MDedge Rheumatology

TOPLINE:

Patients with late-onset axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) are less likely to be positive for human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) and have a family history of SpA; they are more likely to present with peripheral arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter cross-sectional study including 2165 patients with a clinical diagnosis of axSpA who were identified from the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register from June 2008 to December 2022.
• Patients with symptom onset at or after 45 years of age were referred as late-onset axSpA, whereas those with symptom onset before 45 years as early-onset axSpA.
• Overall, 273 had a diagnosis of late-onset axSpA (mean age at symptom onset, 51.4 years; 55% men) and 1892 had a diagnosis of early-onset axSpA (mean age at symptom onset, 28.9 years; 56% men).
• Independent associations between demographic, clinical, imaging, and treatment characteristics and late-onset axSpA were tested using multivariable logistic regression models.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with late-onset axSpA were less likely to be positive for HLA-B27 (51% vs 65%; P < .001) and to have a family history of SpA (8% vs 14%; P < .01), have inflammatory back pain (81% vs 88%; P < .01), and have acute anterior uveitis (13% vs 20%; P < .01) than those with early-onset axSpA.
• Patients with late-onset axSpA had a higher likelihood of having peripheral arthritis than those with early-onset axSpA (36% vs 28%; P < .05).
• The odds of having late-onset axSpA were lower in patients with HLA-B27 positivity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), a family history of SpA (aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9), inflammatory back pain (aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8), and acute anterior uveitis (aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9).
• Conversely, patients with peripheral arthritis had a higher likelihood of developing late-onset axSpA (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9).

IN PRACTICE:

“In this study, we found that [late-onset axSpA] may represent a distinct phenotype with a weaker association with HLA-B27,” the authors wrote. “Whether [late-onset axSpA] comprises a subset of axSpA with a (possibly) different genetic or epigenetic background or rather translates difficulties in recognizing a less typical disease presentation and a population without a genetic marker which can make the diagnostic process more challenging merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Margarida Lucas Rocha, MD, Department of Rheumatology, ULSA, Faro, Portugal. It was published online in Joint Bone Spine.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were reported in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant funding information and conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with late-onset axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) are less likely to be positive for human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) and have a family history of SpA; they are more likely to present with peripheral arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter cross-sectional study including 2165 patients with a clinical diagnosis of axSpA who were identified from the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register from June 2008 to December 2022.
• Patients with symptom onset at or after 45 years of age were referred as late-onset axSpA, whereas those with symptom onset before 45 years as early-onset axSpA.
• Overall, 273 had a diagnosis of late-onset axSpA (mean age at symptom onset, 51.4 years; 55% men) and 1892 had a diagnosis of early-onset axSpA (mean age at symptom onset, 28.9 years; 56% men).
• Independent associations between demographic, clinical, imaging, and treatment characteristics and late-onset axSpA were tested using multivariable logistic regression models.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with late-onset axSpA were less likely to be positive for HLA-B27 (51% vs 65%; P < .001) and to have a family history of SpA (8% vs 14%; P < .01), have inflammatory back pain (81% vs 88%; P < .01), and have acute anterior uveitis (13% vs 20%; P < .01) than those with early-onset axSpA.
• Patients with late-onset axSpA had a higher likelihood of having peripheral arthritis than those with early-onset axSpA (36% vs 28%; P < .05).
• The odds of having late-onset axSpA were lower in patients with HLA-B27 positivity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), a family history of SpA (aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9), inflammatory back pain (aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8), and acute anterior uveitis (aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9).
• Conversely, patients with peripheral arthritis had a higher likelihood of developing late-onset axSpA (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9).

IN PRACTICE:

“In this study, we found that [late-onset axSpA] may represent a distinct phenotype with a weaker association with HLA-B27,” the authors wrote. “Whether [late-onset axSpA] comprises a subset of axSpA with a (possibly) different genetic or epigenetic background or rather translates difficulties in recognizing a less typical disease presentation and a population without a genetic marker which can make the diagnostic process more challenging merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Margarida Lucas Rocha, MD, Department of Rheumatology, ULSA, Faro, Portugal. It was published online in Joint Bone Spine.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were reported in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant funding information and conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with late-onset axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) are less likely to be positive for human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) and have a family history of SpA; they are more likely to present with peripheral arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter cross-sectional study including 2165 patients with a clinical diagnosis of axSpA who were identified from the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register from June 2008 to December 2022.
• Patients with symptom onset at or after 45 years of age were referred as late-onset axSpA, whereas those with symptom onset before 45 years as early-onset axSpA.
• Overall, 273 had a diagnosis of late-onset axSpA (mean age at symptom onset, 51.4 years; 55% men) and 1892 had a diagnosis of early-onset axSpA (mean age at symptom onset, 28.9 years; 56% men).
• Independent associations between demographic, clinical, imaging, and treatment characteristics and late-onset axSpA were tested using multivariable logistic regression models.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with late-onset axSpA were less likely to be positive for HLA-B27 (51% vs 65%; P < .001) and to have a family history of SpA (8% vs 14%; P < .01), have inflammatory back pain (81% vs 88%; P < .01), and have acute anterior uveitis (13% vs 20%; P < .01) than those with early-onset axSpA.
• Patients with late-onset axSpA had a higher likelihood of having peripheral arthritis than those with early-onset axSpA (36% vs 28%; P < .05).
• The odds of having late-onset axSpA were lower in patients with HLA-B27 positivity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), a family history of SpA (aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9), inflammatory back pain (aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8), and acute anterior uveitis (aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9).
• Conversely, patients with peripheral arthritis had a higher likelihood of developing late-onset axSpA (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9).

IN PRACTICE:

“In this study, we found that [late-onset axSpA] may represent a distinct phenotype with a weaker association with HLA-B27,” the authors wrote. “Whether [late-onset axSpA] comprises a subset of axSpA with a (possibly) different genetic or epigenetic background or rather translates difficulties in recognizing a less typical disease presentation and a population without a genetic marker which can make the diagnostic process more challenging merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Margarida Lucas Rocha, MD, Department of Rheumatology, ULSA, Faro, Portugal. It was published online in Joint Bone Spine.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were reported in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant funding information and conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 infection increases the risk for autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs), specifically pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid, according to a study that also found that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network, encompassing over 112 million electronic health records in the United States.
• The study compared the risk for AIBD within 3 months among individuals who had COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19 vaccination 6 months prior to the infection (n = 4,787,106), individuals who had COVID-19 vaccination but did not have COVID-19 infection (n = 3,466,536), and individuals who did not have COVID-19 infection or vaccination (n = 5,609,197).
• The mean age of the three groups was 44.9, 52.3, and 49.3 years, respectively.
• Propensity score matching included 4,408,748 individuals each for the comparison between COVID-19 infection and controls, 3,465,420 for COVID-19 vaccination and controls, and 3,362,850 for COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The mean follow-up ranged from 72.2 to 76.3 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with COVID-19 infection showed a 50.8% increased risk for AIBD within 3 months (P < .001) compared with those without infection or vaccination. The risk was more pronounced for pemphigus (hazard ratio [HR], 2.432; P < .001) than bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.376; P = .036).
• On the contrary, individuals who had the COVID-19 vaccination showed almost half the risk for AIBD (HR, 0.514; P < .001). The risk reduction was significant for pemphigus (HR, 0.477; P = .030), but not for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.846).
• When the infection and vaccination groups were compared, COVID-19 infection increased AIBD risk by more than threefold (HR, 3.130; P < .001), with a particularly high risk for pemphigus (HR, 5.508; P < .001). A significant risk was also seen for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.587; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings underscore the importance of vaccination not only in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes but also in potentially protecting against autoimmune complications,” the authors wrote, adding that “this potential dual benefit of vaccination should be a key message in public health campaigns and clinical practice to enhance vaccine uptake and ultimately improve health outcomes.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Philip Curman, MD, PhD, of the Dermato-Venereology Clinic at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, and was published online on November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design has inherent biases, there is potential underreporting of COVID-19 cases and vaccinations, and there is misallocation of individuals. Unmeasured confounding factors may be present.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grant from the State of Schleswig-Holstein. Two authors were employees of TriNetX. Some authors received financial support and travel grants from various sources, including TriNetX. Additional disclosures are noted in the article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 infection increases the risk for autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs), specifically pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid, according to a study that also found that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network, encompassing over 112 million electronic health records in the United States.
• The study compared the risk for AIBD within 3 months among individuals who had COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19 vaccination 6 months prior to the infection (n = 4,787,106), individuals who had COVID-19 vaccination but did not have COVID-19 infection (n = 3,466,536), and individuals who did not have COVID-19 infection or vaccination (n = 5,609,197).
• The mean age of the three groups was 44.9, 52.3, and 49.3 years, respectively.
• Propensity score matching included 4,408,748 individuals each for the comparison between COVID-19 infection and controls, 3,465,420 for COVID-19 vaccination and controls, and 3,362,850 for COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The mean follow-up ranged from 72.2 to 76.3 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with COVID-19 infection showed a 50.8% increased risk for AIBD within 3 months (P < .001) compared with those without infection or vaccination. The risk was more pronounced for pemphigus (hazard ratio [HR], 2.432; P < .001) than bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.376; P = .036).
• On the contrary, individuals who had the COVID-19 vaccination showed almost half the risk for AIBD (HR, 0.514; P < .001). The risk reduction was significant for pemphigus (HR, 0.477; P = .030), but not for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.846).
• When the infection and vaccination groups were compared, COVID-19 infection increased AIBD risk by more than threefold (HR, 3.130; P < .001), with a particularly high risk for pemphigus (HR, 5.508; P < .001). A significant risk was also seen for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.587; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings underscore the importance of vaccination not only in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes but also in potentially protecting against autoimmune complications,” the authors wrote, adding that “this potential dual benefit of vaccination should be a key message in public health campaigns and clinical practice to enhance vaccine uptake and ultimately improve health outcomes.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Philip Curman, MD, PhD, of the Dermato-Venereology Clinic at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, and was published online on November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design has inherent biases, there is potential underreporting of COVID-19 cases and vaccinations, and there is misallocation of individuals. Unmeasured confounding factors may be present.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grant from the State of Schleswig-Holstein. Two authors were employees of TriNetX. Some authors received financial support and travel grants from various sources, including TriNetX. Additional disclosures are noted in the article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 infection increases the risk for autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs), specifically pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid, according to a study that also found that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network, encompassing over 112 million electronic health records in the United States.
• The study compared the risk for AIBD within 3 months among individuals who had COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19 vaccination 6 months prior to the infection (n = 4,787,106), individuals who had COVID-19 vaccination but did not have COVID-19 infection (n = 3,466,536), and individuals who did not have COVID-19 infection or vaccination (n = 5,609,197).
• The mean age of the three groups was 44.9, 52.3, and 49.3 years, respectively.
• Propensity score matching included 4,408,748 individuals each for the comparison between COVID-19 infection and controls, 3,465,420 for COVID-19 vaccination and controls, and 3,362,850 for COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The mean follow-up ranged from 72.2 to 76.3 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with COVID-19 infection showed a 50.8% increased risk for AIBD within 3 months (P < .001) compared with those without infection or vaccination. The risk was more pronounced for pemphigus (hazard ratio [HR], 2.432; P < .001) than bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.376; P = .036).
• On the contrary, individuals who had the COVID-19 vaccination showed almost half the risk for AIBD (HR, 0.514; P < .001). The risk reduction was significant for pemphigus (HR, 0.477; P = .030), but not for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.846).
• When the infection and vaccination groups were compared, COVID-19 infection increased AIBD risk by more than threefold (HR, 3.130; P < .001), with a particularly high risk for pemphigus (HR, 5.508; P < .001). A significant risk was also seen for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.587; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings underscore the importance of vaccination not only in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes but also in potentially protecting against autoimmune complications,” the authors wrote, adding that “this potential dual benefit of vaccination should be a key message in public health campaigns and clinical practice to enhance vaccine uptake and ultimately improve health outcomes.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Philip Curman, MD, PhD, of the Dermato-Venereology Clinic at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, and was published online on November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design has inherent biases, there is potential underreporting of COVID-19 cases and vaccinations, and there is misallocation of individuals. Unmeasured confounding factors may be present.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grant from the State of Schleswig-Holstein. Two authors were employees of TriNetX. Some authors received financial support and travel grants from various sources, including TriNetX. Additional disclosures are noted in the article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Rituximab and cyclophosphamide are equally effective in achieving remission or low disease activity rates in childhood-onset antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), and those who received rituximab required a significantly lower steroid dose than those who received cyclophosphamide or a combination therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the efficacy of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, or a combination of both in pediatric patients diagnosed with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis.
• A total of 104 patients (median age at diagnosis, 14 years; 67% girls) were included from A Registry of Childhood Vasculitis; the majority had a diagnosis of GPA (81%) and renal involvement (87%). Overall, induction therapy involved rituximab for 43%, cyclophosphamide for 46%, and a combination of both for 11% patients.
• The primary endpoint was the rate of achieving remission (Pediatric Vasculitis Activity Score [PVAS] of 0) or low disease activity (PVAS ≤ 2) at the post-induction visit (4-6 months after diagnosis).
• The secondary endpoints were the degree of disease-related damage at 12- and 24-month visits and rates of drug-related hospitalization occurring between the diagnosis and post-induction visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the post-induction visit, 63% patients achieved remission or low disease activity, with the rates being similar between patients who received rituximab and those who received cyclophosphamide (64% vs 62%).
• Patients treated with rituximab required a significantly lower median steroid dose (0.13 mg/kg per day) than those treated with cyclophosphamide (0.3 mg/kg per day) or the combination therapy (0.3 mg/kg per day; P < .001) at the post-induction visit.
• Overall, 61% and 56% patients receiving rituximab and cyclophosphamide, respectively, had disease-related damage measure on the Pediatric Vasculitis Damage Index at the 12-month visit; however, the degree of damage was low.
• The percentage of patients requiring hospitalization was higher in the rituximab group than in the cyclophosphamide group (22% vs 10%), primarily stemming from drug- or infection-related causes (11% vs 2%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study may assist with current clinical decision-making with regard to the choice of induction medications in childhood-onset AAV and will complement the ongoing [Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance] prospective [consensus treatment plans] study,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Samuel J. Gagne, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the inconsistencies in glucocorticoid dosing, which may have affected remission rates. Moreover, data on the adverse events not requiring hospitalization and long-term adverse events were not captured.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding through a Nationwide Children’s Hospital intramural grant award. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Rituximab and cyclophosphamide are equally effective in achieving remission or low disease activity rates in childhood-onset antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), and those who received rituximab required a significantly lower steroid dose than those who received cyclophosphamide or a combination therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the efficacy of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, or a combination of both in pediatric patients diagnosed with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis.
• A total of 104 patients (median age at diagnosis, 14 years; 67% girls) were included from A Registry of Childhood Vasculitis; the majority had a diagnosis of GPA (81%) and renal involvement (87%). Overall, induction therapy involved rituximab for 43%, cyclophosphamide for 46%, and a combination of both for 11% patients.
• The primary endpoint was the rate of achieving remission (Pediatric Vasculitis Activity Score [PVAS] of 0) or low disease activity (PVAS ≤ 2) at the post-induction visit (4-6 months after diagnosis).
• The secondary endpoints were the degree of disease-related damage at 12- and 24-month visits and rates of drug-related hospitalization occurring between the diagnosis and post-induction visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the post-induction visit, 63% patients achieved remission or low disease activity, with the rates being similar between patients who received rituximab and those who received cyclophosphamide (64% vs 62%).
• Patients treated with rituximab required a significantly lower median steroid dose (0.13 mg/kg per day) than those treated with cyclophosphamide (0.3 mg/kg per day) or the combination therapy (0.3 mg/kg per day; P < .001) at the post-induction visit.
• Overall, 61% and 56% patients receiving rituximab and cyclophosphamide, respectively, had disease-related damage measure on the Pediatric Vasculitis Damage Index at the 12-month visit; however, the degree of damage was low.
• The percentage of patients requiring hospitalization was higher in the rituximab group than in the cyclophosphamide group (22% vs 10%), primarily stemming from drug- or infection-related causes (11% vs 2%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study may assist with current clinical decision-making with regard to the choice of induction medications in childhood-onset AAV and will complement the ongoing [Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance] prospective [consensus treatment plans] study,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Samuel J. Gagne, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the inconsistencies in glucocorticoid dosing, which may have affected remission rates. Moreover, data on the adverse events not requiring hospitalization and long-term adverse events were not captured.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding through a Nationwide Children’s Hospital intramural grant award. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Rituximab and cyclophosphamide are equally effective in achieving remission or low disease activity rates in childhood-onset antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), and those who received rituximab required a significantly lower steroid dose than those who received cyclophosphamide or a combination therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the efficacy of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, or a combination of both in pediatric patients diagnosed with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis.
• A total of 104 patients (median age at diagnosis, 14 years; 67% girls) were included from A Registry of Childhood Vasculitis; the majority had a diagnosis of GPA (81%) and renal involvement (87%). Overall, induction therapy involved rituximab for 43%, cyclophosphamide for 46%, and a combination of both for 11% patients.
• The primary endpoint was the rate of achieving remission (Pediatric Vasculitis Activity Score [PVAS] of 0) or low disease activity (PVAS ≤ 2) at the post-induction visit (4-6 months after diagnosis).
• The secondary endpoints were the degree of disease-related damage at 12- and 24-month visits and rates of drug-related hospitalization occurring between the diagnosis and post-induction visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the post-induction visit, 63% patients achieved remission or low disease activity, with the rates being similar between patients who received rituximab and those who received cyclophosphamide (64% vs 62%).
• Patients treated with rituximab required a significantly lower median steroid dose (0.13 mg/kg per day) than those treated with cyclophosphamide (0.3 mg/kg per day) or the combination therapy (0.3 mg/kg per day; P < .001) at the post-induction visit.
• Overall, 61% and 56% patients receiving rituximab and cyclophosphamide, respectively, had disease-related damage measure on the Pediatric Vasculitis Damage Index at the 12-month visit; however, the degree of damage was low.
• The percentage of patients requiring hospitalization was higher in the rituximab group than in the cyclophosphamide group (22% vs 10%), primarily stemming from drug- or infection-related causes (11% vs 2%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study may assist with current clinical decision-making with regard to the choice of induction medications in childhood-onset AAV and will complement the ongoing [Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance] prospective [consensus treatment plans] study,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Samuel J. Gagne, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the inconsistencies in glucocorticoid dosing, which may have affected remission rates. Moreover, data on the adverse events not requiring hospitalization and long-term adverse events were not captured.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding through a Nationwide Children’s Hospital intramural grant award. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals at an increased risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a unique gut microbial composition, characterized by a notable increase in certain strains of Prevotella bacteria. These changes begin approximately 10 months prior to the onset of RA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this cross-sectional and longitudinal observational study, researchers aimed to identify microbial associations in the early stages of RA, focusing specifically on Prevotellaceae strains.
• The cross-sectional analysis assessed the gut microbiome profiles of 124 individuals at risk of developing RA, 7 patients with newly diagnosed RA, and 22 healthy control individuals free of musculoskeletal symptoms at five different time points over a period of 15 months; 30 patients progressed to RA during the study period.
• The longitudinal analysis was performed in 19 individuals at risk of developing RA, of whom 5 progressed to the condition.
• The risk of developing RA was identified by the presence of anti–cyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) antibodies and the onset of musculoskeletal pain in the preceding 3 months.
• Gut microbiome taxonomic alterations were investigated using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and confirmed with shotgun metagenomic DNA sequencing of 49 samples.

TAKEAWAY:

• Gut microbial diversity, particularly alpha diversity, was notably reduced in CCP+ individuals at risk of developing RA vs healthy control individuals (P = .012). Recognized risk factors for RA development such as the presence of rheumatoid factor antibodies and the human leukocyte antigen shared epitope, were significantly linked to diminished gut microbial diversity, in addition to steroid use.
• A specific Prevotellaceae strain (ASV2058) was found to be overabundant in CCP+ individuals at risk of developing RA and in those newly diagnosed with the condition but not in healthy control individuals. Further analysis showed that enrichment and depletion of three and five strains of Prevotellaceae, respectively, were associated with the progression to RA in CCP+ individuals.
• CCP+ individuals who progressed to RA were found to have substantial fluctuations in gut microbiome profiles around 10 months before clinical diagnosis; however, these profiles were relatively stable 10-15 months before the onset of RA, suggesting that changes in the microbiome occur at a later stage.
• Patients with new-onset RA were found to have distinct metabolic shifts, particularly in pathways related to amino acid and energy metabolism.

IN PRACTICE:

“Individuals at risk of RA harbor a distinctive gut microbial composition, including but not limited to an overabundance of Prevotellaceae species. This microbial signature is consistent and correlates with traditional RA risk factors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Christopher M. Rooney, MD, PhD, University of Leeds in England. It was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The small longitudinal sample size and lack of a 1:1 longitudinal comparison between CCP+ individuals at risk for RA and healthy control individuals were major limitations of this study. The new-onset RA cohort was heterogeneous, reflecting the practical constraints of recruitment from standard care clinics. Integrated transcriptomic or metabolomic data were unavailable, restricting interpretation to potential rather than confirmed metabolic activity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by personal fellowships received by the lead author from Versus Arthritis, Leeds Cares, and a National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship. Some authors disclosed receiving grants, funding, consulting fees, or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals at an increased risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a unique gut microbial composition, characterized by a notable increase in certain strains of Prevotella bacteria. These changes begin approximately 10 months prior to the onset of RA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this cross-sectional and longitudinal observational study, researchers aimed to identify microbial associations in the early stages of RA, focusing specifically on Prevotellaceae strains.
• The cross-sectional analysis assessed the gut microbiome profiles of 124 individuals at risk of developing RA, 7 patients with newly diagnosed RA, and 22 healthy control individuals free of musculoskeletal symptoms at five different time points over a period of 15 months; 30 patients progressed to RA during the study period.
• The longitudinal analysis was performed in 19 individuals at risk of developing RA, of whom 5 progressed to the condition.
• The risk of developing RA was identified by the presence of anti–cyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) antibodies and the onset of musculoskeletal pain in the preceding 3 months.
• Gut microbiome taxonomic alterations were investigated using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and confirmed with shotgun metagenomic DNA sequencing of 49 samples.

TAKEAWAY:

• Gut microbial diversity, particularly alpha diversity, was notably reduced in CCP+ individuals at risk of developing RA vs healthy control individuals (P = .012). Recognized risk factors for RA development such as the presence of rheumatoid factor antibodies and the human leukocyte antigen shared epitope, were significantly linked to diminished gut microbial diversity, in addition to steroid use.
• A specific Prevotellaceae strain (ASV2058) was found to be overabundant in CCP+ individuals at risk of developing RA and in those newly diagnosed with the condition but not in healthy control individuals. Further analysis showed that enrichment and depletion of three and five strains of Prevotellaceae, respectively, were associated with the progression to RA in CCP+ individuals.
• CCP+ individuals who progressed to RA were found to have substantial fluctuations in gut microbiome profiles around 10 months before clinical diagnosis; however, these profiles were relatively stable 10-15 months before the onset of RA, suggesting that changes in the microbiome occur at a later stage.
• Patients with new-onset RA were found to have distinct metabolic shifts, particularly in pathways related to amino acid and energy metabolism.

IN PRACTICE:

“Individuals at risk of RA harbor a distinctive gut microbial composition, including but not limited to an overabundance of Prevotellaceae species. This microbial signature is consistent and correlates with traditional RA risk factors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Christopher M. Rooney, MD, PhD, University of Leeds in England. It was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The small longitudinal sample size and lack of a 1:1 longitudinal comparison between CCP+ individuals at risk for RA and healthy control individuals were major limitations of this study. The new-onset RA cohort was heterogeneous, reflecting the practical constraints of recruitment from standard care clinics. Integrated transcriptomic or metabolomic data were unavailable, restricting interpretation to potential rather than confirmed metabolic activity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by personal fellowships received by the lead author from Versus Arthritis, Leeds Cares, and a National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship. Some authors disclosed receiving grants, funding, consulting fees, or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals at an increased risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a unique gut microbial composition, characterized by a notable increase in certain strains of Prevotella bacteria. These changes begin approximately 10 months prior to the onset of RA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this cross-sectional and longitudinal observational study, researchers aimed to identify microbial associations in the early stages of RA, focusing specifically on Prevotellaceae strains.
• The cross-sectional analysis assessed the gut microbiome profiles of 124 individuals at risk of developing RA, 7 patients with newly diagnosed RA, and 22 healthy control individuals free of musculoskeletal symptoms at five different time points over a period of 15 months; 30 patients progressed to RA during the study period.
• The longitudinal analysis was performed in 19 individuals at risk of developing RA, of whom 5 progressed to the condition.
• The risk of developing RA was identified by the presence of anti–cyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) antibodies and the onset of musculoskeletal pain in the preceding 3 months.
• Gut microbiome taxonomic alterations were investigated using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and confirmed with shotgun metagenomic DNA sequencing of 49 samples.

TAKEAWAY:

• Gut microbial diversity, particularly alpha diversity, was notably reduced in CCP+ individuals at risk of developing RA vs healthy control individuals (P = .012). Recognized risk factors for RA development such as the presence of rheumatoid factor antibodies and the human leukocyte antigen shared epitope, were significantly linked to diminished gut microbial diversity, in addition to steroid use.
• A specific Prevotellaceae strain (ASV2058) was found to be overabundant in CCP+ individuals at risk of developing RA and in those newly diagnosed with the condition but not in healthy control individuals. Further analysis showed that enrichment and depletion of three and five strains of Prevotellaceae, respectively, were associated with the progression to RA in CCP+ individuals.
• CCP+ individuals who progressed to RA were found to have substantial fluctuations in gut microbiome profiles around 10 months before clinical diagnosis; however, these profiles were relatively stable 10-15 months before the onset of RA, suggesting that changes in the microbiome occur at a later stage.
• Patients with new-onset RA were found to have distinct metabolic shifts, particularly in pathways related to amino acid and energy metabolism.

IN PRACTICE:

“Individuals at risk of RA harbor a distinctive gut microbial composition, including but not limited to an overabundance of Prevotellaceae species. This microbial signature is consistent and correlates with traditional RA risk factors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Christopher M. Rooney, MD, PhD, University of Leeds in England. It was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The small longitudinal sample size and lack of a 1:1 longitudinal comparison between CCP+ individuals at risk for RA and healthy control individuals were major limitations of this study. The new-onset RA cohort was heterogeneous, reflecting the practical constraints of recruitment from standard care clinics. Integrated transcriptomic or metabolomic data were unavailable, restricting interpretation to potential rather than confirmed metabolic activity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by personal fellowships received by the lead author from Versus Arthritis, Leeds Cares, and a National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship. Some authors disclosed receiving grants, funding, consulting fees, or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Both infliximab and adalimumab are safe and effective in achieving remission in patients with severe mucocutaneous Behçet syndrome, with adalimumab demonstrating a quicker response time; both drugs also improve quality of life and disease activity scores.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a phase 3 prospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Behçet syndrome presenting with mucocutaneous manifestations and inadequate response to prior treatments who were recruited from four Italian tertiary referral centers specializing in Behçet syndrome.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 5 mg/kg intravenous infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every 6-8 weeks (n = 22; mean age, 46 years; 32% women) or 40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab every 2 weeks (n = 18; mean age, 48 years; 28% women) for 24 weeks.
• Patients were followed-up for an additional 12 weeks after the treatment period, with regular assessments of disease activity, safety, and adherence to treatment.
• The primary outcome was the time to response of mucocutaneous manifestations over 6 months; the secondary outcomes included relapse rates; quality of life, assessed using the Short-Form Health Survey 36; and disease activity, assessed using the Behçet Disease Current Activity Form.
• The safety and tolerability of the drugs were evaluated as the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs, monitored every 2 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The resolution of mucocutaneous manifestations was achieved significantly more quickly with adalimumab than with infliximab, with a median time to response of 42 vs 152 days (P = .001); the proportion of responders was also higher in the adalimumab group than in the infliximab group (94% vs 64%; P = .023).
• Patients in the infliximab group had a higher risk for nonresponse (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.33; P = .012) and relapse (adjusted HR, 7.57; P = .036) than those in the adalimumab group.
• Both infliximab and adalimumab significantly improved the quality of life in all dimensions (P < .05 for all) and disease activity scores (P < .001 for both) from baseline to the end of the study period, with no significant differences found between the groups.
• Two AEs were reported in the adalimumab group, one of which was serious (myocardial infarction); three nonserious AEs were reported in the infliximab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“ADA [adalimumab] and IFX [infliximab] were generally well tolerated and efficacious in patients with BS [Behçet syndrome] who showed an inadequate response to prior treatments with at least AZA [azathioprine] or CyA [cyclosporine],” the authors wrote. “Although a more detailed treat-to-target profile is yet to be better defined, [the study] results are also crucial in terms of prescriptiveness (currently off label), not only in Italy but also beyond national borders, as the evidence coming from real life still needs to be confirmed by growing data from clinical trials.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rosaria Talarico, MD, PhD, University of Pisa in Italy, and was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and the distinctive study design may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded through a grant from the Italian Medicines Agency. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Both infliximab and adalimumab are safe and effective in achieving remission in patients with severe mucocutaneous Behçet syndrome, with adalimumab demonstrating a quicker response time; both drugs also improve quality of life and disease activity scores.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a phase 3 prospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Behçet syndrome presenting with mucocutaneous manifestations and inadequate response to prior treatments who were recruited from four Italian tertiary referral centers specializing in Behçet syndrome.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 5 mg/kg intravenous infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every 6-8 weeks (n = 22; mean age, 46 years; 32% women) or 40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab every 2 weeks (n = 18; mean age, 48 years; 28% women) for 24 weeks.
• Patients were followed-up for an additional 12 weeks after the treatment period, with regular assessments of disease activity, safety, and adherence to treatment.
• The primary outcome was the time to response of mucocutaneous manifestations over 6 months; the secondary outcomes included relapse rates; quality of life, assessed using the Short-Form Health Survey 36; and disease activity, assessed using the Behçet Disease Current Activity Form.
• The safety and tolerability of the drugs were evaluated as the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs, monitored every 2 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The resolution of mucocutaneous manifestations was achieved significantly more quickly with adalimumab than with infliximab, with a median time to response of 42 vs 152 days (P = .001); the proportion of responders was also higher in the adalimumab group than in the infliximab group (94% vs 64%; P = .023).
• Patients in the infliximab group had a higher risk for nonresponse (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.33; P = .012) and relapse (adjusted HR, 7.57; P = .036) than those in the adalimumab group.
• Both infliximab and adalimumab significantly improved the quality of life in all dimensions (P < .05 for all) and disease activity scores (P < .001 for both) from baseline to the end of the study period, with no significant differences found between the groups.
• Two AEs were reported in the adalimumab group, one of which was serious (myocardial infarction); three nonserious AEs were reported in the infliximab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“ADA [adalimumab] and IFX [infliximab] were generally well tolerated and efficacious in patients with BS [Behçet syndrome] who showed an inadequate response to prior treatments with at least AZA [azathioprine] or CyA [cyclosporine],” the authors wrote. “Although a more detailed treat-to-target profile is yet to be better defined, [the study] results are also crucial in terms of prescriptiveness (currently off label), not only in Italy but also beyond national borders, as the evidence coming from real life still needs to be confirmed by growing data from clinical trials.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rosaria Talarico, MD, PhD, University of Pisa in Italy, and was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and the distinctive study design may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded through a grant from the Italian Medicines Agency. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Both infliximab and adalimumab are safe and effective in achieving remission in patients with severe mucocutaneous Behçet syndrome, with adalimumab demonstrating a quicker response time; both drugs also improve quality of life and disease activity scores.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a phase 3 prospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Behçet syndrome presenting with mucocutaneous manifestations and inadequate response to prior treatments who were recruited from four Italian tertiary referral centers specializing in Behçet syndrome.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 5 mg/kg intravenous infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every 6-8 weeks (n = 22; mean age, 46 years; 32% women) or 40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab every 2 weeks (n = 18; mean age, 48 years; 28% women) for 24 weeks.
• Patients were followed-up for an additional 12 weeks after the treatment period, with regular assessments of disease activity, safety, and adherence to treatment.
• The primary outcome was the time to response of mucocutaneous manifestations over 6 months; the secondary outcomes included relapse rates; quality of life, assessed using the Short-Form Health Survey 36; and disease activity, assessed using the Behçet Disease Current Activity Form.
• The safety and tolerability of the drugs were evaluated as the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs, monitored every 2 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The resolution of mucocutaneous manifestations was achieved significantly more quickly with adalimumab than with infliximab, with a median time to response of 42 vs 152 days (P = .001); the proportion of responders was also higher in the adalimumab group than in the infliximab group (94% vs 64%; P = .023).
• Patients in the infliximab group had a higher risk for nonresponse (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.33; P = .012) and relapse (adjusted HR, 7.57; P = .036) than those in the adalimumab group.
• Both infliximab and adalimumab significantly improved the quality of life in all dimensions (P < .05 for all) and disease activity scores (P < .001 for both) from baseline to the end of the study period, with no significant differences found between the groups.
• Two AEs were reported in the adalimumab group, one of which was serious (myocardial infarction); three nonserious AEs were reported in the infliximab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“ADA [adalimumab] and IFX [infliximab] were generally well tolerated and efficacious in patients with BS [Behçet syndrome] who showed an inadequate response to prior treatments with at least AZA [azathioprine] or CyA [cyclosporine],” the authors wrote. “Although a more detailed treat-to-target profile is yet to be better defined, [the study] results are also crucial in terms of prescriptiveness (currently off label), not only in Italy but also beyond national borders, as the evidence coming from real life still needs to be confirmed by growing data from clinical trials.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rosaria Talarico, MD, PhD, University of Pisa in Italy, and was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and the distinctive study design may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded through a grant from the Italian Medicines Agency. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On September 27, 2024, UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, experienced an IT outage because of a cybersecurity incident that temporarily diverted patients to other healthcare facilities. So far, in 2024, there have been 386 cyberattacks on healthcare organizations. These high-impact ransomware attacks disrupt and delay patient care.

In recent years, many healthcare systems, including Scripps Health, Universal Health Services, Vastaamo, Sky Lakes, and the University of Vermont, have paid millions — even tens of millions — to recover data after a cyberattack or data breach. When healthcare systems come under cyber fire, the impact extends far past disrupting workflows and compromising data, patient safety can be also be compromised, vital information may be lost, and imaging and lab results can go missing or be held for ransom, making physicians’ job difficult or impossible.

In fact, cyberattacks on hospitals are far more common than you may realize. A new report issued by Ponemon and Proofpoint found that 92% of healthcare organizations have experienced a cyberattack in the past 12 months. Even more sobering is that about half of the organizations affected suffered disruptions in patient care.
 

Healthcare Systems = ‘Soft Targets’

Healthcare systems are a “soft target” for hackers for several reasons, pointed out Matthew Radolec, vice president, incident response and cloud operations at Varonis, a data security company. “One, they’re usually an amalgamation of many healthcare systems that are interconnected,” said Radolec. “A lot of hospitals are connected to other hospitals or connected to educational institutions, which means their computer vulnerabilities are shared ... and if they have an issue, it could very easily spread to your network.”

Another factor is the cost of securing data. “[With hospitals], they’ll say that a dollar spent on security is a dollar not spent on patient care,” said Radolec. “So the idea of investing in security is really tough from a budget standpoint…they’re choosing between a new MRI machine or better antivirus, backups, or data security.”

Because of the wealth of private data and healthcare information they maintain, hospitals are considered “high impact” for cybercriminals. Attackers know that if they get a foothold in a hospital, it’s more likely to pay — and pay quickly, Radolec told this news organization. Hospitals are also likely to have cyber insurance to help cover the cost of having their data stolen, encrypted, and ransomed.

The 2024 Microsoft Digital Defense Report also found that the bad actors are more sophisticated and better resourced and can challenge even the best cybersecurity. Improved defenses may not be good enough, and the sheer volume of attacks must be met with effective deterrence and government solutions that impose consequences for cybercriminals.
 

Vulnerable Users

Whether through a phishing email or text, password attack, or web attack, “the moment a ‘threat actor’ gets into your institution and gets credentials ... that’s the Nirvana state of a threat actor,” warned Ryan Witt, chair of the healthcare customer advisory board and vice president of Industry Solutions at Proofpoint, a cybersecurity platform. “They have those credentials and will go into deep reconnaissance mode. It often takes healthcare up to 6 months to even ascertain whether somebody’s actually in the network.” During that time, the hacker is learning how the institution works, what job functions matter, and how best to plan their attack.

“Attackers are getting in because they’re buying databases of usernames and passwords. And they’re trying them by the millions,” added Radolec. “For a sophisticated actor, all it takes is time and motivation. They have the skills. It’s just a matter of how persistent they want to be.”

Certain hospital staff are also more likely to be targeted by cyberhackers than others. “About 10% of a healthcare organization’s user base is much more vulnerable for all sorts of reasons — how they work, the value of their job title and job function, and therefore their access to systems,” said Witt.

High-profile staff are more likely to be targeted than those in lower-level positions; the so-called “CEO attack” is typical. However, staff in other hospital departments are also subject to cybercriminals, including hospice departments/hospice organizations and research arms of hospitals.
 

The Impact of Cyberattacks on Patients 

Physicians and healthcare execs may have considered cybersecurity more of a compliance issue than a true threat to patients in the past. But this attitude is rapidly changing. “We are starting to see a very clear connection between a cyber event and how it can impact patient care and patient safety,” said Witt.

According to the Proofpoint report, cyber breaches can severely affect patient care. In 2024:

• 56% of respondents saw a delay in patient tests/procedures
• 53% experienced increased patient complications from medical procedures
• 52% noted a longer patient length of stay
• 44% saw an increase in patient transfers to other facilities
• 28% had an increase in mortality rate

What Hospitals and Physicians Can Do

Fortunately, hospitals can take measures to better protect their data and their patients. One strategy is segmenting networks to reduce the amount of data or systems one person or system can access. Educating staff about the dangers of phishing and spoofing emails also help protect organizations from ransomware attacks. Having staff avoid reusing passwords and updating logins and passwords frequently helps.

Most hospitals also need more robust security controls. Physicians and healthcare facilities must also embrace the cybersecurity controls found in other industries, said Witt. “Multifactor authentication is one of those things that can cause us frustration,” he said. “The controls can seem onerous, but they’re really valuable overall…and should become standard practice.”

Doctors can also prepare for a ransomware attack and protect patients by practicing some “old-school” medicine, like using paper systems and maintaining good patient notes — often, those notes are synced locally as well as offsite, so you’d be able to access them even during a data breach. “It’s smart to write prescriptions on pads sometimes,” said Radolec. “Don’t forget how to do those things because that will make you more resilient in the event of a ransomware attack.”
 

A Continuing Threat

Cyberattacks will continue. “When you look at the high likelihood [of success] and the soft target, you end up with ... a perfect storm,” said Radolec. “Hospitals have a lot of vulnerabilities. They have to keep operations going just to receive income, but also to deliver care to people.”

That means that the burden is on healthcare organizations — including physicians, nurses, staff, and C-level execs — to help keep the “security” in cybersecurity. “We are all part of the cybersecurity defense,” said Witt. Helping to maintain that defense has become a critical aspect of caring for patients.

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

On September 27, 2024, UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, experienced an IT outage because of a cybersecurity incident that temporarily diverted patients to other healthcare facilities. So far, in 2024, there have been 386 cyberattacks on healthcare organizations. These high-impact ransomware attacks disrupt and delay patient care.

In recent years, many healthcare systems, including Scripps Health, Universal Health Services, Vastaamo, Sky Lakes, and the University of Vermont, have paid millions — even tens of millions — to recover data after a cyberattack or data breach. When healthcare systems come under cyber fire, the impact extends far past disrupting workflows and compromising data, patient safety can be also be compromised, vital information may be lost, and imaging and lab results can go missing or be held for ransom, making physicians’ job difficult or impossible.

In fact, cyberattacks on hospitals are far more common than you may realize. A new report issued by Ponemon and Proofpoint found that 92% of healthcare organizations have experienced a cyberattack in the past 12 months. Even more sobering is that about half of the organizations affected suffered disruptions in patient care.
 

Healthcare Systems = ‘Soft Targets’

Healthcare systems are a “soft target” for hackers for several reasons, pointed out Matthew Radolec, vice president, incident response and cloud operations at Varonis, a data security company. “One, they’re usually an amalgamation of many healthcare systems that are interconnected,” said Radolec. “A lot of hospitals are connected to other hospitals or connected to educational institutions, which means their computer vulnerabilities are shared ... and if they have an issue, it could very easily spread to your network.”

Another factor is the cost of securing data. “[With hospitals], they’ll say that a dollar spent on security is a dollar not spent on patient care,” said Radolec. “So the idea of investing in security is really tough from a budget standpoint…they’re choosing between a new MRI machine or better antivirus, backups, or data security.”

Because of the wealth of private data and healthcare information they maintain, hospitals are considered “high impact” for cybercriminals. Attackers know that if they get a foothold in a hospital, it’s more likely to pay — and pay quickly, Radolec told this news organization. Hospitals are also likely to have cyber insurance to help cover the cost of having their data stolen, encrypted, and ransomed.

The 2024 Microsoft Digital Defense Report also found that the bad actors are more sophisticated and better resourced and can challenge even the best cybersecurity. Improved defenses may not be good enough, and the sheer volume of attacks must be met with effective deterrence and government solutions that impose consequences for cybercriminals.
 

Vulnerable Users

Whether through a phishing email or text, password attack, or web attack, “the moment a ‘threat actor’ gets into your institution and gets credentials ... that’s the Nirvana state of a threat actor,” warned Ryan Witt, chair of the healthcare customer advisory board and vice president of Industry Solutions at Proofpoint, a cybersecurity platform. “They have those credentials and will go into deep reconnaissance mode. It often takes healthcare up to 6 months to even ascertain whether somebody’s actually in the network.” During that time, the hacker is learning how the institution works, what job functions matter, and how best to plan their attack.

“Attackers are getting in because they’re buying databases of usernames and passwords. And they’re trying them by the millions,” added Radolec. “For a sophisticated actor, all it takes is time and motivation. They have the skills. It’s just a matter of how persistent they want to be.”

Certain hospital staff are also more likely to be targeted by cyberhackers than others. “About 10% of a healthcare organization’s user base is much more vulnerable for all sorts of reasons — how they work, the value of their job title and job function, and therefore their access to systems,” said Witt.

High-profile staff are more likely to be targeted than those in lower-level positions; the so-called “CEO attack” is typical. However, staff in other hospital departments are also subject to cybercriminals, including hospice departments/hospice organizations and research arms of hospitals.
 

The Impact of Cyberattacks on Patients 

Physicians and healthcare execs may have considered cybersecurity more of a compliance issue than a true threat to patients in the past. But this attitude is rapidly changing. “We are starting to see a very clear connection between a cyber event and how it can impact patient care and patient safety,” said Witt.

According to the Proofpoint report, cyber breaches can severely affect patient care. In 2024:

• 56% of respondents saw a delay in patient tests/procedures
• 53% experienced increased patient complications from medical procedures
• 52% noted a longer patient length of stay
• 44% saw an increase in patient transfers to other facilities
• 28% had an increase in mortality rate

What Hospitals and Physicians Can Do

Fortunately, hospitals can take measures to better protect their data and their patients. One strategy is segmenting networks to reduce the amount of data or systems one person or system can access. Educating staff about the dangers of phishing and spoofing emails also help protect organizations from ransomware attacks. Having staff avoid reusing passwords and updating logins and passwords frequently helps.

Most hospitals also need more robust security controls. Physicians and healthcare facilities must also embrace the cybersecurity controls found in other industries, said Witt. “Multifactor authentication is one of those things that can cause us frustration,” he said. “The controls can seem onerous, but they’re really valuable overall…and should become standard practice.”

Doctors can also prepare for a ransomware attack and protect patients by practicing some “old-school” medicine, like using paper systems and maintaining good patient notes — often, those notes are synced locally as well as offsite, so you’d be able to access them even during a data breach. “It’s smart to write prescriptions on pads sometimes,” said Radolec. “Don’t forget how to do those things because that will make you more resilient in the event of a ransomware attack.”
 

A Continuing Threat

Cyberattacks will continue. “When you look at the high likelihood [of success] and the soft target, you end up with ... a perfect storm,” said Radolec. “Hospitals have a lot of vulnerabilities. They have to keep operations going just to receive income, but also to deliver care to people.”

That means that the burden is on healthcare organizations — including physicians, nurses, staff, and C-level execs — to help keep the “security” in cybersecurity. “We are all part of the cybersecurity defense,” said Witt. Helping to maintain that defense has become a critical aspect of caring for patients.

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

On September 27, 2024, UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, experienced an IT outage because of a cybersecurity incident that temporarily diverted patients to other healthcare facilities. So far, in 2024, there have been 386 cyberattacks on healthcare organizations. These high-impact ransomware attacks disrupt and delay patient care.

In recent years, many healthcare systems, including Scripps Health, Universal Health Services, Vastaamo, Sky Lakes, and the University of Vermont, have paid millions — even tens of millions — to recover data after a cyberattack or data breach. When healthcare systems come under cyber fire, the impact extends far past disrupting workflows and compromising data, patient safety can be also be compromised, vital information may be lost, and imaging and lab results can go missing or be held for ransom, making physicians’ job difficult or impossible.

In fact, cyberattacks on hospitals are far more common than you may realize. A new report issued by Ponemon and Proofpoint found that 92% of healthcare organizations have experienced a cyberattack in the past 12 months. Even more sobering is that about half of the organizations affected suffered disruptions in patient care.
 

Healthcare Systems = ‘Soft Targets’

Healthcare systems are a “soft target” for hackers for several reasons, pointed out Matthew Radolec, vice president, incident response and cloud operations at Varonis, a data security company. “One, they’re usually an amalgamation of many healthcare systems that are interconnected,” said Radolec. “A lot of hospitals are connected to other hospitals or connected to educational institutions, which means their computer vulnerabilities are shared ... and if they have an issue, it could very easily spread to your network.”

Another factor is the cost of securing data. “[With hospitals], they’ll say that a dollar spent on security is a dollar not spent on patient care,” said Radolec. “So the idea of investing in security is really tough from a budget standpoint…they’re choosing between a new MRI machine or better antivirus, backups, or data security.”

Because of the wealth of private data and healthcare information they maintain, hospitals are considered “high impact” for cybercriminals. Attackers know that if they get a foothold in a hospital, it’s more likely to pay — and pay quickly, Radolec told this news organization. Hospitals are also likely to have cyber insurance to help cover the cost of having their data stolen, encrypted, and ransomed.

The 2024 Microsoft Digital Defense Report also found that the bad actors are more sophisticated and better resourced and can challenge even the best cybersecurity. Improved defenses may not be good enough, and the sheer volume of attacks must be met with effective deterrence and government solutions that impose consequences for cybercriminals.
 

Vulnerable Users

Whether through a phishing email or text, password attack, or web attack, “the moment a ‘threat actor’ gets into your institution and gets credentials ... that’s the Nirvana state of a threat actor,” warned Ryan Witt, chair of the healthcare customer advisory board and vice president of Industry Solutions at Proofpoint, a cybersecurity platform. “They have those credentials and will go into deep reconnaissance mode. It often takes healthcare up to 6 months to even ascertain whether somebody’s actually in the network.” During that time, the hacker is learning how the institution works, what job functions matter, and how best to plan their attack.

“Attackers are getting in because they’re buying databases of usernames and passwords. And they’re trying them by the millions,” added Radolec. “For a sophisticated actor, all it takes is time and motivation. They have the skills. It’s just a matter of how persistent they want to be.”

Certain hospital staff are also more likely to be targeted by cyberhackers than others. “About 10% of a healthcare organization’s user base is much more vulnerable for all sorts of reasons — how they work, the value of their job title and job function, and therefore their access to systems,” said Witt.

High-profile staff are more likely to be targeted than those in lower-level positions; the so-called “CEO attack” is typical. However, staff in other hospital departments are also subject to cybercriminals, including hospice departments/hospice organizations and research arms of hospitals.
 

The Impact of Cyberattacks on Patients 

Physicians and healthcare execs may have considered cybersecurity more of a compliance issue than a true threat to patients in the past. But this attitude is rapidly changing. “We are starting to see a very clear connection between a cyber event and how it can impact patient care and patient safety,” said Witt.

According to the Proofpoint report, cyber breaches can severely affect patient care. In 2024:

• 56% of respondents saw a delay in patient tests/procedures
• 53% experienced increased patient complications from medical procedures
• 52% noted a longer patient length of stay
• 44% saw an increase in patient transfers to other facilities
• 28% had an increase in mortality rate

What Hospitals and Physicians Can Do

Fortunately, hospitals can take measures to better protect their data and their patients. One strategy is segmenting networks to reduce the amount of data or systems one person or system can access. Educating staff about the dangers of phishing and spoofing emails also help protect organizations from ransomware attacks. Having staff avoid reusing passwords and updating logins and passwords frequently helps.

Most hospitals also need more robust security controls. Physicians and healthcare facilities must also embrace the cybersecurity controls found in other industries, said Witt. “Multifactor authentication is one of those things that can cause us frustration,” he said. “The controls can seem onerous, but they’re really valuable overall…and should become standard practice.”

Doctors can also prepare for a ransomware attack and protect patients by practicing some “old-school” medicine, like using paper systems and maintaining good patient notes — often, those notes are synced locally as well as offsite, so you’d be able to access them even during a data breach. “It’s smart to write prescriptions on pads sometimes,” said Radolec. “Don’t forget how to do those things because that will make you more resilient in the event of a ransomware attack.”
 

A Continuing Threat

Cyberattacks will continue. “When you look at the high likelihood [of success] and the soft target, you end up with ... a perfect storm,” said Radolec. “Hospitals have a lot of vulnerabilities. They have to keep operations going just to receive income, but also to deliver care to people.”

That means that the burden is on healthcare organizations — including physicians, nurses, staff, and C-level execs — to help keep the “security” in cybersecurity. “We are all part of the cybersecurity defense,” said Witt. Helping to maintain that defense has become a critical aspect of caring for patients.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

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

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

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

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

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

I’ve worked locum tenens off and on since 1982. Flexible schedules allowed me to write several books, pursue a parallel career as a medical journalist, lead medical missions in the Philippines, and develop modest expertise as an underwater photographer.

But the recent rise in locum tenens practitioners signals trouble for medicine.
 

A Multibillion-Dollar Industry

Roughly 52,000 US doctors work locum tenens full or part time. In annual reports by CHG Healthcare, two thirds of healthcare facilities surveyed report using locums and more than half expect to maintain or increase their use in 2024.

Another measure of the industry’s growth is that membership of The National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations (NALTO), formed in 2001 to lead this fledgling industry, has doubled since 2019. Currently, NALTO has 148 member agencies.
 

Why Locums?

What used to be the preserve of older physicians transitioning to retirement is now becoming a career choice. According to the 2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals by AMN Healthcare, 81% of respondents said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. What entices doctors to move from place to place, repeatedly adapt to new facilities and electronic medical records, live in cheap hotels, and work without paid vacations, health insurance, or retirement benefits? 

Supplemental income is one reason. But the elephant in the room is clearly burnout. Rates of burnout in practicing doctors and physicians-in-training have exceeded 50%. Burnout results in medical errors, malpractice suits, and increased healthcare costs. 

A recent Doximity poll of 7590 physicians revealed that 63% would not want their children to pursue a medical career. And in a Medscape survey of 7000 physicians, a third of docs under 40 would not choose medicine again if they had a do-over. If a career in medicine brings high income and privileged status, why do so many physicians regret it and discourage their children from taking the same path?
 

Where Is Marcus Welby, MD?

Private practice is an endangered species that no one is trying to save. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 44% of physicians owned their practices compared with 76% of physicians in the 1980s. Even fewer younger physicians are choosing private practice. Among physicians under 45 years of age, only 32% owned their practices. Most physicians are now employees, not employers. They have lost control over their duties and work hours. 

In 2022, barely 13% of physicians were in solo practice. The iconic Dr Marcus Welby of the 1970s TV series has transmuted from an idealized physician to an implausible figure. (My medical students have never heard of him.)

Hospitals and health systems have purchased many private medical groups. Private-equity companies own close to 1000 physician practices and staff up to 40% of emergency rooms. For these firms, profits are paramount.
 

Canary in a Coal Mine

Locum tenens offers physicians unprecedented flexibility where they work, when they work, and how much they work. It provides an escape from overwhelming and unsatisfying clinical practice. While some physicians have fled to nonclinical careers, locums physicians can practice medicine without the burdens of administration, hospital politics, and ever-increasing overhead. 

The locum tenens paradox is that its successful growth indicates a deteriorating traditional healthcare model. Locum tenens is not the problem, but it’s also not the solution. At best, locums is a pair of crutches that helps the current system limp along.

Healthcare is increasingly controlled by those who prioritize profit, not patients. If physicians become nothing more than complicit cogs in a dysfunctional system, burnout will fester. The profession will fail to attract the best and the brightest, the doctor shortage will increase, and the quality of patient care will decline. Everyone will suffer. 

It’s already happening.

Andrew Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported conflicts of interest from Accordant Health Services.
 

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

I’ve worked locum tenens off and on since 1982. Flexible schedules allowed me to write several books, pursue a parallel career as a medical journalist, lead medical missions in the Philippines, and develop modest expertise as an underwater photographer.

But the recent rise in locum tenens practitioners signals trouble for medicine.
 

A Multibillion-Dollar Industry

Roughly 52,000 US doctors work locum tenens full or part time. In annual reports by CHG Healthcare, two thirds of healthcare facilities surveyed report using locums and more than half expect to maintain or increase their use in 2024.

Another measure of the industry’s growth is that membership of The National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations (NALTO), formed in 2001 to lead this fledgling industry, has doubled since 2019. Currently, NALTO has 148 member agencies.
 

Why Locums?

What used to be the preserve of older physicians transitioning to retirement is now becoming a career choice. According to the 2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals by AMN Healthcare, 81% of respondents said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. What entices doctors to move from place to place, repeatedly adapt to new facilities and electronic medical records, live in cheap hotels, and work without paid vacations, health insurance, or retirement benefits? 

Supplemental income is one reason. But the elephant in the room is clearly burnout. Rates of burnout in practicing doctors and physicians-in-training have exceeded 50%. Burnout results in medical errors, malpractice suits, and increased healthcare costs. 

A recent Doximity poll of 7590 physicians revealed that 63% would not want their children to pursue a medical career. And in a Medscape survey of 7000 physicians, a third of docs under 40 would not choose medicine again if they had a do-over. If a career in medicine brings high income and privileged status, why do so many physicians regret it and discourage their children from taking the same path?
 

Where Is Marcus Welby, MD?

Private practice is an endangered species that no one is trying to save. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 44% of physicians owned their practices compared with 76% of physicians in the 1980s. Even fewer younger physicians are choosing private practice. Among physicians under 45 years of age, only 32% owned their practices. Most physicians are now employees, not employers. They have lost control over their duties and work hours. 

In 2022, barely 13% of physicians were in solo practice. The iconic Dr Marcus Welby of the 1970s TV series has transmuted from an idealized physician to an implausible figure. (My medical students have never heard of him.)

Hospitals and health systems have purchased many private medical groups. Private-equity companies own close to 1000 physician practices and staff up to 40% of emergency rooms. For these firms, profits are paramount.
 

Canary in a Coal Mine

Locum tenens offers physicians unprecedented flexibility where they work, when they work, and how much they work. It provides an escape from overwhelming and unsatisfying clinical practice. While some physicians have fled to nonclinical careers, locums physicians can practice medicine without the burdens of administration, hospital politics, and ever-increasing overhead. 

The locum tenens paradox is that its successful growth indicates a deteriorating traditional healthcare model. Locum tenens is not the problem, but it’s also not the solution. At best, locums is a pair of crutches that helps the current system limp along.

Healthcare is increasingly controlled by those who prioritize profit, not patients. If physicians become nothing more than complicit cogs in a dysfunctional system, burnout will fester. The profession will fail to attract the best and the brightest, the doctor shortage will increase, and the quality of patient care will decline. Everyone will suffer. 

It’s already happening.

Andrew Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported conflicts of interest from Accordant Health Services.
 

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

I’ve worked locum tenens off and on since 1982. Flexible schedules allowed me to write several books, pursue a parallel career as a medical journalist, lead medical missions in the Philippines, and develop modest expertise as an underwater photographer.

But the recent rise in locum tenens practitioners signals trouble for medicine.
 

A Multibillion-Dollar Industry

Roughly 52,000 US doctors work locum tenens full or part time. In annual reports by CHG Healthcare, two thirds of healthcare facilities surveyed report using locums and more than half expect to maintain or increase their use in 2024.

Another measure of the industry’s growth is that membership of The National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations (NALTO), formed in 2001 to lead this fledgling industry, has doubled since 2019. Currently, NALTO has 148 member agencies.
 

Why Locums?

What used to be the preserve of older physicians transitioning to retirement is now becoming a career choice. According to the 2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals by AMN Healthcare, 81% of respondents said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. What entices doctors to move from place to place, repeatedly adapt to new facilities and electronic medical records, live in cheap hotels, and work without paid vacations, health insurance, or retirement benefits? 

Supplemental income is one reason. But the elephant in the room is clearly burnout. Rates of burnout in practicing doctors and physicians-in-training have exceeded 50%. Burnout results in medical errors, malpractice suits, and increased healthcare costs. 

A recent Doximity poll of 7590 physicians revealed that 63% would not want their children to pursue a medical career. And in a Medscape survey of 7000 physicians, a third of docs under 40 would not choose medicine again if they had a do-over. If a career in medicine brings high income and privileged status, why do so many physicians regret it and discourage their children from taking the same path?
 

Where Is Marcus Welby, MD?

Private practice is an endangered species that no one is trying to save. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 44% of physicians owned their practices compared with 76% of physicians in the 1980s. Even fewer younger physicians are choosing private practice. Among physicians under 45 years of age, only 32% owned their practices. Most physicians are now employees, not employers. They have lost control over their duties and work hours. 

In 2022, barely 13% of physicians were in solo practice. The iconic Dr Marcus Welby of the 1970s TV series has transmuted from an idealized physician to an implausible figure. (My medical students have never heard of him.)

Hospitals and health systems have purchased many private medical groups. Private-equity companies own close to 1000 physician practices and staff up to 40% of emergency rooms. For these firms, profits are paramount.
 

Canary in a Coal Mine

Locum tenens offers physicians unprecedented flexibility where they work, when they work, and how much they work. It provides an escape from overwhelming and unsatisfying clinical practice. While some physicians have fled to nonclinical careers, locums physicians can practice medicine without the burdens of administration, hospital politics, and ever-increasing overhead. 

The locum tenens paradox is that its successful growth indicates a deteriorating traditional healthcare model. Locum tenens is not the problem, but it’s also not the solution. At best, locums is a pair of crutches that helps the current system limp along.

Healthcare is increasingly controlled by those who prioritize profit, not patients. If physicians become nothing more than complicit cogs in a dysfunctional system, burnout will fester. The profession will fail to attract the best and the brightest, the doctor shortage will increase, and the quality of patient care will decline. Everyone will suffer. 

It’s already happening.

Andrew Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported conflicts of interest from Accordant Health Services.
 

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