERDICT:

A Michigan defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
How to avoid intestinal and urinary tract injuries during gynecologic laparoscopy

Bowel injury during tubal ligation

A 40-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic tubal ligation using cauterization at an outpatient surgery center. Two hours after the procedure, her BP began to drop. She was promptly transferred to a hospital and underwent emergency surgery that revealed a bowel injury. Part of the patient’s small intestine was resected.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

The gynecologic surgeon committed a medical error when she injured the bowel during trocar insertion.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

The bowel injury was a known complication of the surgery.

VERDICT:

A Louisiana defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
How to avoid major vessel injury during gynecologic laparoscopy

Colon injured twice: $1M settlement

A 59-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic total hysterectomy and salpingectomy. Her history included an umbilical hernia repair.

Two days after surgery, the patient experienced abdominal pain, chills, abdominal distention, and a foul-smelling discharge from her umbilical suture site. She went to the emergency department where a computed tomography scan revealed 2 injuries in the bowel. Emergency laparotomy included transverse colon resection and right colon colostomy with Hartmann’s pouch. She wore an ostomy bag for 8 months. She developed an infection because of the colostomy and also required operations to resolve a bowel obstruction and repair incisional hernias.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

The gynecologic surgeon was negligent when performing the surgery. When he inserted the Veress needle and trocar through the patient’s umbilicus, the transverse colon was injured twice with a 3-cm anterior tear and a 1-cm posterior laceration. The injuries were not discovered during the procedure. He should have been more careful knowing that she had undergone prior umbilical hernia surgery.

PHYSICIANS' DEFENSE:

The case was settled before the trial began.

VERDICT:

A $1 million Virginia settlement was reached.

Chronic pain after sling procedure: $2M verdict

A 63-year-old woman reported urinary incontinence to her gynecologist, who performed a transobturator midurethral sling procedure. After surgery, the patient experienced pelvic pain, urinary urgency, intermittent incontinence, and dyspareunia. She returned to the gynecologist twice. He performed a cystoscopy after the second visit but found nothing wrong.

The patient sought a second opinion. A gynecologic surgeon found a large mass in the patient’s bladder consisting of a crystallized piece of tape that had been used to secure the sling supporting the bladder. The mass was removed and the patient reported that, although surgery alleviated many symptoms, she was not pain-free.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

The gynecologist negligently inserted the end of the sling through one wall of her bladder and failed to detect the malpositioning during surgery or later. He failed to diagnose and treat bladder stones that resulted from the sling’s malpositioning. He failed to perform a cystoscopy when she first reported symptoms and improperly performed cystoscopy at the second visit.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

There was no negligence on the part of the gynecologist. The patient did not report ongoing symptoms until 1 year after sling insertion.

VERDICT:

A $2 million Pennsylvania verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Suture found in bladder after hysterectomy

A 40-year-old woman underwent a hysterectomy due to dysmenorrhea. Despite the presence of blood in the catheter bag after the procedure, the surgeon did not consult a urologist or perform a cystoscopy. Later, when the patient reported urinary retention, urinary leakage, and dyspareunia, a urologist performed a cystoscopy and discovered a suture in the bladder wall and a vesicovaginal fistula.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

During the procedure, the gynecologic surgeon inadvertently placed a suture in the bladder wall. The presence of blood in the Foley catheter required an immediate urology consult and cystoscopy, during which the presence of the errant suture would have been discovered. Repair surgery then would have prevented subsequent injuries.

PHYSICIANS' DEFENSE:

The surgeon used reasonable judgment, as there were explanations for the blood in the catheter due to a difficult catheter placement and lysis of bladder adhesions.

VERDICT:

A Michigan defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
How to avoid intestinal and urinary tract injuries during gynecologic laparoscopy

Bowel injury during tubal ligation

A 40-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic tubal ligation using cauterization at an outpatient surgery center. Two hours after the procedure, her BP began to drop. She was promptly transferred to a hospital and underwent emergency surgery that revealed a bowel injury. Part of the patient’s small intestine was resected.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

The gynecologic surgeon committed a medical error when she injured the bowel during trocar insertion.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

The bowel injury was a known complication of the surgery.

VERDICT:

A Louisiana defense verdict was returned.

Related article:
How to avoid major vessel injury during gynecologic laparoscopy

Colon injured twice: $1M settlement

A 59-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic total hysterectomy and salpingectomy. Her history included an umbilical hernia repair.

Two days after surgery, the patient experienced abdominal pain, chills, abdominal distention, and a foul-smelling discharge from her umbilical suture site. She went to the emergency department where a computed tomography scan revealed 2 injuries in the bowel. Emergency laparotomy included transverse colon resection and right colon colostomy with Hartmann’s pouch. She wore an ostomy bag for 8 months. She developed an infection because of the colostomy and also required operations to resolve a bowel obstruction and repair incisional hernias.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

The gynecologic surgeon was negligent when performing the surgery. When he inserted the Veress needle and trocar through the patient’s umbilicus, the transverse colon was injured twice with a 3-cm anterior tear and a 1-cm posterior laceration. The injuries were not discovered during the procedure. He should have been more careful knowing that she had undergone prior umbilical hernia surgery.

PHYSICIANS' DEFENSE:

The case was settled before the trial began.

VERDICT:

A $1 million Virginia settlement was reached.

Chronic pain after sling procedure: $2M verdict

A 63-year-old woman reported urinary incontinence to her gynecologist, who performed a transobturator midurethral sling procedure. After surgery, the patient experienced pelvic pain, urinary urgency, intermittent incontinence, and dyspareunia. She returned to the gynecologist twice. He performed a cystoscopy after the second visit but found nothing wrong.

The patient sought a second opinion. A gynecologic surgeon found a large mass in the patient’s bladder consisting of a crystallized piece of tape that had been used to secure the sling supporting the bladder. The mass was removed and the patient reported that, although surgery alleviated many symptoms, she was not pain-free.

PATIENTS' CLAIM:

The gynecologist negligently inserted the end of the sling through one wall of her bladder and failed to detect the malpositioning during surgery or later. He failed to diagnose and treat bladder stones that resulted from the sling’s malpositioning. He failed to perform a cystoscopy when she first reported symptoms and improperly performed cystoscopy at the second visit.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

There was no negligence on the part of the gynecologist. The patient did not report ongoing symptoms until 1 year after sling insertion.

VERDICT:

A $2 million Pennsylvania verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Premature birth after preeclampsia: $23.1M verdict

When a woman saw her ObGyn on August 16 at 24 weeks’ gestation, test results showed proteinuria and high blood pressure (BP). The following day, she was hospitalized for a 24-hour urine test and BP evaluation supervised by an on-call ObGyn and her ObGyn. Test results confirmed preeclampsia. She was released from the hospital. A few days later, she was found to have continued high BP and increased proteinuria, and restricted fetal growth was detected. On August 29 at 26 weeks’ gestation, the baby girl was born with severe cystic periventricular leukomalacia by emergency cesarean delivery. She cannot perform basic tasks and will need 24-hour care for the rest of her life.

PARENTS' CLAIM:

The hospital staff and 2 ObGyns failed to timely diagnose and treat preeclampsia. The treating ObGyn neither prescribed medication to treat preeclampsia nor administered antenatal corticosteroids to enhance fetal lung and brain development, both of which should have been started on August 17. Hospital health care providers failed to transfer her to a Level III facility equipped to handle a premature birth of less than 33 weeks’ gestation.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

The hospital and ObGyn denied negligence.

VERDICT:

Prior to trial, the mother settled with the on-call ObGyn for an undisclosed amount. A $23.15 million Florida verdict was returned, apportioning 70% liability to the treating ObGyn and 30% to the hospital.

Related article:
For the management of labor, patience is a virtue

Shoulder dystocia, paralysis: $950,000 settlement

During delivery, shoulder dystocia was encountered. The ObGyn used maneuvers to release the shoulder and completed the delivery. The child has a brachial plexus injury. Despite nerve graft surgery, her right arm, shoulder, and hand are paralyzed.

PARENTS' CLAIM:

The ObGyn failed to properly manage the delivery. Shoulder dystocia had been encountered during the delivery of a sibling, but the ObGyn failed to communicate the need for cesarean delivery in future pregnancies.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

There was no negligence. The case settled during trial.

VERDICT:

A $950,000 California settlement was reached with the hospital and ObGyn.

Related article:
Shoulder dystocia: Taking the fear out of management

Child has brachial plexus injury

A mother was admitted to the hospital shortly after her membranes broke. Meconium was detected but the fetal heart-rate (FHR) monitor results were normal. About 15 minutes after admission, she was seen by an attending ObGyn, who started oxytocin to induce labor. FHR monitoring results were acceptable throughout the day, and by midafternoon, the mother was ready to deliver. A fetal baseline heart rate of less than 110 bpm was detected as staff prepared for the delivery. Less than an hour later, the baby’s head crowned and the ObGyn quickly identified shoulder dystocia. Nurses repositioned the mother, the baby rotated, and was delivered. Apgar scores were normal despite a shoulder injury.

PARENTS' CLAIM:

The ObGyn caused the injury by using excessive force during delivery. After attempting gentle traction, the ObGyn should have changed strategies.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

The ObGyn asserted that she used gentle traction that prevented twisting or stretching the baby’s nerves. The birth was normal and she followed all protocols, resulting in the birth of a cognitively intact baby, as evidenced by the child’s Apgar scores. The baby was large and labor and delivery went very quickly, both factors that could have led to the baby’s injuries. The ObGyn’s actions did not cause the injuries.

VERDICT:

A Pennsylvania defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Premature birth after preeclampsia: $23.1M verdict

When a woman saw her ObGyn on August 16 at 24 weeks’ gestation, test results showed proteinuria and high blood pressure (BP). The following day, she was hospitalized for a 24-hour urine test and BP evaluation supervised by an on-call ObGyn and her ObGyn. Test results confirmed preeclampsia. She was released from the hospital. A few days later, she was found to have continued high BP and increased proteinuria, and restricted fetal growth was detected. On August 29 at 26 weeks’ gestation, the baby girl was born with severe cystic periventricular leukomalacia by emergency cesarean delivery. She cannot perform basic tasks and will need 24-hour care for the rest of her life.

PARENTS' CLAIM:

The hospital staff and 2 ObGyns failed to timely diagnose and treat preeclampsia. The treating ObGyn neither prescribed medication to treat preeclampsia nor administered antenatal corticosteroids to enhance fetal lung and brain development, both of which should have been started on August 17. Hospital health care providers failed to transfer her to a Level III facility equipped to handle a premature birth of less than 33 weeks’ gestation.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

The hospital and ObGyn denied negligence.

VERDICT:

Prior to trial, the mother settled with the on-call ObGyn for an undisclosed amount. A $23.15 million Florida verdict was returned, apportioning 70% liability to the treating ObGyn and 30% to the hospital.

Related article:
For the management of labor, patience is a virtue

Shoulder dystocia, paralysis: $950,000 settlement

During delivery, shoulder dystocia was encountered. The ObGyn used maneuvers to release the shoulder and completed the delivery. The child has a brachial plexus injury. Despite nerve graft surgery, her right arm, shoulder, and hand are paralyzed.

PARENTS' CLAIM:

The ObGyn failed to properly manage the delivery. Shoulder dystocia had been encountered during the delivery of a sibling, but the ObGyn failed to communicate the need for cesarean delivery in future pregnancies.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

There was no negligence. The case settled during trial.

VERDICT:

A $950,000 California settlement was reached with the hospital and ObGyn.

Related article:
Shoulder dystocia: Taking the fear out of management

Child has brachial plexus injury

A mother was admitted to the hospital shortly after her membranes broke. Meconium was detected but the fetal heart-rate (FHR) monitor results were normal. About 15 minutes after admission, she was seen by an attending ObGyn, who started oxytocin to induce labor. FHR monitoring results were acceptable throughout the day, and by midafternoon, the mother was ready to deliver. A fetal baseline heart rate of less than 110 bpm was detected as staff prepared for the delivery. Less than an hour later, the baby’s head crowned and the ObGyn quickly identified shoulder dystocia. Nurses repositioned the mother, the baby rotated, and was delivered. Apgar scores were normal despite a shoulder injury.

PARENTS' CLAIM:

The ObGyn caused the injury by using excessive force during delivery. After attempting gentle traction, the ObGyn should have changed strategies.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

The ObGyn asserted that she used gentle traction that prevented twisting or stretching the baby’s nerves. The birth was normal and she followed all protocols, resulting in the birth of a cognitively intact baby, as evidenced by the child’s Apgar scores. The baby was large and labor and delivery went very quickly, both factors that could have led to the baby’s injuries. The ObGyn’s actions did not cause the injuries.

VERDICT:

A Pennsylvania defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Premature birth after preeclampsia: $23.1M verdict

When a woman saw her ObGyn on August 16 at 24 weeks’ gestation, test results showed proteinuria and high blood pressure (BP). The following day, she was hospitalized for a 24-hour urine test and BP evaluation supervised by an on-call ObGyn and her ObGyn. Test results confirmed preeclampsia. She was released from the hospital. A few days later, she was found to have continued high BP and increased proteinuria, and restricted fetal growth was detected. On August 29 at 26 weeks’ gestation, the baby girl was born with severe cystic periventricular leukomalacia by emergency cesarean delivery. She cannot perform basic tasks and will need 24-hour care for the rest of her life.

PARENTS' CLAIM:

The hospital staff and 2 ObGyns failed to timely diagnose and treat preeclampsia. The treating ObGyn neither prescribed medication to treat preeclampsia nor administered antenatal corticosteroids to enhance fetal lung and brain development, both of which should have been started on August 17. Hospital health care providers failed to transfer her to a Level III facility equipped to handle a premature birth of less than 33 weeks’ gestation.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

The hospital and ObGyn denied negligence.

VERDICT:

Prior to trial, the mother settled with the on-call ObGyn for an undisclosed amount. A $23.15 million Florida verdict was returned, apportioning 70% liability to the treating ObGyn and 30% to the hospital.

Related article:
For the management of labor, patience is a virtue

Shoulder dystocia, paralysis: $950,000 settlement

During delivery, shoulder dystocia was encountered. The ObGyn used maneuvers to release the shoulder and completed the delivery. The child has a brachial plexus injury. Despite nerve graft surgery, her right arm, shoulder, and hand are paralyzed.

PARENTS' CLAIM:

The ObGyn failed to properly manage the delivery. Shoulder dystocia had been encountered during the delivery of a sibling, but the ObGyn failed to communicate the need for cesarean delivery in future pregnancies.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

There was no negligence. The case settled during trial.

VERDICT:

A $950,000 California settlement was reached with the hospital and ObGyn.

Related article:
Shoulder dystocia: Taking the fear out of management

Child has brachial plexus injury

A mother was admitted to the hospital shortly after her membranes broke. Meconium was detected but the fetal heart-rate (FHR) monitor results were normal. About 15 minutes after admission, she was seen by an attending ObGyn, who started oxytocin to induce labor. FHR monitoring results were acceptable throughout the day, and by midafternoon, the mother was ready to deliver. A fetal baseline heart rate of less than 110 bpm was detected as staff prepared for the delivery. Less than an hour later, the baby’s head crowned and the ObGyn quickly identified shoulder dystocia. Nurses repositioned the mother, the baby rotated, and was delivered. Apgar scores were normal despite a shoulder injury.

PARENTS' CLAIM:

The ObGyn caused the injury by using excessive force during delivery. After attempting gentle traction, the ObGyn should have changed strategies.

DEFENDANTS' DEFENSE:

The ObGyn asserted that she used gentle traction that prevented twisting or stretching the baby’s nerves. The birth was normal and she followed all protocols, resulting in the birth of a cognitively intact baby, as evidenced by the child’s Apgar scores. The baby was large and labor and delivery went very quickly, both factors that could have led to the baby’s injuries. The ObGyn’s actions did not cause the injuries.

VERDICT:

A Pennsylvania defense verdict was returned.

These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

COLPOSCOPY BRUSHES SHOW BETTER TISSUE YIELD

A new study from the University of California–Riverside and Aurora Diagnostics in Palm Beach, Florida, evaluated 10,000 colposcopy workups and found that the disposable Histologics Soft-ECC and SoftBiopsy curettes were superior in tissue yield and offered a lower risk of cross contamination than metal curettes.

The Soft-ECC Endocervical Curette Tissue Collection System is used to biopsy the endocervical canal during colposcopy or evaluation for abnormal uterine bleeding. It gently frictionally abrades and collects transepithelial tissue samples into the Kylon fabric. The Soft-ECC-S has a smaller pad for the short, shallow, or stenotic cervix.

During exocervical biopsy with the SoftBiopsy Gynecological Biopsy Device, the Kylon fabric hooks rake across the tissue plane dislodging and shearing tissue strips and fragments from just below the basement membrane to collect in the fabric.

Both products have tips that are snapped off at the scored handle and placed in a fixative vial for transport to the laboratory.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.histologics.com/

NONINVASIVE BODY CONTOURING

The Cynosure division of Hologic has just received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded clearance for SculpSure for noninvasive body contouring (lipolysis) of back, inner, and outer thighs. SculpSure is clinically proven to permanently eliminate fat cells and is already FDA-cleared to treat the abdomen and love handles (flanks).

According to Hologic, SculpSure uses a selective wavelength laser that precisely targets fat cells under the skin without affecting the skin’s surface. The laser raises the temperature of body fat to disrupt and destroy these cells, which are naturally eliminated over time and do not return or regenerate. Hologic says that patients are able to achieve desired results, without downtime or surgery, through customized treatment plans, each lasting only 25 minutes. Results can be seen as quickly as 6 weeks; optimal results typically are seen at 12 weeks, they say.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://www.sculpsure.com

SOFTWARE PLATFORM FOR OBGYNS

drchrono offers software platforms for medical offices, including electronic health records (EHR), practice management, medical billing, revenue cycle management (RCM), and health care application programming interface (API) tools for iPad, iPhone, and web. Products are available for small and large practice groups, urgent care centers, and specialties, including ObGyns. A patient can complete forms and schedule visits through the Patient Portal as well as receive educational materials through HIPAA-compliant messaging and face-to-face telemedicine.

drchrono says its cloud-based platform allows ObGyns to chart in seconds using customizable medical forms, medical speech-to-text, and photo/drawing tools. ObGyn-specific ICD10, Current Procedural Terminology, and E&M codes can autopopulate into forms. Prenatal flow sheets and other clinical forms can be sent to L&D, other providers, or billing departments using drchrono’s direct messaging integration with the local hospital EHR or e-Fax. Prenatal and blood testing, ultrasounds, paper charts, and photographs can be ordered, tracked, and shared with patients and providers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.drchrono.com/

MAGNETIC DILATOR THERAPY FOR DYSPAREUNIA

The VuVa Magnetic Dilator Therapy is a nonsurgical, nonprescription program that VuVatech announces has been proven to relieve pelvic pain and dyspareunia caused by vaginismus, vulvodynia, and vaginal atrophy.

The VuVa Vaginal Dilator Set contains more than 60 neodymium magnets. With iron a component of blood that carries oxygen, when the magnet is placed next to a painful area, it draws fresh oxygenated blood to the nerves and surrounding muscles for increased blood circulation that accelerates healing while reducing pain. When a VuVa Magnetic Vaginal Dilator is used 20 minutes before intercourse, soft tissue lengthens, relaxing and calming muscles, ligaments, and nerves.

A nonmagnetic full dilator set is available for women who are trying to get pregnant and for women with pacemakers or defibrillators.

This product is not FDA approved, is not sold as a medical device, and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Effectiveness varies, according to the manufacturer.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.vuvatech.com/

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

COLPOSCOPY BRUSHES SHOW BETTER TISSUE YIELD

A new study from the University of California–Riverside and Aurora Diagnostics in Palm Beach, Florida, evaluated 10,000 colposcopy workups and found that the disposable Histologics Soft-ECC and SoftBiopsy curettes were superior in tissue yield and offered a lower risk of cross contamination than metal curettes.

The Soft-ECC Endocervical Curette Tissue Collection System is used to biopsy the endocervical canal during colposcopy or evaluation for abnormal uterine bleeding. It gently frictionally abrades and collects transepithelial tissue samples into the Kylon fabric. The Soft-ECC-S has a smaller pad for the short, shallow, or stenotic cervix.

During exocervical biopsy with the SoftBiopsy Gynecological Biopsy Device, the Kylon fabric hooks rake across the tissue plane dislodging and shearing tissue strips and fragments from just below the basement membrane to collect in the fabric.

Both products have tips that are snapped off at the scored handle and placed in a fixative vial for transport to the laboratory.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.histologics.com/

NONINVASIVE BODY CONTOURING

The Cynosure division of Hologic has just received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded clearance for SculpSure for noninvasive body contouring (lipolysis) of back, inner, and outer thighs. SculpSure is clinically proven to permanently eliminate fat cells and is already FDA-cleared to treat the abdomen and love handles (flanks).

According to Hologic, SculpSure uses a selective wavelength laser that precisely targets fat cells under the skin without affecting the skin’s surface. The laser raises the temperature of body fat to disrupt and destroy these cells, which are naturally eliminated over time and do not return or regenerate. Hologic says that patients are able to achieve desired results, without downtime or surgery, through customized treatment plans, each lasting only 25 minutes. Results can be seen as quickly as 6 weeks; optimal results typically are seen at 12 weeks, they say.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://www.sculpsure.com

SOFTWARE PLATFORM FOR OBGYNS

drchrono offers software platforms for medical offices, including electronic health records (EHR), practice management, medical billing, revenue cycle management (RCM), and health care application programming interface (API) tools for iPad, iPhone, and web. Products are available for small and large practice groups, urgent care centers, and specialties, including ObGyns. A patient can complete forms and schedule visits through the Patient Portal as well as receive educational materials through HIPAA-compliant messaging and face-to-face telemedicine.

drchrono says its cloud-based platform allows ObGyns to chart in seconds using customizable medical forms, medical speech-to-text, and photo/drawing tools. ObGyn-specific ICD10, Current Procedural Terminology, and E&M codes can autopopulate into forms. Prenatal flow sheets and other clinical forms can be sent to L&D, other providers, or billing departments using drchrono’s direct messaging integration with the local hospital EHR or e-Fax. Prenatal and blood testing, ultrasounds, paper charts, and photographs can be ordered, tracked, and shared with patients and providers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.drchrono.com/

MAGNETIC DILATOR THERAPY FOR DYSPAREUNIA

The VuVa Magnetic Dilator Therapy is a nonsurgical, nonprescription program that VuVatech announces has been proven to relieve pelvic pain and dyspareunia caused by vaginismus, vulvodynia, and vaginal atrophy.

The VuVa Vaginal Dilator Set contains more than 60 neodymium magnets. With iron a component of blood that carries oxygen, when the magnet is placed next to a painful area, it draws fresh oxygenated blood to the nerves and surrounding muscles for increased blood circulation that accelerates healing while reducing pain. When a VuVa Magnetic Vaginal Dilator is used 20 minutes before intercourse, soft tissue lengthens, relaxing and calming muscles, ligaments, and nerves.

A nonmagnetic full dilator set is available for women who are trying to get pregnant and for women with pacemakers or defibrillators.

This product is not FDA approved, is not sold as a medical device, and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Effectiveness varies, according to the manufacturer.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.vuvatech.com/

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

COLPOSCOPY BRUSHES SHOW BETTER TISSUE YIELD

A new study from the University of California–Riverside and Aurora Diagnostics in Palm Beach, Florida, evaluated 10,000 colposcopy workups and found that the disposable Histologics Soft-ECC and SoftBiopsy curettes were superior in tissue yield and offered a lower risk of cross contamination than metal curettes.

The Soft-ECC Endocervical Curette Tissue Collection System is used to biopsy the endocervical canal during colposcopy or evaluation for abnormal uterine bleeding. It gently frictionally abrades and collects transepithelial tissue samples into the Kylon fabric. The Soft-ECC-S has a smaller pad for the short, shallow, or stenotic cervix.

During exocervical biopsy with the SoftBiopsy Gynecological Biopsy Device, the Kylon fabric hooks rake across the tissue plane dislodging and shearing tissue strips and fragments from just below the basement membrane to collect in the fabric.

Both products have tips that are snapped off at the scored handle and placed in a fixative vial for transport to the laboratory.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.histologics.com/

NONINVASIVE BODY CONTOURING

The Cynosure division of Hologic has just received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded clearance for SculpSure for noninvasive body contouring (lipolysis) of back, inner, and outer thighs. SculpSure is clinically proven to permanently eliminate fat cells and is already FDA-cleared to treat the abdomen and love handles (flanks).

According to Hologic, SculpSure uses a selective wavelength laser that precisely targets fat cells under the skin without affecting the skin’s surface. The laser raises the temperature of body fat to disrupt and destroy these cells, which are naturally eliminated over time and do not return or regenerate. Hologic says that patients are able to achieve desired results, without downtime or surgery, through customized treatment plans, each lasting only 25 minutes. Results can be seen as quickly as 6 weeks; optimal results typically are seen at 12 weeks, they say.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://www.sculpsure.com

SOFTWARE PLATFORM FOR OBGYNS

drchrono offers software platforms for medical offices, including electronic health records (EHR), practice management, medical billing, revenue cycle management (RCM), and health care application programming interface (API) tools for iPad, iPhone, and web. Products are available for small and large practice groups, urgent care centers, and specialties, including ObGyns. A patient can complete forms and schedule visits through the Patient Portal as well as receive educational materials through HIPAA-compliant messaging and face-to-face telemedicine.

drchrono says its cloud-based platform allows ObGyns to chart in seconds using customizable medical forms, medical speech-to-text, and photo/drawing tools. ObGyn-specific ICD10, Current Procedural Terminology, and E&M codes can autopopulate into forms. Prenatal flow sheets and other clinical forms can be sent to L&D, other providers, or billing departments using drchrono’s direct messaging integration with the local hospital EHR or e-Fax. Prenatal and blood testing, ultrasounds, paper charts, and photographs can be ordered, tracked, and shared with patients and providers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.drchrono.com/

MAGNETIC DILATOR THERAPY FOR DYSPAREUNIA

The VuVa Magnetic Dilator Therapy is a nonsurgical, nonprescription program that VuVatech announces has been proven to relieve pelvic pain and dyspareunia caused by vaginismus, vulvodynia, and vaginal atrophy.

The VuVa Vaginal Dilator Set contains more than 60 neodymium magnets. With iron a component of blood that carries oxygen, when the magnet is placed next to a painful area, it draws fresh oxygenated blood to the nerves and surrounding muscles for increased blood circulation that accelerates healing while reducing pain. When a VuVa Magnetic Vaginal Dilator is used 20 minutes before intercourse, soft tissue lengthens, relaxing and calming muscles, ligaments, and nerves.

A nonmagnetic full dilator set is available for women who are trying to get pregnant and for women with pacemakers or defibrillators.

This product is not FDA approved, is not sold as a medical device, and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Effectiveness varies, according to the manufacturer.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.vuvatech.com/

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

A) Globular enlarged uterus INCORRECT
A homogeneously enlarged uterus in the absence of fibroids is characteristic of adenomyosis.¹

A) Globular enlarged uterus INCORRECT
A homogeneously enlarged uterus in the absence of fibroids is characteristic of adenomyosis.¹

A) Globular enlarged uterus INCORRECT
A homogeneously enlarged uterus in the absence of fibroids is characteristic of adenomyosis.¹

Recent insurance coverage legislation enacted in California is expected to result in 15,000 fewer unintended pregnancies, 2,000 fewer miscarriages, and 7,000 fewer abortions, according to an analysis of the mandate’s potential impact by investigators at the University of California.¹

Enacted in September 2016, the contraceptive supply legislation known as SB 999 requires health plans and insurers to cover a year-long supply of hormonal contraceptive pills, patches, and rings (formulations approved by the US Food and Drug Administration). Clinicians can now prescribe and pharmacists can dispense up to a 12-month supply at one time. California joins 5 other states and Washington, DC, that have such mandates.

Having a year’s worth of contraceptives on hand is anticipated to reduce the interruption in contraception use that may occur with a 30- or 90-day supply that needs frequent refilling and thereby lower the unplanned pregnancy rate as well as associated health care costs.

Understanding the legislation’s impact on the population’s health outcomes will be useful for other states considering similar proposed legislation.

Details of the study

In a short communication published in Contraception, McMenamin and colleagues described how University of California faculty and researchers, engaged by the California Health Benefits Review Program, assessed the utilization and cost implications of SB 999 and arrived at their estimated projections.¹

The assessment was based on a literature review (including current use of hormonal contraceptives, unintended pregnancy rates among contraceptive users, and assumptions about shifts in dispensing patterns for contraceptive supplies), a survey of the state’s 5 largest health insurance providers, and a claims database review of the utilization and cost implications of SB 999.

Two scenarios. Projections for the use and costs of hormonal contraceptives were made for 2 situations: whether SB 999 was enacted into law or not. Approximately 25 million Californians would be affected by the legislation, including 744,000 who used hormonal contraceptives in 2016.

To calculate their projections, the researchers used a baseline estimate of a 9% unintended pregnancy rate among current users of hormonal contraceptives (or 67,000 unintended pregnancies leading to 28,000 live births, 9,000 miscarriages, and 30,000 abortions).² They also used a previously reported 30% reduction in the odds of unintended pregnancy with 12-month dispensing.³

Impact of shift in dispensing patterns

With SB 999 versus without SB 999, a 30% reduction in the odds of unintended pregnancies would lead to 6,000 fewer live births, 2,000 fewer miscarriages, and 7,000 fewer abortions.

The legislation would also reduce projected health care expenditures. Total net health care costs would decrease by 0.03%, for a savings of about $43 million, due to avoidance of unintended pregnancies and related medical costs.

Benefits will be even greater over time

The authors noted that the reductions in unintended pregnancies and associated health care costs with the implementation of SB 999 may be even greater in later years as beneficial health outcomes and cost savings accrue over time.

This study’s findings provide support for the implementation of similar legislation in other states.

Recent insurance coverage legislation enacted in California is expected to result in 15,000 fewer unintended pregnancies, 2,000 fewer miscarriages, and 7,000 fewer abortions, according to an analysis of the mandate’s potential impact by investigators at the University of California.¹

Enacted in September 2016, the contraceptive supply legislation known as SB 999 requires health plans and insurers to cover a year-long supply of hormonal contraceptive pills, patches, and rings (formulations approved by the US Food and Drug Administration). Clinicians can now prescribe and pharmacists can dispense up to a 12-month supply at one time. California joins 5 other states and Washington, DC, that have such mandates.

Having a year’s worth of contraceptives on hand is anticipated to reduce the interruption in contraception use that may occur with a 30- or 90-day supply that needs frequent refilling and thereby lower the unplanned pregnancy rate as well as associated health care costs.

Understanding the legislation’s impact on the population’s health outcomes will be useful for other states considering similar proposed legislation.

Details of the study

In a short communication published in Contraception, McMenamin and colleagues described how University of California faculty and researchers, engaged by the California Health Benefits Review Program, assessed the utilization and cost implications of SB 999 and arrived at their estimated projections.¹

The assessment was based on a literature review (including current use of hormonal contraceptives, unintended pregnancy rates among contraceptive users, and assumptions about shifts in dispensing patterns for contraceptive supplies), a survey of the state’s 5 largest health insurance providers, and a claims database review of the utilization and cost implications of SB 999.

Two scenarios. Projections for the use and costs of hormonal contraceptives were made for 2 situations: whether SB 999 was enacted into law or not. Approximately 25 million Californians would be affected by the legislation, including 744,000 who used hormonal contraceptives in 2016.

To calculate their projections, the researchers used a baseline estimate of a 9% unintended pregnancy rate among current users of hormonal contraceptives (or 67,000 unintended pregnancies leading to 28,000 live births, 9,000 miscarriages, and 30,000 abortions).² They also used a previously reported 30% reduction in the odds of unintended pregnancy with 12-month dispensing.³

Impact of shift in dispensing patterns

With SB 999 versus without SB 999, a 30% reduction in the odds of unintended pregnancies would lead to 6,000 fewer live births, 2,000 fewer miscarriages, and 7,000 fewer abortions.

The legislation would also reduce projected health care expenditures. Total net health care costs would decrease by 0.03%, for a savings of about $43 million, due to avoidance of unintended pregnancies and related medical costs.

Benefits will be even greater over time

The authors noted that the reductions in unintended pregnancies and associated health care costs with the implementation of SB 999 may be even greater in later years as beneficial health outcomes and cost savings accrue over time.

This study’s findings provide support for the implementation of similar legislation in other states.

Recent insurance coverage legislation enacted in California is expected to result in 15,000 fewer unintended pregnancies, 2,000 fewer miscarriages, and 7,000 fewer abortions, according to an analysis of the mandate’s potential impact by investigators at the University of California.¹

Enacted in September 2016, the contraceptive supply legislation known as SB 999 requires health plans and insurers to cover a year-long supply of hormonal contraceptive pills, patches, and rings (formulations approved by the US Food and Drug Administration). Clinicians can now prescribe and pharmacists can dispense up to a 12-month supply at one time. California joins 5 other states and Washington, DC, that have such mandates.

Having a year’s worth of contraceptives on hand is anticipated to reduce the interruption in contraception use that may occur with a 30- or 90-day supply that needs frequent refilling and thereby lower the unplanned pregnancy rate as well as associated health care costs.

Understanding the legislation’s impact on the population’s health outcomes will be useful for other states considering similar proposed legislation.

Details of the study

In a short communication published in Contraception, McMenamin and colleagues described how University of California faculty and researchers, engaged by the California Health Benefits Review Program, assessed the utilization and cost implications of SB 999 and arrived at their estimated projections.¹

The assessment was based on a literature review (including current use of hormonal contraceptives, unintended pregnancy rates among contraceptive users, and assumptions about shifts in dispensing patterns for contraceptive supplies), a survey of the state’s 5 largest health insurance providers, and a claims database review of the utilization and cost implications of SB 999.

Two scenarios. Projections for the use and costs of hormonal contraceptives were made for 2 situations: whether SB 999 was enacted into law or not. Approximately 25 million Californians would be affected by the legislation, including 744,000 who used hormonal contraceptives in 2016.

To calculate their projections, the researchers used a baseline estimate of a 9% unintended pregnancy rate among current users of hormonal contraceptives (or 67,000 unintended pregnancies leading to 28,000 live births, 9,000 miscarriages, and 30,000 abortions).² They also used a previously reported 30% reduction in the odds of unintended pregnancy with 12-month dispensing.³

Impact of shift in dispensing patterns

With SB 999 versus without SB 999, a 30% reduction in the odds of unintended pregnancies would lead to 6,000 fewer live births, 2,000 fewer miscarriages, and 7,000 fewer abortions.

The legislation would also reduce projected health care expenditures. Total net health care costs would decrease by 0.03%, for a savings of about $43 million, due to avoidance of unintended pregnancies and related medical costs.

Benefits will be even greater over time

The authors noted that the reductions in unintended pregnancies and associated health care costs with the implementation of SB 999 may be even greater in later years as beneficial health outcomes and cost savings accrue over time.

This study’s findings provide support for the implementation of similar legislation in other states.

Antiplatelet agents (mainly low-dose aspirin) have been shown to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in women at risk for the condition. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently supports consideration of the use of low-dose aspirin (81 mg/day), initiated between 12 and 28 weeks of gestation, for the prevention of preeclampsia in women at high risk.¹

Can antiplatelet agents also reduce the risk of preterm birth? It is a reasonable question, postulate van Vliet and colleagues²: Women with a history of preeclampsia also have an increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth (SPB), and vice versa. Uteroplacental ischemia is present in cases of preeclampsia, and research is showing that uteroplacental ischemia also plays a role in the etiology of spontaneous preterm labor.^3,4

Details of the study

To investigate their research question, van Vliet and colleagues performed an additional analysis of the Perinatal Antiplatelet Review of International Studies Individual Participant Data meta-analysis. The original meta-analysis involved the data of 32,217 women at risk for preeclampsia who were randomly assigned to low-dose aspirin-dipyridamole or placebo (no treatment); the study revealed a moderate risk reduction for preeclampsia as well as a significant reduction in preterm birth at less than 34 weeks of gestation in women treated with antiplatelets.²

In the additional analysis, for women with an SPB who began antiplatelet treatment before 20 weeks of gestation, the researchers assessed the time between 20 weeks and spontaneous preterm delivery, iatrogenic preterm delivery, and any preterm delivery. Overall, 9.7% of women (n = 2,670) had an SPB before 37 weeks of gestation, 2.8% (n = 773) had an SPB before 34 weeks of gestation, and 0.5% (n = 151) had an SPB before 28 weeks of gestation. Antiplatelet agents were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of SPB before 37 weeks (relative risk [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.996) and before 34 weeks (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76–0.99). The RR of having an SPB at less than 37 weeks of gestation was 0.83 for women with a previous pregnancy and 0.98 for women in their first pregnancy.²

Bottom line

Antiplatelet use resulted in a 7% reduction in SPB risk in women at risk for preeclampsia. Antiplatelet use resulted in a 14% reduction in moderate to very preterm birth risk (<34 weeks’ gestation).

The authors advise that their study “provides clinicians with the best available evidence to counsel women regarding who might benefit from” antiplatelet use during pregnancy and suggest that antiplatelet use may be a promising intervention for women at high risk for SPB, especially in high-risk women with a previous pregnancy.²

Caveats

The researchers found no difference among those receiving and not receiving antiplatelets in the incidence of antepartum hemorrhage (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90–1.15), placental abruption (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.87–1.48), or neonatal bleeding (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80–1.09). The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) was again found to be borderline significant (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00–1.13), but it was more frequent. The authors caution that the SPB reduction that they found in their study (as well as the reduced risk for preeclampsia with low-dose aspirin use) be balanced against the potential higher risk for PPH.²

Antiplatelet agents (mainly low-dose aspirin) have been shown to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in women at risk for the condition. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently supports consideration of the use of low-dose aspirin (81 mg/day), initiated between 12 and 28 weeks of gestation, for the prevention of preeclampsia in women at high risk.¹

Can antiplatelet agents also reduce the risk of preterm birth? It is a reasonable question, postulate van Vliet and colleagues²: Women with a history of preeclampsia also have an increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth (SPB), and vice versa. Uteroplacental ischemia is present in cases of preeclampsia, and research is showing that uteroplacental ischemia also plays a role in the etiology of spontaneous preterm labor.^3,4

Details of the study

To investigate their research question, van Vliet and colleagues performed an additional analysis of the Perinatal Antiplatelet Review of International Studies Individual Participant Data meta-analysis. The original meta-analysis involved the data of 32,217 women at risk for preeclampsia who were randomly assigned to low-dose aspirin-dipyridamole or placebo (no treatment); the study revealed a moderate risk reduction for preeclampsia as well as a significant reduction in preterm birth at less than 34 weeks of gestation in women treated with antiplatelets.²

In the additional analysis, for women with an SPB who began antiplatelet treatment before 20 weeks of gestation, the researchers assessed the time between 20 weeks and spontaneous preterm delivery, iatrogenic preterm delivery, and any preterm delivery. Overall, 9.7% of women (n = 2,670) had an SPB before 37 weeks of gestation, 2.8% (n = 773) had an SPB before 34 weeks of gestation, and 0.5% (n = 151) had an SPB before 28 weeks of gestation. Antiplatelet agents were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of SPB before 37 weeks (relative risk [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.996) and before 34 weeks (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76–0.99). The RR of having an SPB at less than 37 weeks of gestation was 0.83 for women with a previous pregnancy and 0.98 for women in their first pregnancy.²

Bottom line

Antiplatelet use resulted in a 7% reduction in SPB risk in women at risk for preeclampsia. Antiplatelet use resulted in a 14% reduction in moderate to very preterm birth risk (<34 weeks’ gestation).

The authors advise that their study “provides clinicians with the best available evidence to counsel women regarding who might benefit from” antiplatelet use during pregnancy and suggest that antiplatelet use may be a promising intervention for women at high risk for SPB, especially in high-risk women with a previous pregnancy.²

Caveats

The researchers found no difference among those receiving and not receiving antiplatelets in the incidence of antepartum hemorrhage (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90–1.15), placental abruption (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.87–1.48), or neonatal bleeding (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80–1.09). The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) was again found to be borderline significant (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00–1.13), but it was more frequent. The authors caution that the SPB reduction that they found in their study (as well as the reduced risk for preeclampsia with low-dose aspirin use) be balanced against the potential higher risk for PPH.²

Antiplatelet agents (mainly low-dose aspirin) have been shown to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in women at risk for the condition. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently supports consideration of the use of low-dose aspirin (81 mg/day), initiated between 12 and 28 weeks of gestation, for the prevention of preeclampsia in women at high risk.¹

Can antiplatelet agents also reduce the risk of preterm birth? It is a reasonable question, postulate van Vliet and colleagues²: Women with a history of preeclampsia also have an increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth (SPB), and vice versa. Uteroplacental ischemia is present in cases of preeclampsia, and research is showing that uteroplacental ischemia also plays a role in the etiology of spontaneous preterm labor.^3,4

Details of the study

To investigate their research question, van Vliet and colleagues performed an additional analysis of the Perinatal Antiplatelet Review of International Studies Individual Participant Data meta-analysis. The original meta-analysis involved the data of 32,217 women at risk for preeclampsia who were randomly assigned to low-dose aspirin-dipyridamole or placebo (no treatment); the study revealed a moderate risk reduction for preeclampsia as well as a significant reduction in preterm birth at less than 34 weeks of gestation in women treated with antiplatelets.²

In the additional analysis, for women with an SPB who began antiplatelet treatment before 20 weeks of gestation, the researchers assessed the time between 20 weeks and spontaneous preterm delivery, iatrogenic preterm delivery, and any preterm delivery. Overall, 9.7% of women (n = 2,670) had an SPB before 37 weeks of gestation, 2.8% (n = 773) had an SPB before 34 weeks of gestation, and 0.5% (n = 151) had an SPB before 28 weeks of gestation. Antiplatelet agents were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of SPB before 37 weeks (relative risk [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.996) and before 34 weeks (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76–0.99). The RR of having an SPB at less than 37 weeks of gestation was 0.83 for women with a previous pregnancy and 0.98 for women in their first pregnancy.²

Bottom line

Antiplatelet use resulted in a 7% reduction in SPB risk in women at risk for preeclampsia. Antiplatelet use resulted in a 14% reduction in moderate to very preterm birth risk (<34 weeks’ gestation).

The authors advise that their study “provides clinicians with the best available evidence to counsel women regarding who might benefit from” antiplatelet use during pregnancy and suggest that antiplatelet use may be a promising intervention for women at high risk for SPB, especially in high-risk women with a previous pregnancy.²

Caveats

The researchers found no difference among those receiving and not receiving antiplatelets in the incidence of antepartum hemorrhage (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90–1.15), placental abruption (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.87–1.48), or neonatal bleeding (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80–1.09). The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) was again found to be borderline significant (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00–1.13), but it was more frequent. The authors caution that the SPB reduction that they found in their study (as well as the reduced risk for preeclampsia with low-dose aspirin use) be balanced against the potential higher risk for PPH.²

Starting in 2010 with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), our patients have had insurance that provides maternity care coverage, no-deductible or copay contraceptives, and access to breast cancer screening. They also have been protected from predatory insurance practices—such as preexisting condition exclusions, arbitrary rescission, and annual or lifetime coverage limits—which had previously and regularly been used to deny coverage. These landmark protections apply to all our patients, regardless of where they live, how much they earn, who their employers are, and which insurance plan they use. They have become part of the fabric of our society.

Between 2008 and 2010, members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) worked hard to define and help enact these provisions, which we considered the women’s piece of the health care reform puzzle. We also worked with a broad community of clinicians to try to make sure reform would benefit them too. That effort did not go as well, and ACOG ultimately did not endorse the ACA.

Early ACA troubles, misguided solutions

Since the ACA was signed into law 7 years ago, insurers have raised premiums and deductibles and narrowed their provider networks—putting needed care out of the reach of many patients. In addition, skyrocketing prescription drug prices have driven health care costs even higher. Against this backdrop, Congress in 2017 started trying to pass bills that would undo the ACA.

ACOG and our medical colleague organizations stepped up. We brought many ideas to House and Senate Republicans and Democrats and sought opportunities to work with them to improve the ACA for our physicians and patients. Unfortunately, the statute was so polarizing that few in Congress wanted to amend or revise it; most wanted it repealed or left as is.

Throughout these proceedings, ACOG remained committed to ensuring that no one with health insurance coverage would lose it and that Congress would not turn back the clock on women’s health. As long as these 2 principles were assured, we would work with anyone on improving health insurance.

Path to a better way

We delivered our message repeatedly. ACOG President Haywood Brown, MD, often accompanied by his American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, and American Osteopathic Association counterparts, attended high-level meetings with Congressional Republicans and Democrats. Dr. Brown also led fly-ins of our members. In addition, ACOG Past President Tom Gellhaus, MD, together with all 600 ObGyns at the 2017 ACOG Congressional Leadership Conference, spoke out.

Somehow, though, the proposed bills kept getting worse—more patients would be losing coverage, and women’s health protections would be stripped away—and Congress was not seeking or including physician input. None at all.

The ACOG teleconference

In response, ACOG set up a member teleconference headed by Dr. Brown, Dr. Gellhaus, Incoming President Lisa Hollier, MD, Past President and ObGyn PAC Chair Mark DeFrancesco, MD, and Executive Vice President and CEO Hal Lawrence, MD. Discussing our concerns, we focused on the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) and its potential impact on maternity care coverage, preexisting condition coverage, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood (PP), and the opioid epidemic.

BCRA

Dr. Brown led off the teleconference with this assessment: “Without a doubt, the BCRA would not result in better care for our patients. This legislation would pull the rug out from under women and families. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 22 million Americans, more than half of them women, would lose coverage. More than $770 billion would be cut from Medicaid, the program that covers nearly half of all births nationwide as well as primary and preventive care for low-income patients.”

Coverage for maternity care and preexisting conditions

Dr. Gellhaus discussed how the BCRA would gut maternity care coverage and hurt patients with preexisting conditions. Under this bill, states would be able to drop the requirement for such coverage, thereby creating an enormous hole in patient care. He asked an important question: “If your state opted out and allowed private insurers not to offer maternity care or preventive care, what would this mean for your patients?”

His answer: “It would take us back to a time when only 9 states required insurers cover maternity care, and when only 12% of plans included such coverage; a time when patients had to buy expensive riders, sometimes with 12-month waiting periods, if they wanted maternity coverage; a time when expecting families faced thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Do we want to go back to that time? It is also important to note that roughly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Pregnancy should not leave patients fearing bankruptcy and unable to afford the full range of prenatal and postnatal care.

“States that opt out of covering preventive care would discontinue no-copay coverage for women’s preventive services, including contraception. Fifty-five million American women currently have this coverage, and as a result the country’s unintended pregnancy rate is at a 30-year low, and its teen pregnancy rate the lowest in recorded history. We cannot go back.”

Medicaid

Dr. Hollier pointed out that the BCRA would cut $772 billion from Medicaid, ending the program as we know it and shifting costs to states. “This section alone would devastate our patients in every state,” she said.

ACOG is a strong supporter of Medicaid expansion, which increased access to primary and preventive care, including contraception, for low-income women who otherwise would not see a physician until they became pregnant. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia expanded their Medicaid programs, and other states have expressed interest in doing the same.

Medicaid expansion was a major factor in the almost 50% decrease in the rate of uninsured women since 2010. The BCRA would roll back coverage for essential health benefits beginning in 2020 and end federal expansion funding by 2023.

Dr. Hollier continued, “Regular Medicaid would be threatened, too. The Senate bill would limit, for the first time ever, federal funding for Medicaid services per beneficiary. This would jeopardize the ability of the United States to respond to disasters and public health crises and pose a threat to health care coverage and benefits for tens of millions of Americans.”

“Given that nearly half of US births are covered by Medicaid, cutting this program would have a huge impact on our practices and on our patients with high-risk and expensive pregnancies. What happens when a low-income pregnant patient with hypertension, gestational diabetes, or preeclampsia reaches her Medicaid cap? What happens to a patient with an opioid use disorder or a patient who may have been exposed to the Zika virus? In all likelihood, physicians would have to continue providing care, regardless of coverage, or states would have to reduce physician payments to fill the gap in federal funding. I am sure you are as horrified as I am by these scenarios,” said Dr. Hollier.

Planned Parenthood

Dr. DeFrancesco discussed the threat to PP. First, he explained what defunding the organization would mean. “Planned Parenthood does not just receive a check from the government each year. Like other qualified providers, like us, PP health centers receive federal reimbursement for primary and preventive services provided to patients with Medicaid coverage. Fifty-four percent of these centers are located in rural and medically underserved communities.”

The BCRA would exclude PP health centers from the Medicaid program, which means Medicaid patients would be denied primary and preventive care at these centers. Within the first year, up to 1 million women would find their access to care restricted. In addition, about half of all PP centers would have to close, and most would not reopen. Dr. DeFrancesco asked, “How would this move help our patients? It wouldn’t.”

Two examples shed light on the situation. First, when PP was excluded from a Texas program serving low-income patients, the number of women using the most effective birth control methods decreased by 35%, and the number of Medicaid-covered births increased by 27%. Second, when public health funding cuts forced many Indiana clinics to close, rural areas of the state experienced one of the fastest and largest HIV outbreaks ever to occur in the United States.

Dr. DeFrancesco said, “Excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program interferes with the patient–physician relationship and sets a dangerous precedent of targeting qualified providers for political purposes.”

Opioid epidemic

Dr. Brown indicated that the BCRA would cripple attempts to address our very serious national opioid epidemic. The $2 billion the bill would allocate for opioid use disorder treatment for 1 year would replace funding lost by Medicaid and would pay for only a fraction of what is needed. Dr. Brown called this measure a “token, not a commitment, and a big step back in the progress we have made to address this public health crisis.”

The Hippocratic oath

While preparing for the teleconference, I kept thinking about the Hippocratic oath and our deep obligation to our patients. Every physician I know goes beyond the exam room to care for patients. We lose sleep not only when we get up to deliver babies, but when we worry about the ailing mother of four we saw yesterday, or the scared teenager who missed last week’s appointment. We care for our patients because it is the right thing to do, and it is our calling. Well, this year, our patients needed us more than ever. We had to step up, speak out, do everything we could to stop BCRA from passing. The stakes could not have been higher.

The vote, and the road ahead

The morning after Senators Collins, Murkowski, and McCain joined Senate Democrats to end the bill, Dr. Brown wrote the following to ACOG members and the US Congress:

“This was a battle we simply had to win to protect our patients. Thanks to your tireless advocacy, landmark women’s health care protections remain law, and millions of our patients will continue to get the care they need. And our work continues. The ACA is not perfect and needs major reform. ACOG is ready, willing, and able to work with Republicans and Democrats in the US House and Senate to reform the law, through an open and collaborative process. We hope it is clear to everyone in Congress that physicians must be part of the conversation and the solution.”

Starting in 2010 with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), our patients have had insurance that provides maternity care coverage, no-deductible or copay contraceptives, and access to breast cancer screening. They also have been protected from predatory insurance practices—such as preexisting condition exclusions, arbitrary rescission, and annual or lifetime coverage limits—which had previously and regularly been used to deny coverage. These landmark protections apply to all our patients, regardless of where they live, how much they earn, who their employers are, and which insurance plan they use. They have become part of the fabric of our society.

Between 2008 and 2010, members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) worked hard to define and help enact these provisions, which we considered the women’s piece of the health care reform puzzle. We also worked with a broad community of clinicians to try to make sure reform would benefit them too. That effort did not go as well, and ACOG ultimately did not endorse the ACA.

Early ACA troubles, misguided solutions

Since the ACA was signed into law 7 years ago, insurers have raised premiums and deductibles and narrowed their provider networks—putting needed care out of the reach of many patients. In addition, skyrocketing prescription drug prices have driven health care costs even higher. Against this backdrop, Congress in 2017 started trying to pass bills that would undo the ACA.

ACOG and our medical colleague organizations stepped up. We brought many ideas to House and Senate Republicans and Democrats and sought opportunities to work with them to improve the ACA for our physicians and patients. Unfortunately, the statute was so polarizing that few in Congress wanted to amend or revise it; most wanted it repealed or left as is.

Throughout these proceedings, ACOG remained committed to ensuring that no one with health insurance coverage would lose it and that Congress would not turn back the clock on women’s health. As long as these 2 principles were assured, we would work with anyone on improving health insurance.

Path to a better way

We delivered our message repeatedly. ACOG President Haywood Brown, MD, often accompanied by his American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, and American Osteopathic Association counterparts, attended high-level meetings with Congressional Republicans and Democrats. Dr. Brown also led fly-ins of our members. In addition, ACOG Past President Tom Gellhaus, MD, together with all 600 ObGyns at the 2017 ACOG Congressional Leadership Conference, spoke out.

Somehow, though, the proposed bills kept getting worse—more patients would be losing coverage, and women’s health protections would be stripped away—and Congress was not seeking or including physician input. None at all.

The ACOG teleconference

In response, ACOG set up a member teleconference headed by Dr. Brown, Dr. Gellhaus, Incoming President Lisa Hollier, MD, Past President and ObGyn PAC Chair Mark DeFrancesco, MD, and Executive Vice President and CEO Hal Lawrence, MD. Discussing our concerns, we focused on the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) and its potential impact on maternity care coverage, preexisting condition coverage, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood (PP), and the opioid epidemic.

BCRA

Dr. Brown led off the teleconference with this assessment: “Without a doubt, the BCRA would not result in better care for our patients. This legislation would pull the rug out from under women and families. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 22 million Americans, more than half of them women, would lose coverage. More than $770 billion would be cut from Medicaid, the program that covers nearly half of all births nationwide as well as primary and preventive care for low-income patients.”

Coverage for maternity care and preexisting conditions

Dr. Gellhaus discussed how the BCRA would gut maternity care coverage and hurt patients with preexisting conditions. Under this bill, states would be able to drop the requirement for such coverage, thereby creating an enormous hole in patient care. He asked an important question: “If your state opted out and allowed private insurers not to offer maternity care or preventive care, what would this mean for your patients?”

His answer: “It would take us back to a time when only 9 states required insurers cover maternity care, and when only 12% of plans included such coverage; a time when patients had to buy expensive riders, sometimes with 12-month waiting periods, if they wanted maternity coverage; a time when expecting families faced thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Do we want to go back to that time? It is also important to note that roughly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Pregnancy should not leave patients fearing bankruptcy and unable to afford the full range of prenatal and postnatal care.

“States that opt out of covering preventive care would discontinue no-copay coverage for women’s preventive services, including contraception. Fifty-five million American women currently have this coverage, and as a result the country’s unintended pregnancy rate is at a 30-year low, and its teen pregnancy rate the lowest in recorded history. We cannot go back.”

Medicaid

Dr. Hollier pointed out that the BCRA would cut $772 billion from Medicaid, ending the program as we know it and shifting costs to states. “This section alone would devastate our patients in every state,” she said.

ACOG is a strong supporter of Medicaid expansion, which increased access to primary and preventive care, including contraception, for low-income women who otherwise would not see a physician until they became pregnant. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia expanded their Medicaid programs, and other states have expressed interest in doing the same.

Medicaid expansion was a major factor in the almost 50% decrease in the rate of uninsured women since 2010. The BCRA would roll back coverage for essential health benefits beginning in 2020 and end federal expansion funding by 2023.

Dr. Hollier continued, “Regular Medicaid would be threatened, too. The Senate bill would limit, for the first time ever, federal funding for Medicaid services per beneficiary. This would jeopardize the ability of the United States to respond to disasters and public health crises and pose a threat to health care coverage and benefits for tens of millions of Americans.”

“Given that nearly half of US births are covered by Medicaid, cutting this program would have a huge impact on our practices and on our patients with high-risk and expensive pregnancies. What happens when a low-income pregnant patient with hypertension, gestational diabetes, or preeclampsia reaches her Medicaid cap? What happens to a patient with an opioid use disorder or a patient who may have been exposed to the Zika virus? In all likelihood, physicians would have to continue providing care, regardless of coverage, or states would have to reduce physician payments to fill the gap in federal funding. I am sure you are as horrified as I am by these scenarios,” said Dr. Hollier.

Planned Parenthood

Dr. DeFrancesco discussed the threat to PP. First, he explained what defunding the organization would mean. “Planned Parenthood does not just receive a check from the government each year. Like other qualified providers, like us, PP health centers receive federal reimbursement for primary and preventive services provided to patients with Medicaid coverage. Fifty-four percent of these centers are located in rural and medically underserved communities.”

The BCRA would exclude PP health centers from the Medicaid program, which means Medicaid patients would be denied primary and preventive care at these centers. Within the first year, up to 1 million women would find their access to care restricted. In addition, about half of all PP centers would have to close, and most would not reopen. Dr. DeFrancesco asked, “How would this move help our patients? It wouldn’t.”

Two examples shed light on the situation. First, when PP was excluded from a Texas program serving low-income patients, the number of women using the most effective birth control methods decreased by 35%, and the number of Medicaid-covered births increased by 27%. Second, when public health funding cuts forced many Indiana clinics to close, rural areas of the state experienced one of the fastest and largest HIV outbreaks ever to occur in the United States.

Dr. DeFrancesco said, “Excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program interferes with the patient–physician relationship and sets a dangerous precedent of targeting qualified providers for political purposes.”

Opioid epidemic

Dr. Brown indicated that the BCRA would cripple attempts to address our very serious national opioid epidemic. The $2 billion the bill would allocate for opioid use disorder treatment for 1 year would replace funding lost by Medicaid and would pay for only a fraction of what is needed. Dr. Brown called this measure a “token, not a commitment, and a big step back in the progress we have made to address this public health crisis.”

The Hippocratic oath

While preparing for the teleconference, I kept thinking about the Hippocratic oath and our deep obligation to our patients. Every physician I know goes beyond the exam room to care for patients. We lose sleep not only when we get up to deliver babies, but when we worry about the ailing mother of four we saw yesterday, or the scared teenager who missed last week’s appointment. We care for our patients because it is the right thing to do, and it is our calling. Well, this year, our patients needed us more than ever. We had to step up, speak out, do everything we could to stop BCRA from passing. The stakes could not have been higher.

The vote, and the road ahead

The morning after Senators Collins, Murkowski, and McCain joined Senate Democrats to end the bill, Dr. Brown wrote the following to ACOG members and the US Congress:

“This was a battle we simply had to win to protect our patients. Thanks to your tireless advocacy, landmark women’s health care protections remain law, and millions of our patients will continue to get the care they need. And our work continues. The ACA is not perfect and needs major reform. ACOG is ready, willing, and able to work with Republicans and Democrats in the US House and Senate to reform the law, through an open and collaborative process. We hope it is clear to everyone in Congress that physicians must be part of the conversation and the solution.”

Starting in 2010 with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), our patients have had insurance that provides maternity care coverage, no-deductible or copay contraceptives, and access to breast cancer screening. They also have been protected from predatory insurance practices—such as preexisting condition exclusions, arbitrary rescission, and annual or lifetime coverage limits—which had previously and regularly been used to deny coverage. These landmark protections apply to all our patients, regardless of where they live, how much they earn, who their employers are, and which insurance plan they use. They have become part of the fabric of our society.

Between 2008 and 2010, members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) worked hard to define and help enact these provisions, which we considered the women’s piece of the health care reform puzzle. We also worked with a broad community of clinicians to try to make sure reform would benefit them too. That effort did not go as well, and ACOG ultimately did not endorse the ACA.

Early ACA troubles, misguided solutions

Since the ACA was signed into law 7 years ago, insurers have raised premiums and deductibles and narrowed their provider networks—putting needed care out of the reach of many patients. In addition, skyrocketing prescription drug prices have driven health care costs even higher. Against this backdrop, Congress in 2017 started trying to pass bills that would undo the ACA.

ACOG and our medical colleague organizations stepped up. We brought many ideas to House and Senate Republicans and Democrats and sought opportunities to work with them to improve the ACA for our physicians and patients. Unfortunately, the statute was so polarizing that few in Congress wanted to amend or revise it; most wanted it repealed or left as is.

Throughout these proceedings, ACOG remained committed to ensuring that no one with health insurance coverage would lose it and that Congress would not turn back the clock on women’s health. As long as these 2 principles were assured, we would work with anyone on improving health insurance.

Path to a better way

We delivered our message repeatedly. ACOG President Haywood Brown, MD, often accompanied by his American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, and American Osteopathic Association counterparts, attended high-level meetings with Congressional Republicans and Democrats. Dr. Brown also led fly-ins of our members. In addition, ACOG Past President Tom Gellhaus, MD, together with all 600 ObGyns at the 2017 ACOG Congressional Leadership Conference, spoke out.

Somehow, though, the proposed bills kept getting worse—more patients would be losing coverage, and women’s health protections would be stripped away—and Congress was not seeking or including physician input. None at all.

The ACOG teleconference

In response, ACOG set up a member teleconference headed by Dr. Brown, Dr. Gellhaus, Incoming President Lisa Hollier, MD, Past President and ObGyn PAC Chair Mark DeFrancesco, MD, and Executive Vice President and CEO Hal Lawrence, MD. Discussing our concerns, we focused on the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) and its potential impact on maternity care coverage, preexisting condition coverage, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood (PP), and the opioid epidemic.

BCRA

Dr. Brown led off the teleconference with this assessment: “Without a doubt, the BCRA would not result in better care for our patients. This legislation would pull the rug out from under women and families. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 22 million Americans, more than half of them women, would lose coverage. More than $770 billion would be cut from Medicaid, the program that covers nearly half of all births nationwide as well as primary and preventive care for low-income patients.”

Coverage for maternity care and preexisting conditions

Dr. Gellhaus discussed how the BCRA would gut maternity care coverage and hurt patients with preexisting conditions. Under this bill, states would be able to drop the requirement for such coverage, thereby creating an enormous hole in patient care. He asked an important question: “If your state opted out and allowed private insurers not to offer maternity care or preventive care, what would this mean for your patients?”

His answer: “It would take us back to a time when only 9 states required insurers cover maternity care, and when only 12% of plans included such coverage; a time when patients had to buy expensive riders, sometimes with 12-month waiting periods, if they wanted maternity coverage; a time when expecting families faced thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Do we want to go back to that time? It is also important to note that roughly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Pregnancy should not leave patients fearing bankruptcy and unable to afford the full range of prenatal and postnatal care.

“States that opt out of covering preventive care would discontinue no-copay coverage for women’s preventive services, including contraception. Fifty-five million American women currently have this coverage, and as a result the country’s unintended pregnancy rate is at a 30-year low, and its teen pregnancy rate the lowest in recorded history. We cannot go back.”

Medicaid

Dr. Hollier pointed out that the BCRA would cut $772 billion from Medicaid, ending the program as we know it and shifting costs to states. “This section alone would devastate our patients in every state,” she said.

ACOG is a strong supporter of Medicaid expansion, which increased access to primary and preventive care, including contraception, for low-income women who otherwise would not see a physician until they became pregnant. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia expanded their Medicaid programs, and other states have expressed interest in doing the same.

Medicaid expansion was a major factor in the almost 50% decrease in the rate of uninsured women since 2010. The BCRA would roll back coverage for essential health benefits beginning in 2020 and end federal expansion funding by 2023.

Dr. Hollier continued, “Regular Medicaid would be threatened, too. The Senate bill would limit, for the first time ever, federal funding for Medicaid services per beneficiary. This would jeopardize the ability of the United States to respond to disasters and public health crises and pose a threat to health care coverage and benefits for tens of millions of Americans.”

“Given that nearly half of US births are covered by Medicaid, cutting this program would have a huge impact on our practices and on our patients with high-risk and expensive pregnancies. What happens when a low-income pregnant patient with hypertension, gestational diabetes, or preeclampsia reaches her Medicaid cap? What happens to a patient with an opioid use disorder or a patient who may have been exposed to the Zika virus? In all likelihood, physicians would have to continue providing care, regardless of coverage, or states would have to reduce physician payments to fill the gap in federal funding. I am sure you are as horrified as I am by these scenarios,” said Dr. Hollier.

Planned Parenthood

Dr. DeFrancesco discussed the threat to PP. First, he explained what defunding the organization would mean. “Planned Parenthood does not just receive a check from the government each year. Like other qualified providers, like us, PP health centers receive federal reimbursement for primary and preventive services provided to patients with Medicaid coverage. Fifty-four percent of these centers are located in rural and medically underserved communities.”

The BCRA would exclude PP health centers from the Medicaid program, which means Medicaid patients would be denied primary and preventive care at these centers. Within the first year, up to 1 million women would find their access to care restricted. In addition, about half of all PP centers would have to close, and most would not reopen. Dr. DeFrancesco asked, “How would this move help our patients? It wouldn’t.”

Two examples shed light on the situation. First, when PP was excluded from a Texas program serving low-income patients, the number of women using the most effective birth control methods decreased by 35%, and the number of Medicaid-covered births increased by 27%. Second, when public health funding cuts forced many Indiana clinics to close, rural areas of the state experienced one of the fastest and largest HIV outbreaks ever to occur in the United States.

Dr. DeFrancesco said, “Excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program interferes with the patient–physician relationship and sets a dangerous precedent of targeting qualified providers for political purposes.”

Opioid epidemic

Dr. Brown indicated that the BCRA would cripple attempts to address our very serious national opioid epidemic. The $2 billion the bill would allocate for opioid use disorder treatment for 1 year would replace funding lost by Medicaid and would pay for only a fraction of what is needed. Dr. Brown called this measure a “token, not a commitment, and a big step back in the progress we have made to address this public health crisis.”

The Hippocratic oath

While preparing for the teleconference, I kept thinking about the Hippocratic oath and our deep obligation to our patients. Every physician I know goes beyond the exam room to care for patients. We lose sleep not only when we get up to deliver babies, but when we worry about the ailing mother of four we saw yesterday, or the scared teenager who missed last week’s appointment. We care for our patients because it is the right thing to do, and it is our calling. Well, this year, our patients needed us more than ever. We had to step up, speak out, do everything we could to stop BCRA from passing. The stakes could not have been higher.

The vote, and the road ahead

The morning after Senators Collins, Murkowski, and McCain joined Senate Democrats to end the bill, Dr. Brown wrote the following to ACOG members and the US Congress:

“This was a battle we simply had to win to protect our patients. Thanks to your tireless advocacy, landmark women’s health care protections remain law, and millions of our patients will continue to get the care they need. And our work continues. The ACA is not perfect and needs major reform. ACOG is ready, willing, and able to work with Republicans and Democrats in the US House and Senate to reform the law, through an open and collaborative process. We hope it is clear to everyone in Congress that physicians must be part of the conversation and the solution.”