Perspectives

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For most of my formative years in medicine it was taken as gospel that 1-2 drinks/day, particularly red wine, was good for you.

Today though, the pendulum has swung the other way (granted, that could change in a year).

Recent re-analysis of the data now suggests there’s no benefit to any amount of alcohol. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This certainly isn’t the first time in medicine this has happened. It’s amazing how many studies end up getting re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed, years later, with different conclusions reached.

It makes you wonder how these things happen. Possible explanations include flawed methodologies that either weren’t recognized at the time, confirmation bias, a rush to publish, and, rarely, outright fraud.

All of them, except for the last, are understandable. We all make mistakes. We’re all susceptible to the same statistical and psychological biases. Isn’t that part of the reason we do the peer-review process, so more than one pair of eyes can look for errors?

So, basically, no amount of alcohol is good for you.

Do I really think this is going to change anything? Hell no.

A huge amount of our culture revolves around alcohol. I’m not much of a drinker, but have no desire to give up my 2-3 beers per month, either. Just shopping in the store you see T-shirts, kitchen towels, gift bags, etc., that say things like “wine is just fruit salad” or “1 tequila, 2, tequila, 3 tequila, floor.”

The archaeological record suggests we began making alcoholic beverages 13,000 years ago. That’s a long time, and a pretty hard cultural habit to break. For comparison, tobacco has only been used for 3000 years.

In one of our strangest moments, America launched a 13-year experiment in prohibition, which failed miserably. Think about that. One hundred years ago, in 1924, you couldn’t legally buy alcohol anywhere in the United States. You had to break the law to get a drink, which most people did. Even then it was dangerous —in order to keep industrial ethanol from being sold to the public it was denatured with various toxins. As a result several thousand Americans died from their routine nightcap — with the government’s blessing.

Basically, alcohol isn’t going away. Not now, probably not ever.

There may be some out there who will alter their drinking habits based on the study, but I doubt it. I just don’t see too many people having a glass solely for the same reason they might take Lipitor or a multivitamin.

But I have no issue with correcting the original data. In medicine, and life in general, finding out what works is just as important as learning what doesn’t.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

For most of my formative years in medicine it was taken as gospel that 1-2 drinks/day, particularly red wine, was good for you.

Today though, the pendulum has swung the other way (granted, that could change in a year).

Recent re-analysis of the data now suggests there’s no benefit to any amount of alcohol. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This certainly isn’t the first time in medicine this has happened. It’s amazing how many studies end up getting re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed, years later, with different conclusions reached.

It makes you wonder how these things happen. Possible explanations include flawed methodologies that either weren’t recognized at the time, confirmation bias, a rush to publish, and, rarely, outright fraud.

All of them, except for the last, are understandable. We all make mistakes. We’re all susceptible to the same statistical and psychological biases. Isn’t that part of the reason we do the peer-review process, so more than one pair of eyes can look for errors?

So, basically, no amount of alcohol is good for you.

Do I really think this is going to change anything? Hell no.

A huge amount of our culture revolves around alcohol. I’m not much of a drinker, but have no desire to give up my 2-3 beers per month, either. Just shopping in the store you see T-shirts, kitchen towels, gift bags, etc., that say things like “wine is just fruit salad” or “1 tequila, 2, tequila, 3 tequila, floor.”

The archaeological record suggests we began making alcoholic beverages 13,000 years ago. That’s a long time, and a pretty hard cultural habit to break. For comparison, tobacco has only been used for 3000 years.

In one of our strangest moments, America launched a 13-year experiment in prohibition, which failed miserably. Think about that. One hundred years ago, in 1924, you couldn’t legally buy alcohol anywhere in the United States. You had to break the law to get a drink, which most people did. Even then it was dangerous —in order to keep industrial ethanol from being sold to the public it was denatured with various toxins. As a result several thousand Americans died from their routine nightcap — with the government’s blessing.

Basically, alcohol isn’t going away. Not now, probably not ever.

There may be some out there who will alter their drinking habits based on the study, but I doubt it. I just don’t see too many people having a glass solely for the same reason they might take Lipitor or a multivitamin.

But I have no issue with correcting the original data. In medicine, and life in general, finding out what works is just as important as learning what doesn’t.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

For most of my formative years in medicine it was taken as gospel that 1-2 drinks/day, particularly red wine, was good for you.

Today though, the pendulum has swung the other way (granted, that could change in a year).

Recent re-analysis of the data now suggests there’s no benefit to any amount of alcohol. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This certainly isn’t the first time in medicine this has happened. It’s amazing how many studies end up getting re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed, years later, with different conclusions reached.

It makes you wonder how these things happen. Possible explanations include flawed methodologies that either weren’t recognized at the time, confirmation bias, a rush to publish, and, rarely, outright fraud.

All of them, except for the last, are understandable. We all make mistakes. We’re all susceptible to the same statistical and psychological biases. Isn’t that part of the reason we do the peer-review process, so more than one pair of eyes can look for errors?

So, basically, no amount of alcohol is good for you.

Do I really think this is going to change anything? Hell no.

A huge amount of our culture revolves around alcohol. I’m not much of a drinker, but have no desire to give up my 2-3 beers per month, either. Just shopping in the store you see T-shirts, kitchen towels, gift bags, etc., that say things like “wine is just fruit salad” or “1 tequila, 2, tequila, 3 tequila, floor.”

The archaeological record suggests we began making alcoholic beverages 13,000 years ago. That’s a long time, and a pretty hard cultural habit to break. For comparison, tobacco has only been used for 3000 years.

In one of our strangest moments, America launched a 13-year experiment in prohibition, which failed miserably. Think about that. One hundred years ago, in 1924, you couldn’t legally buy alcohol anywhere in the United States. You had to break the law to get a drink, which most people did. Even then it was dangerous —in order to keep industrial ethanol from being sold to the public it was denatured with various toxins. As a result several thousand Americans died from their routine nightcap — with the government’s blessing.

Basically, alcohol isn’t going away. Not now, probably not ever.

There may be some out there who will alter their drinking habits based on the study, but I doubt it. I just don’t see too many people having a glass solely for the same reason they might take Lipitor or a multivitamin.

But I have no issue with correcting the original data. In medicine, and life in general, finding out what works is just as important as learning what doesn’t.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

While there may be some lactation consultants who disagree, in my experience counseling women attempting to breastfeed is more art than science. Well before the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) began to offer mini courses on breastfeeding for practitioners I was left to help new mothers based on watching my wife nurse our three children and what scraps of common sense I could sweep up off the floor.

Using my own benchmarks of success I would say I did a decent job with dyads who sought my help. I began by accepting that even under optimal conditions, not every woman and/or child can successfully breastfeed. None of the infants died or was hospitalized with dehydration. A few may have required some additional phototherapy, but they all completed infancy in good shape. On the maternal side I am sure there were a few mothers who had lingering feelings of inadequacy because they had “failed” at breastfeeding. But, for the most part, I think I succeeded in helping new mothers remain as mentally healthy as they could be given the rigors of motherhood. At least I gave it my best shot.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

While there may be some lactation consultants who disagree, in my experience counseling women attempting to breastfeed is more art than science. Well before the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) began to offer mini courses on breastfeeding for practitioners I was left to help new mothers based on watching my wife nurse our three children and what scraps of common sense I could sweep up off the floor.

Using my own benchmarks of success I would say I did a decent job with dyads who sought my help. I began by accepting that even under optimal conditions, not every woman and/or child can successfully breastfeed. None of the infants died or was hospitalized with dehydration. A few may have required some additional phototherapy, but they all completed infancy in good shape. On the maternal side I am sure there were a few mothers who had lingering feelings of inadequacy because they had “failed” at breastfeeding. But, for the most part, I think I succeeded in helping new mothers remain as mentally healthy as they could be given the rigors of motherhood. At least I gave it my best shot.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

While there may be some lactation consultants who disagree, in my experience counseling women attempting to breastfeed is more art than science. Well before the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) began to offer mini courses on breastfeeding for practitioners I was left to help new mothers based on watching my wife nurse our three children and what scraps of common sense I could sweep up off the floor.

Using my own benchmarks of success I would say I did a decent job with dyads who sought my help. I began by accepting that even under optimal conditions, not every woman and/or child can successfully breastfeed. None of the infants died or was hospitalized with dehydration. A few may have required some additional phototherapy, but they all completed infancy in good shape. On the maternal side I am sure there were a few mothers who had lingering feelings of inadequacy because they had “failed” at breastfeeding. But, for the most part, I think I succeeded in helping new mothers remain as mentally healthy as they could be given the rigors of motherhood. At least I gave it my best shot.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

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

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center has found that among adults younger than 50, the percentage who say they are unlikely to have children rose from 37% to 47%. With this trend freshly etched in my consciousness, I stumbled across an interview with Anastasia Berg, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. Professor Berg and Rachel Wiseman have just published What Are Children For? On Ambivalence and Choice. How could a pediatrician with time on his hands ignore a provocative title like that?

I was immediately drawn to Professor Berg’s observations about the “concerns, anxieties, and lines of reasoning people encounter when considering whether or not they should have children.” Prior to the 1960s, motherhood seemed to just be a natural progression from marriage. That’s the way my wife and I approached it when we had our first child while I was in my last year of medical school in 1971. There was no discussion of the pros and cons, except maybe that financially waiting until the eve of my first professional paycheck seemed to make sense.

However, as Professor Berg points out, from the 1960s up until well into the 1980s, as feminist thought gained a higher profile, there were anti-motherhood factions. There were others who wanted to see motherhood reformed and adapted so it “could once again be a legitimate source of meaning and value in life.” However, both camps agreed that the choice to have children was a decision that “women should make completely on their own.”

Now, well into the new millennium, we are looking at a completely different landscape. In the past, having children was woven into the fabric of human life in which we had a past, a present, and a role in creating the future. Professor Berg observes that currently, having children is often considered a project, not unlike our other projects such as “career choice or travel plans.” What are the pluses and minuses?

The Pew Survey found that 60% of adults younger than 50 who don’t have children said that not having children made it less difficult to be successful and have an active social life. Many felt that being a parent would improve the chances of having someone to care for you as you aged.

When my wife and I considered the financial costs of motherhood more than 50 years ago, our calculation was primarily about the timing. The decision to have a second child focused our concern around our ability to balance our attention between two siblings. A third child just sorta happened without any discussion.

Professor Berg echoes the Pew findings when she observes that currently woman are considering the cost in terms of their identities. Will motherhood transform me? Will there be a cost not only to my career but also to all the associations, interests, and activities I have accumulated? These costs are likely to be greater the longer the decision to have a child is put off. She adds that viewing motherhood as a transformation can make the decision to have children scarier than it needs to be. My wife and I, at age 26 and 27, were still in the early stages of building our identities. My wife had a 2-year college degree and no career plans on the horizon. Having a child was one of those things that was built into who we became.

But to compare our experiences in the 1970s to the realities of the first quarter of the 21st century ignores the concerns facing today’s adults who are facing the cloud of uncertainty hanging over all of us. Despite their claims to fix the situation, both sides of the political spectrum are leveraging fear to gain our support. Even climate change skeptics must have some concern in the spate of natural disasters we are experiencing. Not to mention the pandemic. Anxiety in this country is at an all time high. Optimism doesn’t seem to fit into today’s journalists’ lexicon, as they chose to focus on conflict instead of cooperation. It’s hard to question any adult who harbors serious doubts on taking on the challenge of parenthood and bringing a child into a world that feels unsettled.

However, based on her research and her own experience as a parent, Professor Berg offers some advice. She encourages people to think and discuss the decision to have children earlier in their life trajectory, before they have made decisions that may eventually limit their options. Second, she discourages making a list of pros and cons. Finally, she advises taking a long view and ask yourself whether you “choose to take a direct part in ushering in the next generation.”

Sounds like advice that will optimize the chances of making the good decision about having a child. I’m just thankful to have lived at time and in a situation when having child was just the thing most married couples did.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center has found that among adults younger than 50, the percentage who say they are unlikely to have children rose from 37% to 47%. With this trend freshly etched in my consciousness, I stumbled across an interview with Anastasia Berg, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. Professor Berg and Rachel Wiseman have just published What Are Children For? On Ambivalence and Choice. How could a pediatrician with time on his hands ignore a provocative title like that?

I was immediately drawn to Professor Berg’s observations about the “concerns, anxieties, and lines of reasoning people encounter when considering whether or not they should have children.” Prior to the 1960s, motherhood seemed to just be a natural progression from marriage. That’s the way my wife and I approached it when we had our first child while I was in my last year of medical school in 1971. There was no discussion of the pros and cons, except maybe that financially waiting until the eve of my first professional paycheck seemed to make sense.

However, as Professor Berg points out, from the 1960s up until well into the 1980s, as feminist thought gained a higher profile, there were anti-motherhood factions. There were others who wanted to see motherhood reformed and adapted so it “could once again be a legitimate source of meaning and value in life.” However, both camps agreed that the choice to have children was a decision that “women should make completely on their own.”

Now, well into the new millennium, we are looking at a completely different landscape. In the past, having children was woven into the fabric of human life in which we had a past, a present, and a role in creating the future. Professor Berg observes that currently, having children is often considered a project, not unlike our other projects such as “career choice or travel plans.” What are the pluses and minuses?

The Pew Survey found that 60% of adults younger than 50 who don’t have children said that not having children made it less difficult to be successful and have an active social life. Many felt that being a parent would improve the chances of having someone to care for you as you aged.

When my wife and I considered the financial costs of motherhood more than 50 years ago, our calculation was primarily about the timing. The decision to have a second child focused our concern around our ability to balance our attention between two siblings. A third child just sorta happened without any discussion.

Professor Berg echoes the Pew findings when she observes that currently woman are considering the cost in terms of their identities. Will motherhood transform me? Will there be a cost not only to my career but also to all the associations, interests, and activities I have accumulated? These costs are likely to be greater the longer the decision to have a child is put off. She adds that viewing motherhood as a transformation can make the decision to have children scarier than it needs to be. My wife and I, at age 26 and 27, were still in the early stages of building our identities. My wife had a 2-year college degree and no career plans on the horizon. Having a child was one of those things that was built into who we became.

But to compare our experiences in the 1970s to the realities of the first quarter of the 21st century ignores the concerns facing today’s adults who are facing the cloud of uncertainty hanging over all of us. Despite their claims to fix the situation, both sides of the political spectrum are leveraging fear to gain our support. Even climate change skeptics must have some concern in the spate of natural disasters we are experiencing. Not to mention the pandemic. Anxiety in this country is at an all time high. Optimism doesn’t seem to fit into today’s journalists’ lexicon, as they chose to focus on conflict instead of cooperation. It’s hard to question any adult who harbors serious doubts on taking on the challenge of parenthood and bringing a child into a world that feels unsettled.

However, based on her research and her own experience as a parent, Professor Berg offers some advice. She encourages people to think and discuss the decision to have children earlier in their life trajectory, before they have made decisions that may eventually limit their options. Second, she discourages making a list of pros and cons. Finally, she advises taking a long view and ask yourself whether you “choose to take a direct part in ushering in the next generation.”

Sounds like advice that will optimize the chances of making the good decision about having a child. I’m just thankful to have lived at time and in a situation when having child was just the thing most married couples did.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center has found that among adults younger than 50, the percentage who say they are unlikely to have children rose from 37% to 47%. With this trend freshly etched in my consciousness, I stumbled across an interview with Anastasia Berg, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. Professor Berg and Rachel Wiseman have just published What Are Children For? On Ambivalence and Choice. How could a pediatrician with time on his hands ignore a provocative title like that?

I was immediately drawn to Professor Berg’s observations about the “concerns, anxieties, and lines of reasoning people encounter when considering whether or not they should have children.” Prior to the 1960s, motherhood seemed to just be a natural progression from marriage. That’s the way my wife and I approached it when we had our first child while I was in my last year of medical school in 1971. There was no discussion of the pros and cons, except maybe that financially waiting until the eve of my first professional paycheck seemed to make sense.

However, as Professor Berg points out, from the 1960s up until well into the 1980s, as feminist thought gained a higher profile, there were anti-motherhood factions. There were others who wanted to see motherhood reformed and adapted so it “could once again be a legitimate source of meaning and value in life.” However, both camps agreed that the choice to have children was a decision that “women should make completely on their own.”

Now, well into the new millennium, we are looking at a completely different landscape. In the past, having children was woven into the fabric of human life in which we had a past, a present, and a role in creating the future. Professor Berg observes that currently, having children is often considered a project, not unlike our other projects such as “career choice or travel plans.” What are the pluses and minuses?

The Pew Survey found that 60% of adults younger than 50 who don’t have children said that not having children made it less difficult to be successful and have an active social life. Many felt that being a parent would improve the chances of having someone to care for you as you aged.

When my wife and I considered the financial costs of motherhood more than 50 years ago, our calculation was primarily about the timing. The decision to have a second child focused our concern around our ability to balance our attention between two siblings. A third child just sorta happened without any discussion.

Professor Berg echoes the Pew findings when she observes that currently woman are considering the cost in terms of their identities. Will motherhood transform me? Will there be a cost not only to my career but also to all the associations, interests, and activities I have accumulated? These costs are likely to be greater the longer the decision to have a child is put off. She adds that viewing motherhood as a transformation can make the decision to have children scarier than it needs to be. My wife and I, at age 26 and 27, were still in the early stages of building our identities. My wife had a 2-year college degree and no career plans on the horizon. Having a child was one of those things that was built into who we became.

But to compare our experiences in the 1970s to the realities of the first quarter of the 21st century ignores the concerns facing today’s adults who are facing the cloud of uncertainty hanging over all of us. Despite their claims to fix the situation, both sides of the political spectrum are leveraging fear to gain our support. Even climate change skeptics must have some concern in the spate of natural disasters we are experiencing. Not to mention the pandemic. Anxiety in this country is at an all time high. Optimism doesn’t seem to fit into today’s journalists’ lexicon, as they chose to focus on conflict instead of cooperation. It’s hard to question any adult who harbors serious doubts on taking on the challenge of parenthood and bringing a child into a world that feels unsettled.

However, based on her research and her own experience as a parent, Professor Berg offers some advice. She encourages people to think and discuss the decision to have children earlier in their life trajectory, before they have made decisions that may eventually limit their options. Second, she discourages making a list of pros and cons. Finally, she advises taking a long view and ask yourself whether you “choose to take a direct part in ushering in the next generation.”

Sounds like advice that will optimize the chances of making the good decision about having a child. I’m just thankful to have lived at time and in a situation when having child was just the thing most married couples did.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On today’s edition of Beyond BMI, I’ll be discussing weight plateaus. This is something that our patients are very familiar with. Sometimes, they’re happy with their weight when they plateau; sometimes, they’re not. A weight plateau is simply a state of equilibrium.

There’s a common adage that the last 5 pounds are the hardest. When people decrease their calorie intake and increase their activity — as we instruct our patients to do to lose weight — the body starts to fight back because it believes this is a famine state. Our bodies feel that we are running around the jungle looking for food to help us survive a perceived famine state.

The body does a few things to help us keep weight on, and this is what leads to the frustration of not being able to lose those last 5 pounds. The first thing that happens in this process, which is called metabolic adaptation, is that when someone loses weight, the body naturally increases appetite signals from the brain, so the person becomes hungrier. Satiety signals from the stomach also decrease, so they feel more hungry and less full. And finally, stable fat cells form to allow the person to seek out more food without losing weight. This eventually leads the patient to regain weight, or they may plateau at a weight they’re not happy with.

I’m sure you’ve seen many studies looking at weight plateaus and the amount of weight loss people are able to achieve with diet, exercise, and behavior change alone vs the same lifestyle modifications plus medication. Studies show that patients who are taking anti-obesity medications achieve far more weight loss than do those who are not taking medications. The reason is related to the different mechanisms of action of the anti-obesity medications. Patients taking these medications are able to tolerate a lower caloric intake for a longer period of time, thus they’re able to burn more fat cells and lose more weight. Some medications perform this by decreasing appetite signals, so patients can continue to eat a small number of calories. Some medications affect the stability of fat cells. Some medications also increase satiety signals, so patients can move beyond that degree of metabolic adaptation and get beyond their previous plateau.

What can we do for patients who are frustrated with their weight plateau? I recommend taking a dive into their daily routine. Find out how many calories they are eating. Find out how much exercise they are doing and see whether there’s any room to reorganize the day or change their meals to create a caloric deficit. Are they eating things that are not filling enough, so they can’t get to the next meal without having a snack in between? We are looking at the quality of the meals as well and making sure there’s an adequate amount of protein and fiber in their meals to help with those increased appetite signals. We should also make sure these patients are getting adequate fluid intake.

These are all strategies that can help our patients try to get beyond their weight plateaus.

If the patient meets criteria for anti-obesity medication, which means a body mass index (BMI) of 27-29 with a weight-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30 with or without a comorbidity, you may want to consider anti-obesity medication to help that patient get beyond the plateau.

Plateaus will occur as a natural process because of the appetite signaling and hormonal changes that occur when patients lose weight from any modality. It’s important that we work with our patients to determine whether their weight plateau is due to metabolic adaptation. If they aren’t meeting their goals and they have weight-related comorbidities, we can use other available modalities to help those patients continue to lose weight. Of course, whenever we are prescribing a medication, we need to make sure that it is safe for the patient and the patient is on board with the potential side effects and risks. And we should always make sure our patients know we are their advocates in their weight journey.

Holly Lofton, clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On today’s edition of Beyond BMI, I’ll be discussing weight plateaus. This is something that our patients are very familiar with. Sometimes, they’re happy with their weight when they plateau; sometimes, they’re not. A weight plateau is simply a state of equilibrium.

There’s a common adage that the last 5 pounds are the hardest. When people decrease their calorie intake and increase their activity — as we instruct our patients to do to lose weight — the body starts to fight back because it believes this is a famine state. Our bodies feel that we are running around the jungle looking for food to help us survive a perceived famine state.

The body does a few things to help us keep weight on, and this is what leads to the frustration of not being able to lose those last 5 pounds. The first thing that happens in this process, which is called metabolic adaptation, is that when someone loses weight, the body naturally increases appetite signals from the brain, so the person becomes hungrier. Satiety signals from the stomach also decrease, so they feel more hungry and less full. And finally, stable fat cells form to allow the person to seek out more food without losing weight. This eventually leads the patient to regain weight, or they may plateau at a weight they’re not happy with.

I’m sure you’ve seen many studies looking at weight plateaus and the amount of weight loss people are able to achieve with diet, exercise, and behavior change alone vs the same lifestyle modifications plus medication. Studies show that patients who are taking anti-obesity medications achieve far more weight loss than do those who are not taking medications. The reason is related to the different mechanisms of action of the anti-obesity medications. Patients taking these medications are able to tolerate a lower caloric intake for a longer period of time, thus they’re able to burn more fat cells and lose more weight. Some medications perform this by decreasing appetite signals, so patients can continue to eat a small number of calories. Some medications affect the stability of fat cells. Some medications also increase satiety signals, so patients can move beyond that degree of metabolic adaptation and get beyond their previous plateau.

What can we do for patients who are frustrated with their weight plateau? I recommend taking a dive into their daily routine. Find out how many calories they are eating. Find out how much exercise they are doing and see whether there’s any room to reorganize the day or change their meals to create a caloric deficit. Are they eating things that are not filling enough, so they can’t get to the next meal without having a snack in between? We are looking at the quality of the meals as well and making sure there’s an adequate amount of protein and fiber in their meals to help with those increased appetite signals. We should also make sure these patients are getting adequate fluid intake.

These are all strategies that can help our patients try to get beyond their weight plateaus.

If the patient meets criteria for anti-obesity medication, which means a body mass index (BMI) of 27-29 with a weight-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30 with or without a comorbidity, you may want to consider anti-obesity medication to help that patient get beyond the plateau.

Plateaus will occur as a natural process because of the appetite signaling and hormonal changes that occur when patients lose weight from any modality. It’s important that we work with our patients to determine whether their weight plateau is due to metabolic adaptation. If they aren’t meeting their goals and they have weight-related comorbidities, we can use other available modalities to help those patients continue to lose weight. Of course, whenever we are prescribing a medication, we need to make sure that it is safe for the patient and the patient is on board with the potential side effects and risks. And we should always make sure our patients know we are their advocates in their weight journey.

Holly Lofton, clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On today’s edition of Beyond BMI, I’ll be discussing weight plateaus. This is something that our patients are very familiar with. Sometimes, they’re happy with their weight when they plateau; sometimes, they’re not. A weight plateau is simply a state of equilibrium.

There’s a common adage that the last 5 pounds are the hardest. When people decrease their calorie intake and increase their activity — as we instruct our patients to do to lose weight — the body starts to fight back because it believes this is a famine state. Our bodies feel that we are running around the jungle looking for food to help us survive a perceived famine state.

The body does a few things to help us keep weight on, and this is what leads to the frustration of not being able to lose those last 5 pounds. The first thing that happens in this process, which is called metabolic adaptation, is that when someone loses weight, the body naturally increases appetite signals from the brain, so the person becomes hungrier. Satiety signals from the stomach also decrease, so they feel more hungry and less full. And finally, stable fat cells form to allow the person to seek out more food without losing weight. This eventually leads the patient to regain weight, or they may plateau at a weight they’re not happy with.

I’m sure you’ve seen many studies looking at weight plateaus and the amount of weight loss people are able to achieve with diet, exercise, and behavior change alone vs the same lifestyle modifications plus medication. Studies show that patients who are taking anti-obesity medications achieve far more weight loss than do those who are not taking medications. The reason is related to the different mechanisms of action of the anti-obesity medications. Patients taking these medications are able to tolerate a lower caloric intake for a longer period of time, thus they’re able to burn more fat cells and lose more weight. Some medications perform this by decreasing appetite signals, so patients can continue to eat a small number of calories. Some medications affect the stability of fat cells. Some medications also increase satiety signals, so patients can move beyond that degree of metabolic adaptation and get beyond their previous plateau.

What can we do for patients who are frustrated with their weight plateau? I recommend taking a dive into their daily routine. Find out how many calories they are eating. Find out how much exercise they are doing and see whether there’s any room to reorganize the day or change their meals to create a caloric deficit. Are they eating things that are not filling enough, so they can’t get to the next meal without having a snack in between? We are looking at the quality of the meals as well and making sure there’s an adequate amount of protein and fiber in their meals to help with those increased appetite signals. We should also make sure these patients are getting adequate fluid intake.

These are all strategies that can help our patients try to get beyond their weight plateaus.

If the patient meets criteria for anti-obesity medication, which means a body mass index (BMI) of 27-29 with a weight-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30 with or without a comorbidity, you may want to consider anti-obesity medication to help that patient get beyond the plateau.

Plateaus will occur as a natural process because of the appetite signaling and hormonal changes that occur when patients lose weight from any modality. It’s important that we work with our patients to determine whether their weight plateau is due to metabolic adaptation. If they aren’t meeting their goals and they have weight-related comorbidities, we can use other available modalities to help those patients continue to lose weight. Of course, whenever we are prescribing a medication, we need to make sure that it is safe for the patient and the patient is on board with the potential side effects and risks. And we should always make sure our patients know we are their advocates in their weight journey.

Holly Lofton, clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As more and more of us begin to feel (or believe we are feeling) the symptoms of aging, our language has begun to incorporate new words and phrases such as “aging in place” or “healthy aging.” In fact, some scientists have created a diagnostic criteria to define “healthy aging.” If you have reached your 70th birthday without mental health issues, memory issues, physical impairments, or chronic disease, according to some researchers at T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, you should receive a gold star for healthy aging.

I am now nearly a decade past that milestone and can’t remember where I’ve put my gold star, or even if I had ever received one. But, I get up each morning looking forward to another day of activity and feeling “pretty good.”

Healthy aging is not something you start doing when you turn 65. Aging is something that goes on from the moment you are born. For the first couple decades we call it “maturing.” If you have lived well, the odds are you will age well. And, for that reason we should take note of some recent work by Boston-based researchers.

Looking at recent data from 45,000 participants in the well-known Nurses Health Study, the investigators found that for every 2-hour increase in daily sedentary behavior, the participants cut their chances of healthy aging by 12%. On the other hand, for every 2 hours of light physical activity, they increased their odds of healthy aging by 6 %.

There are two important messages sitting just below the surface of these two observations. First, we continue to overemphasize the importance of “exercise” in our attempt to help our patients achieve wellness. The word “exercise” carries with it whole carousel full of baggage including “fitness programs,” gym memberships, pulse rate monitors, pain, sweat, and spandex, to name just a few. Exercise can conjure up bad memories of suiting up for phys ed class, group showers, and being picked last when teams were being chosen.

It turns out the we should simply be promoting activity, and light activity at that — vacuuming the living room, walking around the block, rearranging the books on your bedroom book shelf, making a pot of soup, doing the laundry. Just getting up off one’s behind and doing something instead of being a passive spectator.

This somewhat counterintuitive notion of the benefit of light activity is beginning to get more attention. Earlier this year, I reported on a study by Andre O. Abaje MD, MPH, in which he showed that light physical activity in children was superior to more vigorous activity in lowering lipids.

The more important message embedded in this paper based on the Nurses Health Study is that the researchers used television watching time as their proxy for sedentary behavior. The investigators chose TV viewing because it is ubiquitous and includes prolonged sitting. Being semi-reclined on the couch or in a lounger requires very little muscle activity, which is in turn linked to disruption of glucose metabolism, increased inflammation, and altered blood flow to the brain, to name just a few of its collateral damages. I would add that TV viewing often prompts viewers to stay up well beyond their healthy bedtime. And, we know sleep deprivation is not compatible with health aging.

A traditional warning issued to new retirees was once “Don’t let the old rocking chair get ya.” In fact, I wonder how many folks watching television even have or use wood rocking chairs anymore, which, if rocked, might qualify as a light exercise if the viewer made the effort to rock. Instead I suspect most television viewing is done cocooned in soft recliners or curled up on a couch.

I will admit that this recent paper merely supports a suspicion I have harbored for decades. Like many of you, I have wondered how our society got to the point where obesity is frequent enough to be labeled a disease, attention deficit diagnoses are becoming increasingly prevalent, and our life expectancy is shrinking. There are dozens of factors, but if I had to pick one, I would paraphrase James Carville’s advice to Bill Clinton: “It’s the television, stupid.”

Television viewing needs to be near the top of our list when we’re doing a wellness evaluation ... at any age. At least a couple of notches above “Are you wearing your seatbelt?” It can start with a nonjudgmental question such as “What are your favorite television shows?” And then deftly move toward compiling a tally of how many hours the patient watches each day.

How you manage the situation from there is up to you and can be based on the patient’s complaints and problem list. You might suggest he or she start by eliminating 2 hours of viewing a day. Then ask if he or she thinks that new schedule is achievable. If they ask for alternatives, be ready with a list of light activities that they might be surprised are healthier than their current behavior. Follow up with another visit or a call to see how they are doing. It’s that important, and your call will underscore your concern.

Sedentism is a serious health problem in this country and our emphasis on encouraging vigorous exercise isn’t working. Selling a television diet will be a tough sell, but it needs to be done.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As more and more of us begin to feel (or believe we are feeling) the symptoms of aging, our language has begun to incorporate new words and phrases such as “aging in place” or “healthy aging.” In fact, some scientists have created a diagnostic criteria to define “healthy aging.” If you have reached your 70th birthday without mental health issues, memory issues, physical impairments, or chronic disease, according to some researchers at T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, you should receive a gold star for healthy aging.

I am now nearly a decade past that milestone and can’t remember where I’ve put my gold star, or even if I had ever received one. But, I get up each morning looking forward to another day of activity and feeling “pretty good.”

Healthy aging is not something you start doing when you turn 65. Aging is something that goes on from the moment you are born. For the first couple decades we call it “maturing.” If you have lived well, the odds are you will age well. And, for that reason we should take note of some recent work by Boston-based researchers.

Looking at recent data from 45,000 participants in the well-known Nurses Health Study, the investigators found that for every 2-hour increase in daily sedentary behavior, the participants cut their chances of healthy aging by 12%. On the other hand, for every 2 hours of light physical activity, they increased their odds of healthy aging by 6 %.

There are two important messages sitting just below the surface of these two observations. First, we continue to overemphasize the importance of “exercise” in our attempt to help our patients achieve wellness. The word “exercise” carries with it whole carousel full of baggage including “fitness programs,” gym memberships, pulse rate monitors, pain, sweat, and spandex, to name just a few. Exercise can conjure up bad memories of suiting up for phys ed class, group showers, and being picked last when teams were being chosen.

It turns out the we should simply be promoting activity, and light activity at that — vacuuming the living room, walking around the block, rearranging the books on your bedroom book shelf, making a pot of soup, doing the laundry. Just getting up off one’s behind and doing something instead of being a passive spectator.

This somewhat counterintuitive notion of the benefit of light activity is beginning to get more attention. Earlier this year, I reported on a study by Andre O. Abaje MD, MPH, in which he showed that light physical activity in children was superior to more vigorous activity in lowering lipids.

The more important message embedded in this paper based on the Nurses Health Study is that the researchers used television watching time as their proxy for sedentary behavior. The investigators chose TV viewing because it is ubiquitous and includes prolonged sitting. Being semi-reclined on the couch or in a lounger requires very little muscle activity, which is in turn linked to disruption of glucose metabolism, increased inflammation, and altered blood flow to the brain, to name just a few of its collateral damages. I would add that TV viewing often prompts viewers to stay up well beyond their healthy bedtime. And, we know sleep deprivation is not compatible with health aging.

A traditional warning issued to new retirees was once “Don’t let the old rocking chair get ya.” In fact, I wonder how many folks watching television even have or use wood rocking chairs anymore, which, if rocked, might qualify as a light exercise if the viewer made the effort to rock. Instead I suspect most television viewing is done cocooned in soft recliners or curled up on a couch.

I will admit that this recent paper merely supports a suspicion I have harbored for decades. Like many of you, I have wondered how our society got to the point where obesity is frequent enough to be labeled a disease, attention deficit diagnoses are becoming increasingly prevalent, and our life expectancy is shrinking. There are dozens of factors, but if I had to pick one, I would paraphrase James Carville’s advice to Bill Clinton: “It’s the television, stupid.”

Television viewing needs to be near the top of our list when we’re doing a wellness evaluation ... at any age. At least a couple of notches above “Are you wearing your seatbelt?” It can start with a nonjudgmental question such as “What are your favorite television shows?” And then deftly move toward compiling a tally of how many hours the patient watches each day.

How you manage the situation from there is up to you and can be based on the patient’s complaints and problem list. You might suggest he or she start by eliminating 2 hours of viewing a day. Then ask if he or she thinks that new schedule is achievable. If they ask for alternatives, be ready with a list of light activities that they might be surprised are healthier than their current behavior. Follow up with another visit or a call to see how they are doing. It’s that important, and your call will underscore your concern.

Sedentism is a serious health problem in this country and our emphasis on encouraging vigorous exercise isn’t working. Selling a television diet will be a tough sell, but it needs to be done.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As more and more of us begin to feel (or believe we are feeling) the symptoms of aging, our language has begun to incorporate new words and phrases such as “aging in place” or “healthy aging.” In fact, some scientists have created a diagnostic criteria to define “healthy aging.” If you have reached your 70th birthday without mental health issues, memory issues, physical impairments, or chronic disease, according to some researchers at T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, you should receive a gold star for healthy aging.

I am now nearly a decade past that milestone and can’t remember where I’ve put my gold star, or even if I had ever received one. But, I get up each morning looking forward to another day of activity and feeling “pretty good.”

Healthy aging is not something you start doing when you turn 65. Aging is something that goes on from the moment you are born. For the first couple decades we call it “maturing.” If you have lived well, the odds are you will age well. And, for that reason we should take note of some recent work by Boston-based researchers.

Looking at recent data from 45,000 participants in the well-known Nurses Health Study, the investigators found that for every 2-hour increase in daily sedentary behavior, the participants cut their chances of healthy aging by 12%. On the other hand, for every 2 hours of light physical activity, they increased their odds of healthy aging by 6 %.

There are two important messages sitting just below the surface of these two observations. First, we continue to overemphasize the importance of “exercise” in our attempt to help our patients achieve wellness. The word “exercise” carries with it whole carousel full of baggage including “fitness programs,” gym memberships, pulse rate monitors, pain, sweat, and spandex, to name just a few. Exercise can conjure up bad memories of suiting up for phys ed class, group showers, and being picked last when teams were being chosen.

It turns out the we should simply be promoting activity, and light activity at that — vacuuming the living room, walking around the block, rearranging the books on your bedroom book shelf, making a pot of soup, doing the laundry. Just getting up off one’s behind and doing something instead of being a passive spectator.

This somewhat counterintuitive notion of the benefit of light activity is beginning to get more attention. Earlier this year, I reported on a study by Andre O. Abaje MD, MPH, in which he showed that light physical activity in children was superior to more vigorous activity in lowering lipids.

The more important message embedded in this paper based on the Nurses Health Study is that the researchers used television watching time as their proxy for sedentary behavior. The investigators chose TV viewing because it is ubiquitous and includes prolonged sitting. Being semi-reclined on the couch or in a lounger requires very little muscle activity, which is in turn linked to disruption of glucose metabolism, increased inflammation, and altered blood flow to the brain, to name just a few of its collateral damages. I would add that TV viewing often prompts viewers to stay up well beyond their healthy bedtime. And, we know sleep deprivation is not compatible with health aging.

A traditional warning issued to new retirees was once “Don’t let the old rocking chair get ya.” In fact, I wonder how many folks watching television even have or use wood rocking chairs anymore, which, if rocked, might qualify as a light exercise if the viewer made the effort to rock. Instead I suspect most television viewing is done cocooned in soft recliners or curled up on a couch.

I will admit that this recent paper merely supports a suspicion I have harbored for decades. Like many of you, I have wondered how our society got to the point where obesity is frequent enough to be labeled a disease, attention deficit diagnoses are becoming increasingly prevalent, and our life expectancy is shrinking. There are dozens of factors, but if I had to pick one, I would paraphrase James Carville’s advice to Bill Clinton: “It’s the television, stupid.”

Television viewing needs to be near the top of our list when we’re doing a wellness evaluation ... at any age. At least a couple of notches above “Are you wearing your seatbelt?” It can start with a nonjudgmental question such as “What are your favorite television shows?” And then deftly move toward compiling a tally of how many hours the patient watches each day.

How you manage the situation from there is up to you and can be based on the patient’s complaints and problem list. You might suggest he or she start by eliminating 2 hours of viewing a day. Then ask if he or she thinks that new schedule is achievable. If they ask for alternatives, be ready with a list of light activities that they might be surprised are healthier than their current behavior. Follow up with another visit or a call to see how they are doing. It’s that important, and your call will underscore your concern.

Sedentism is a serious health problem in this country and our emphasis on encouraging vigorous exercise isn’t working. Selling a television diet will be a tough sell, but it needs to be done.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

For 3 years, Ajala Efem’s type 2 diabetes was so poorly controlled that her blood sugar often soared northward of 500 mg/dL despite insulin shots three to five times a day. She would experience dizziness, vomiting, severe headaches, and the neuropathy in her feet made walking painful. She was also — literally — frothing at the mouth. The 47-year-old single mother of two adult children with mental disabilities feared that she would die.

Ms. Efem lives in the South Bronx, which is among the poorest areas of New York City, where the combined rate of prediabetes and diabetes is close to 30%, the highest rate of any borough in the city.

She had to wait 8 months for an appointment with an endocrinologist, but that visit proved to be life-changing. She lost 28 pounds and got off 15 medications in a single month. She did not join a gym or count calories; she simply changed the food she ate and adopted a low-carb diet.

“I went from being sick to feeling so great,” she told her endocrinologist recently: “My feet aren’t hurting; I’m not in pain; I’m eating as much as I want, and I really enjoy my food so much.” 

Ms. Efem’s life-changing visit was with Mariela Glandt, MD, at the offices of Essen Health Care. One month earlier, Dr. Glandt’s company, OwnaHealth, was contracted by Essen to conduct a 100-person pilot program for endocrinology patients. Essen is the largest Medicaid provider in New York City, and “they were desperate for an endocrinologist,” said Dr. Glandt, who trained at Columbia University in New York. So she came — all the way from Madrid, Spain. She commutes monthly, staying for a week each visit.

Dr. Glandt keeps up this punishing schedule because, as she explains, “it’s such a high for me to see these incredible transformations.” Her mostly Black and Hispanic patients are poor and lack resources, yet they lose significant amounts of weight, and their health issues resolve.

“Food is medicine” is an idea very much in vogue. The concept was central to the landmark White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022 and is now the focus of a number of a wide range of government programs. Recently, the Senate held a hearing aimed at further expanding food as medicine programs.

Still, only a single randomized controlled clinical trial has been conducted on this nutritional approach, with unexpectedly disappointing results. In the mid-Atlantic region, 456 food-insecure adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to usual care or the provision of weekly groceries for their entire families for about 1 year. Provisions for a Mediterranean-style diet included whole grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy products, cereal, brown rice, and bread. In addition, participants received dietary consultations. Yet, those who got free food and coaching did not see improvements in their average blood sugar (the study’s primary outcome), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels appeared to have worsened. 

“To be honest, I was surprised,” the study’s lead author, Joseph Doyle, PhD, professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told me. “I was hoping we would show improved outcomes, but the way to make progress is to do well-randomized trials to find out what works.”

I was not surprised by these results because a recent rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ did not show a Mediterranean-style diet to be the most effective for glycemic control. And Ms. Efem was not in fact following a Mediterranean-style diet.

Ms. Efem’s low-carb success story is anecdotal, but Dr. Glandt has an established track record from her 9 years’ experience as the medical director of the eponymous diabetes center she founded in Tel Aviv. A recent audit of 344 patients from the center found that after 6 months of following a very low–carbohydrate diet, 96.3% of those with diabetes saw their A1c fall from a median 7.6% to 6.3%. Weight loss was significant, with a median drop of 6.5 kg (14 pounds) for patients with diabetes and 5.7 kg for those with prediabetes. The diet comprises 5%-10% of calories from carbs, but Dr. Glandt does not use numeric targets with her patients.

Blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver enzymes also improved. And though LDL cholesterol went up by 8%, this result may have been offset by an accompanying 13% rise in HDL cholesterol. Of the 78 patients initially on insulin, 62 were able to stop this medication entirely.

Although these results aren’t from a clinical trial, they’re still highly meaningful because the current dietary standard of care for type 2 diabetes can only slow the progression of the disease, not cause remission. Indeed, the idea that type 2 diabetes could be put into remission was not seriously considered by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) until 2009. By 2019, an ADA report concluded that “[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia.” In other words, the best way to improve the key factor in diabetes is to reduce total carbohydrates. Yet, the ADA still advocates filling one quarter of one’s plate with carbohydrate-based foods, an amount that will prevent remission. Given that the ADA’s vision statement is “a life free of diabetes,” it seems negligent not to tell people with a deadly condition that they can reverse this diagnosis. 

A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 controlled clinical trials on 4809 patients showed that a very low–carbohydrate ketogenic diet (keto) was “superior” to alternatives for glycemic control. A more recent review of 11 clinical trials found that this diet was equal but not superior to other nutritional approaches in terms of blood sugar control, but this review also concluded that keto led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides. 

Dr. Glandt’s patients in the Bronx might not seem like obvious low-carb candidates. The diet is considered expensive and difficult to sustain. My interviews with a half dozen patients revealed some of these difficulties, but even for a woman living in a homeless shelter, the obstacles are not insurmountable.

Jerrilyn, who preferred that I use only her first name, lives in a shelter in Queens. While we strolled through a nearby park, she told me about her desire to lose weight and recover from polycystic ovary syndrome, which terrified her because it had caused dramatic hair loss. When she landed in Dr. Glandt’s office at age 28, she weighed 180 pounds. 

Less than 5 months later, Jerrilyn had lost 25 pounds, and her period had returned with some regularity. She said she used “food stamps,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to buy most of her food at local delis because the meals served at the shelter were too heavy in starches. She starts her day with eggs, turkey bacon, and avocado. 

“It was hard to give up carbohydrates because in my culture [Latina], we have nothing but carbs: rice, potatoes, yuca,” Jerrilyn shared. She noticed that carbs make her hungrier, but after 3 days of going low-carb, her cravings diminished. “It was like getting over an addiction,” she said.

Jerrilyn told me she’d seen many doctors but none as involved as Dr. Glandt. “It feels awesome to know that I have a lot of really useful information coming from her all the time.” The OwnaHealth app tracks weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, ketones, meals, mood, and cravings. Patients wear continuous glucose monitors and enter other information manually. Ketone bodies are used to measure dietary adherence and are obtained through finger pricks and test strips provided by OwnaHealth. Dr. Glandt gives patients her own food plan, along with free visual guides to low-carbohydrate foods by dietdoctor.com. 

Dr. Glandt also sends her patients for regular blood work. She says she does not frequently see a rise in LDL cholesterol, which can sometimes occur on a low-carbohydrate diet. This effect is most common among people who are lean and fit. She says she doesn’t discontinue statins unless cholesterol levels improve significantly.

Samuel Gonzalez, age 56, weighed 275 pounds when he walked into Dr. Glandt’s office this past November. His A1c was 9.2%, but none of his previous doctors had diagnosed him with diabetes. “I was like a walking bag of sugar!” he joked. 

A low-carbohydrate diet seemed absurd to a Puerto Rican like himself: “Having coffee without sugar? That’s like sacrilegious in my culture!” exclaimed Mr. Gonzalez. Still, he managed, with SNAP, to cook eggs and bacon for breakfast and some kind of protein for dinner. He keeps lunch light, “like tuna fish,” and finds checking in with the OwnaHealth app to be very helpful. “Every day, I’m on it,” he said. In the past 7 months, he’s lost 50 pounds, normalized his cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and lowered his A1c to 5.5%.

Mr. Gonzalez gets disability payments due to a back injury, and Ms. Efem receives government payments because her husband died serving in the military. Ms. Efem says her new diet challenges her budget, but Mr. Gonzalez says he manages easily.

Mélissa Cruz, a 28-year-old studying to be a nail technician while also doing back office work at a physical therapy practice, says she’s stretched thin. “I end up sad because I can’t put energy into looking up recipes and cooking for me and my boyfriend,” she told me. She’ll often cook rice and plantains for him and meat for herself, but “it’s frustrating when I’m low on funds and can’t figure out what to eat.” 

Low-carbohydrate diets have a reputation for being expensive because people often start eating pricier foods, like meat and cheese, to replace cheaper starchy foods such as pasta and rice. Eggs and ground beef are less expensive low-carb meal options, and meat, unlike fruits and vegetables, is easy to freeze and doesn’t spoil quickly. These advantages can add up.

A 2019 cost analysis published in Nutrition & Dietetics compared a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern with the New Zealand government’s recommended guidelines (which are almost identical to those in the United States) and found that it cost only an extra $1.27 in US dollars per person per day. One explanation is that protein and fat are more satiating than carbohydrates, so people who mostly consume these macronutrients often cut back on snacks like packaged chips, crackers, and even fruits. Also, those on a ketogenic diet usually cut down on medications, so the additional $1.27 daily is likely offset by reduced spending at the pharmacy.

It’s not just Bronx residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) who adapt well to low-carbohydrate diets. Among Alabama state employees with diabetes enrolled in a low-carbohydrate dietary program provided by a company called Virta, the low SES population had the best outcomes. Virta also published survey data in 2023 showing that participants in a program with the Veteran’s Administration did not find additional costs to be an obstacle to dietary adherence. In fact, some participants saw cost reductions due to decreased spending on processed snacks and fast foods.

Ms. Cruz told me she struggles financially, yet she’s still lost nearly 30 pounds in 5 months, and her A1c went from 7.1% down to 5.9%, putting her diabetes into remission. Equally motivating for her are the improvements she’s seen in other hormonal issues. Since childhood, she’s had acanthosis, a condition that causes the skin to darken in velvety patches, and more recently, she developed severe hirsutism to the point of growing sideburns. “I had tried going vegan and fasting, but these just weren’t sustainable for me, and I was so overwhelmed with counting calories all the time.” Now, on a low-carbohydrate diet, which doesn’t require calorie counting, she’s finally seeing both these conditions improve significantly.

When I last checked in with Ms. Cruz, she said she had “kind of ghosted” Dr. Glandt due to her work and school constraints, but she hadn’t abandoned the diet. She appreciated, too, that Dr. Glandt had not given up on her and kept calling and messaging. “She’s not at all like a typical doctor who would just tell me to lose weight and shake their head at me,” Ms. Cruz said. 

Because Dr. Glandt’s approach is time-intensive and high-touch, it might seem impractical to scale up, but Dr. Glandt’s app uses artificial intelligence to help with communications thus allowing her, with help from part-time health coaches, to care for patients. 

This early success in one of the United States’ poorest and sickest neighborhoods should give us hope that type 2 diabetes need not to be a progressive irreversible disease, even among the disadvantaged. 

OwnaHealth’s track record, along with that of Virta and other similar low-carbohydrate medical practices also give hope to the food-is-medicine idea. Diabetes can go into remission, and people can be healed, provided that health practitioners prescribe the right foods. And in truth, it’s not a diet. It’s a way of eating that must be maintained. The sustainability of low-carbohydrate diets has been a point of contention, but the Virta trial, with 38% of patients sustaining remission at 2 years, showed that it’s possible. (OwnaHealth, for its part, offers long-term maintenance plans to help patients stay very low-carb permanently.) 

Given the tremendous costs and health burden of diabetes, this approach should no doubt be the first line of treatment for doctors and the ADA. The past two decades of clinical trial research have demonstrated that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible through diet alone. It turns out that for metabolic diseases, only certain foods are truly medicine. 
 

Tools and Tips for Clinicians: 

• Free two-page keto starter’s guide by OwnaHealth; Dr. Glandt uses this guide with her patients.
• Illustrated low-carb guides by dietdoctor.com
• Free low-carbohydrate starter guide by the Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes
• Low-Carb for Any Budget, a free digital booklet by Mark Cucuzzella, MD, and Kristie Sullivan, PhD
• Recipe and meal ideas from Ruled.me, Keto-Mojo.com, and 

Dr. Teicholz is the founder of Nutrition Coalition, an independent nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that US dietary guidelines align with current science. She disclosed receiving book royalties from The Big Fat Surprise, and received honorarium not exceeding $2000 for speeches from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For 3 years, Ajala Efem’s type 2 diabetes was so poorly controlled that her blood sugar often soared northward of 500 mg/dL despite insulin shots three to five times a day. She would experience dizziness, vomiting, severe headaches, and the neuropathy in her feet made walking painful. She was also — literally — frothing at the mouth. The 47-year-old single mother of two adult children with mental disabilities feared that she would die.

Ms. Efem lives in the South Bronx, which is among the poorest areas of New York City, where the combined rate of prediabetes and diabetes is close to 30%, the highest rate of any borough in the city.

She had to wait 8 months for an appointment with an endocrinologist, but that visit proved to be life-changing. She lost 28 pounds and got off 15 medications in a single month. She did not join a gym or count calories; she simply changed the food she ate and adopted a low-carb diet.

“I went from being sick to feeling so great,” she told her endocrinologist recently: “My feet aren’t hurting; I’m not in pain; I’m eating as much as I want, and I really enjoy my food so much.” 

Ms. Efem’s life-changing visit was with Mariela Glandt, MD, at the offices of Essen Health Care. One month earlier, Dr. Glandt’s company, OwnaHealth, was contracted by Essen to conduct a 100-person pilot program for endocrinology patients. Essen is the largest Medicaid provider in New York City, and “they were desperate for an endocrinologist,” said Dr. Glandt, who trained at Columbia University in New York. So she came — all the way from Madrid, Spain. She commutes monthly, staying for a week each visit.

Dr. Glandt keeps up this punishing schedule because, as she explains, “it’s such a high for me to see these incredible transformations.” Her mostly Black and Hispanic patients are poor and lack resources, yet they lose significant amounts of weight, and their health issues resolve.

“Food is medicine” is an idea very much in vogue. The concept was central to the landmark White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022 and is now the focus of a number of a wide range of government programs. Recently, the Senate held a hearing aimed at further expanding food as medicine programs.

Still, only a single randomized controlled clinical trial has been conducted on this nutritional approach, with unexpectedly disappointing results. In the mid-Atlantic region, 456 food-insecure adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to usual care or the provision of weekly groceries for their entire families for about 1 year. Provisions for a Mediterranean-style diet included whole grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy products, cereal, brown rice, and bread. In addition, participants received dietary consultations. Yet, those who got free food and coaching did not see improvements in their average blood sugar (the study’s primary outcome), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels appeared to have worsened. 

“To be honest, I was surprised,” the study’s lead author, Joseph Doyle, PhD, professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told me. “I was hoping we would show improved outcomes, but the way to make progress is to do well-randomized trials to find out what works.”

I was not surprised by these results because a recent rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ did not show a Mediterranean-style diet to be the most effective for glycemic control. And Ms. Efem was not in fact following a Mediterranean-style diet.

Ms. Efem’s low-carb success story is anecdotal, but Dr. Glandt has an established track record from her 9 years’ experience as the medical director of the eponymous diabetes center she founded in Tel Aviv. A recent audit of 344 patients from the center found that after 6 months of following a very low–carbohydrate diet, 96.3% of those with diabetes saw their A1c fall from a median 7.6% to 6.3%. Weight loss was significant, with a median drop of 6.5 kg (14 pounds) for patients with diabetes and 5.7 kg for those with prediabetes. The diet comprises 5%-10% of calories from carbs, but Dr. Glandt does not use numeric targets with her patients.

Blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver enzymes also improved. And though LDL cholesterol went up by 8%, this result may have been offset by an accompanying 13% rise in HDL cholesterol. Of the 78 patients initially on insulin, 62 were able to stop this medication entirely.

Although these results aren’t from a clinical trial, they’re still highly meaningful because the current dietary standard of care for type 2 diabetes can only slow the progression of the disease, not cause remission. Indeed, the idea that type 2 diabetes could be put into remission was not seriously considered by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) until 2009. By 2019, an ADA report concluded that “[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia.” In other words, the best way to improve the key factor in diabetes is to reduce total carbohydrates. Yet, the ADA still advocates filling one quarter of one’s plate with carbohydrate-based foods, an amount that will prevent remission. Given that the ADA’s vision statement is “a life free of diabetes,” it seems negligent not to tell people with a deadly condition that they can reverse this diagnosis. 

A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 controlled clinical trials on 4809 patients showed that a very low–carbohydrate ketogenic diet (keto) was “superior” to alternatives for glycemic control. A more recent review of 11 clinical trials found that this diet was equal but not superior to other nutritional approaches in terms of blood sugar control, but this review also concluded that keto led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides. 

Dr. Glandt’s patients in the Bronx might not seem like obvious low-carb candidates. The diet is considered expensive and difficult to sustain. My interviews with a half dozen patients revealed some of these difficulties, but even for a woman living in a homeless shelter, the obstacles are not insurmountable.

Jerrilyn, who preferred that I use only her first name, lives in a shelter in Queens. While we strolled through a nearby park, she told me about her desire to lose weight and recover from polycystic ovary syndrome, which terrified her because it had caused dramatic hair loss. When she landed in Dr. Glandt’s office at age 28, she weighed 180 pounds. 

Less than 5 months later, Jerrilyn had lost 25 pounds, and her period had returned with some regularity. She said she used “food stamps,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to buy most of her food at local delis because the meals served at the shelter were too heavy in starches. She starts her day with eggs, turkey bacon, and avocado. 

“It was hard to give up carbohydrates because in my culture [Latina], we have nothing but carbs: rice, potatoes, yuca,” Jerrilyn shared. She noticed that carbs make her hungrier, but after 3 days of going low-carb, her cravings diminished. “It was like getting over an addiction,” she said.

Jerrilyn told me she’d seen many doctors but none as involved as Dr. Glandt. “It feels awesome to know that I have a lot of really useful information coming from her all the time.” The OwnaHealth app tracks weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, ketones, meals, mood, and cravings. Patients wear continuous glucose monitors and enter other information manually. Ketone bodies are used to measure dietary adherence and are obtained through finger pricks and test strips provided by OwnaHealth. Dr. Glandt gives patients her own food plan, along with free visual guides to low-carbohydrate foods by dietdoctor.com. 

Dr. Glandt also sends her patients for regular blood work. She says she does not frequently see a rise in LDL cholesterol, which can sometimes occur on a low-carbohydrate diet. This effect is most common among people who are lean and fit. She says she doesn’t discontinue statins unless cholesterol levels improve significantly.

Samuel Gonzalez, age 56, weighed 275 pounds when he walked into Dr. Glandt’s office this past November. His A1c was 9.2%, but none of his previous doctors had diagnosed him with diabetes. “I was like a walking bag of sugar!” he joked. 

A low-carbohydrate diet seemed absurd to a Puerto Rican like himself: “Having coffee without sugar? That’s like sacrilegious in my culture!” exclaimed Mr. Gonzalez. Still, he managed, with SNAP, to cook eggs and bacon for breakfast and some kind of protein for dinner. He keeps lunch light, “like tuna fish,” and finds checking in with the OwnaHealth app to be very helpful. “Every day, I’m on it,” he said. In the past 7 months, he’s lost 50 pounds, normalized his cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and lowered his A1c to 5.5%.

Mr. Gonzalez gets disability payments due to a back injury, and Ms. Efem receives government payments because her husband died serving in the military. Ms. Efem says her new diet challenges her budget, but Mr. Gonzalez says he manages easily.

Mélissa Cruz, a 28-year-old studying to be a nail technician while also doing back office work at a physical therapy practice, says she’s stretched thin. “I end up sad because I can’t put energy into looking up recipes and cooking for me and my boyfriend,” she told me. She’ll often cook rice and plantains for him and meat for herself, but “it’s frustrating when I’m low on funds and can’t figure out what to eat.” 

Low-carbohydrate diets have a reputation for being expensive because people often start eating pricier foods, like meat and cheese, to replace cheaper starchy foods such as pasta and rice. Eggs and ground beef are less expensive low-carb meal options, and meat, unlike fruits and vegetables, is easy to freeze and doesn’t spoil quickly. These advantages can add up.

A 2019 cost analysis published in Nutrition & Dietetics compared a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern with the New Zealand government’s recommended guidelines (which are almost identical to those in the United States) and found that it cost only an extra $1.27 in US dollars per person per day. One explanation is that protein and fat are more satiating than carbohydrates, so people who mostly consume these macronutrients often cut back on snacks like packaged chips, crackers, and even fruits. Also, those on a ketogenic diet usually cut down on medications, so the additional $1.27 daily is likely offset by reduced spending at the pharmacy.

It’s not just Bronx residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) who adapt well to low-carbohydrate diets. Among Alabama state employees with diabetes enrolled in a low-carbohydrate dietary program provided by a company called Virta, the low SES population had the best outcomes. Virta also published survey data in 2023 showing that participants in a program with the Veteran’s Administration did not find additional costs to be an obstacle to dietary adherence. In fact, some participants saw cost reductions due to decreased spending on processed snacks and fast foods.

Ms. Cruz told me she struggles financially, yet she’s still lost nearly 30 pounds in 5 months, and her A1c went from 7.1% down to 5.9%, putting her diabetes into remission. Equally motivating for her are the improvements she’s seen in other hormonal issues. Since childhood, she’s had acanthosis, a condition that causes the skin to darken in velvety patches, and more recently, she developed severe hirsutism to the point of growing sideburns. “I had tried going vegan and fasting, but these just weren’t sustainable for me, and I was so overwhelmed with counting calories all the time.” Now, on a low-carbohydrate diet, which doesn’t require calorie counting, she’s finally seeing both these conditions improve significantly.

When I last checked in with Ms. Cruz, she said she had “kind of ghosted” Dr. Glandt due to her work and school constraints, but she hadn’t abandoned the diet. She appreciated, too, that Dr. Glandt had not given up on her and kept calling and messaging. “She’s not at all like a typical doctor who would just tell me to lose weight and shake their head at me,” Ms. Cruz said. 

Because Dr. Glandt’s approach is time-intensive and high-touch, it might seem impractical to scale up, but Dr. Glandt’s app uses artificial intelligence to help with communications thus allowing her, with help from part-time health coaches, to care for patients. 

This early success in one of the United States’ poorest and sickest neighborhoods should give us hope that type 2 diabetes need not to be a progressive irreversible disease, even among the disadvantaged. 

OwnaHealth’s track record, along with that of Virta and other similar low-carbohydrate medical practices also give hope to the food-is-medicine idea. Diabetes can go into remission, and people can be healed, provided that health practitioners prescribe the right foods. And in truth, it’s not a diet. It’s a way of eating that must be maintained. The sustainability of low-carbohydrate diets has been a point of contention, but the Virta trial, with 38% of patients sustaining remission at 2 years, showed that it’s possible. (OwnaHealth, for its part, offers long-term maintenance plans to help patients stay very low-carb permanently.) 

Given the tremendous costs and health burden of diabetes, this approach should no doubt be the first line of treatment for doctors and the ADA. The past two decades of clinical trial research have demonstrated that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible through diet alone. It turns out that for metabolic diseases, only certain foods are truly medicine. 
 

Tools and Tips for Clinicians: 

• Free two-page keto starter’s guide by OwnaHealth; Dr. Glandt uses this guide with her patients.
• Illustrated low-carb guides by dietdoctor.com
• Free low-carbohydrate starter guide by the Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes
• Low-Carb for Any Budget, a free digital booklet by Mark Cucuzzella, MD, and Kristie Sullivan, PhD
• Recipe and meal ideas from Ruled.me, Keto-Mojo.com, and 

Dr. Teicholz is the founder of Nutrition Coalition, an independent nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that US dietary guidelines align with current science. She disclosed receiving book royalties from The Big Fat Surprise, and received honorarium not exceeding $2000 for speeches from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For 3 years, Ajala Efem’s type 2 diabetes was so poorly controlled that her blood sugar often soared northward of 500 mg/dL despite insulin shots three to five times a day. She would experience dizziness, vomiting, severe headaches, and the neuropathy in her feet made walking painful. She was also — literally — frothing at the mouth. The 47-year-old single mother of two adult children with mental disabilities feared that she would die.

Ms. Efem lives in the South Bronx, which is among the poorest areas of New York City, where the combined rate of prediabetes and diabetes is close to 30%, the highest rate of any borough in the city.

She had to wait 8 months for an appointment with an endocrinologist, but that visit proved to be life-changing. She lost 28 pounds and got off 15 medications in a single month. She did not join a gym or count calories; she simply changed the food she ate and adopted a low-carb diet.

“I went from being sick to feeling so great,” she told her endocrinologist recently: “My feet aren’t hurting; I’m not in pain; I’m eating as much as I want, and I really enjoy my food so much.” 

Ms. Efem’s life-changing visit was with Mariela Glandt, MD, at the offices of Essen Health Care. One month earlier, Dr. Glandt’s company, OwnaHealth, was contracted by Essen to conduct a 100-person pilot program for endocrinology patients. Essen is the largest Medicaid provider in New York City, and “they were desperate for an endocrinologist,” said Dr. Glandt, who trained at Columbia University in New York. So she came — all the way from Madrid, Spain. She commutes monthly, staying for a week each visit.

Dr. Glandt keeps up this punishing schedule because, as she explains, “it’s such a high for me to see these incredible transformations.” Her mostly Black and Hispanic patients are poor and lack resources, yet they lose significant amounts of weight, and their health issues resolve.

“Food is medicine” is an idea very much in vogue. The concept was central to the landmark White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022 and is now the focus of a number of a wide range of government programs. Recently, the Senate held a hearing aimed at further expanding food as medicine programs.

Still, only a single randomized controlled clinical trial has been conducted on this nutritional approach, with unexpectedly disappointing results. In the mid-Atlantic region, 456 food-insecure adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to usual care or the provision of weekly groceries for their entire families for about 1 year. Provisions for a Mediterranean-style diet included whole grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy products, cereal, brown rice, and bread. In addition, participants received dietary consultations. Yet, those who got free food and coaching did not see improvements in their average blood sugar (the study’s primary outcome), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels appeared to have worsened. 

“To be honest, I was surprised,” the study’s lead author, Joseph Doyle, PhD, professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told me. “I was hoping we would show improved outcomes, but the way to make progress is to do well-randomized trials to find out what works.”

I was not surprised by these results because a recent rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ did not show a Mediterranean-style diet to be the most effective for glycemic control. And Ms. Efem was not in fact following a Mediterranean-style diet.

Ms. Efem’s low-carb success story is anecdotal, but Dr. Glandt has an established track record from her 9 years’ experience as the medical director of the eponymous diabetes center she founded in Tel Aviv. A recent audit of 344 patients from the center found that after 6 months of following a very low–carbohydrate diet, 96.3% of those with diabetes saw their A1c fall from a median 7.6% to 6.3%. Weight loss was significant, with a median drop of 6.5 kg (14 pounds) for patients with diabetes and 5.7 kg for those with prediabetes. The diet comprises 5%-10% of calories from carbs, but Dr. Glandt does not use numeric targets with her patients.

Blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver enzymes also improved. And though LDL cholesterol went up by 8%, this result may have been offset by an accompanying 13% rise in HDL cholesterol. Of the 78 patients initially on insulin, 62 were able to stop this medication entirely.

Although these results aren’t from a clinical trial, they’re still highly meaningful because the current dietary standard of care for type 2 diabetes can only slow the progression of the disease, not cause remission. Indeed, the idea that type 2 diabetes could be put into remission was not seriously considered by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) until 2009. By 2019, an ADA report concluded that “[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia.” In other words, the best way to improve the key factor in diabetes is to reduce total carbohydrates. Yet, the ADA still advocates filling one quarter of one’s plate with carbohydrate-based foods, an amount that will prevent remission. Given that the ADA’s vision statement is “a life free of diabetes,” it seems negligent not to tell people with a deadly condition that they can reverse this diagnosis. 

A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 controlled clinical trials on 4809 patients showed that a very low–carbohydrate ketogenic diet (keto) was “superior” to alternatives for glycemic control. A more recent review of 11 clinical trials found that this diet was equal but not superior to other nutritional approaches in terms of blood sugar control, but this review also concluded that keto led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides. 

Dr. Glandt’s patients in the Bronx might not seem like obvious low-carb candidates. The diet is considered expensive and difficult to sustain. My interviews with a half dozen patients revealed some of these difficulties, but even for a woman living in a homeless shelter, the obstacles are not insurmountable.

Jerrilyn, who preferred that I use only her first name, lives in a shelter in Queens. While we strolled through a nearby park, she told me about her desire to lose weight and recover from polycystic ovary syndrome, which terrified her because it had caused dramatic hair loss. When she landed in Dr. Glandt’s office at age 28, she weighed 180 pounds. 

Less than 5 months later, Jerrilyn had lost 25 pounds, and her period had returned with some regularity. She said she used “food stamps,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to buy most of her food at local delis because the meals served at the shelter were too heavy in starches. She starts her day with eggs, turkey bacon, and avocado. 

“It was hard to give up carbohydrates because in my culture [Latina], we have nothing but carbs: rice, potatoes, yuca,” Jerrilyn shared. She noticed that carbs make her hungrier, but after 3 days of going low-carb, her cravings diminished. “It was like getting over an addiction,” she said.

Jerrilyn told me she’d seen many doctors but none as involved as Dr. Glandt. “It feels awesome to know that I have a lot of really useful information coming from her all the time.” The OwnaHealth app tracks weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, ketones, meals, mood, and cravings. Patients wear continuous glucose monitors and enter other information manually. Ketone bodies are used to measure dietary adherence and are obtained through finger pricks and test strips provided by OwnaHealth. Dr. Glandt gives patients her own food plan, along with free visual guides to low-carbohydrate foods by dietdoctor.com. 

Dr. Glandt also sends her patients for regular blood work. She says she does not frequently see a rise in LDL cholesterol, which can sometimes occur on a low-carbohydrate diet. This effect is most common among people who are lean and fit. She says she doesn’t discontinue statins unless cholesterol levels improve significantly.

Samuel Gonzalez, age 56, weighed 275 pounds when he walked into Dr. Glandt’s office this past November. His A1c was 9.2%, but none of his previous doctors had diagnosed him with diabetes. “I was like a walking bag of sugar!” he joked. 

A low-carbohydrate diet seemed absurd to a Puerto Rican like himself: “Having coffee without sugar? That’s like sacrilegious in my culture!” exclaimed Mr. Gonzalez. Still, he managed, with SNAP, to cook eggs and bacon for breakfast and some kind of protein for dinner. He keeps lunch light, “like tuna fish,” and finds checking in with the OwnaHealth app to be very helpful. “Every day, I’m on it,” he said. In the past 7 months, he’s lost 50 pounds, normalized his cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and lowered his A1c to 5.5%.

Mr. Gonzalez gets disability payments due to a back injury, and Ms. Efem receives government payments because her husband died serving in the military. Ms. Efem says her new diet challenges her budget, but Mr. Gonzalez says he manages easily.

Mélissa Cruz, a 28-year-old studying to be a nail technician while also doing back office work at a physical therapy practice, says she’s stretched thin. “I end up sad because I can’t put energy into looking up recipes and cooking for me and my boyfriend,” she told me. She’ll often cook rice and plantains for him and meat for herself, but “it’s frustrating when I’m low on funds and can’t figure out what to eat.” 

Low-carbohydrate diets have a reputation for being expensive because people often start eating pricier foods, like meat and cheese, to replace cheaper starchy foods such as pasta and rice. Eggs and ground beef are less expensive low-carb meal options, and meat, unlike fruits and vegetables, is easy to freeze and doesn’t spoil quickly. These advantages can add up.

A 2019 cost analysis published in Nutrition & Dietetics compared a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern with the New Zealand government’s recommended guidelines (which are almost identical to those in the United States) and found that it cost only an extra $1.27 in US dollars per person per day. One explanation is that protein and fat are more satiating than carbohydrates, so people who mostly consume these macronutrients often cut back on snacks like packaged chips, crackers, and even fruits. Also, those on a ketogenic diet usually cut down on medications, so the additional $1.27 daily is likely offset by reduced spending at the pharmacy.

It’s not just Bronx residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) who adapt well to low-carbohydrate diets. Among Alabama state employees with diabetes enrolled in a low-carbohydrate dietary program provided by a company called Virta, the low SES population had the best outcomes. Virta also published survey data in 2023 showing that participants in a program with the Veteran’s Administration did not find additional costs to be an obstacle to dietary adherence. In fact, some participants saw cost reductions due to decreased spending on processed snacks and fast foods.

Ms. Cruz told me she struggles financially, yet she’s still lost nearly 30 pounds in 5 months, and her A1c went from 7.1% down to 5.9%, putting her diabetes into remission. Equally motivating for her are the improvements she’s seen in other hormonal issues. Since childhood, she’s had acanthosis, a condition that causes the skin to darken in velvety patches, and more recently, she developed severe hirsutism to the point of growing sideburns. “I had tried going vegan and fasting, but these just weren’t sustainable for me, and I was so overwhelmed with counting calories all the time.” Now, on a low-carbohydrate diet, which doesn’t require calorie counting, she’s finally seeing both these conditions improve significantly.

When I last checked in with Ms. Cruz, she said she had “kind of ghosted” Dr. Glandt due to her work and school constraints, but she hadn’t abandoned the diet. She appreciated, too, that Dr. Glandt had not given up on her and kept calling and messaging. “She’s not at all like a typical doctor who would just tell me to lose weight and shake their head at me,” Ms. Cruz said. 

Because Dr. Glandt’s approach is time-intensive and high-touch, it might seem impractical to scale up, but Dr. Glandt’s app uses artificial intelligence to help with communications thus allowing her, with help from part-time health coaches, to care for patients. 

This early success in one of the United States’ poorest and sickest neighborhoods should give us hope that type 2 diabetes need not to be a progressive irreversible disease, even among the disadvantaged. 

OwnaHealth’s track record, along with that of Virta and other similar low-carbohydrate medical practices also give hope to the food-is-medicine idea. Diabetes can go into remission, and people can be healed, provided that health practitioners prescribe the right foods. And in truth, it’s not a diet. It’s a way of eating that must be maintained. The sustainability of low-carbohydrate diets has been a point of contention, but the Virta trial, with 38% of patients sustaining remission at 2 years, showed that it’s possible. (OwnaHealth, for its part, offers long-term maintenance plans to help patients stay very low-carb permanently.) 

Given the tremendous costs and health burden of diabetes, this approach should no doubt be the first line of treatment for doctors and the ADA. The past two decades of clinical trial research have demonstrated that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible through diet alone. It turns out that for metabolic diseases, only certain foods are truly medicine. 
 

Tools and Tips for Clinicians: 

• Free two-page keto starter’s guide by OwnaHealth; Dr. Glandt uses this guide with her patients.
• Illustrated low-carb guides by dietdoctor.com
• Free low-carbohydrate starter guide by the Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes
• Low-Carb for Any Budget, a free digital booklet by Mark Cucuzzella, MD, and Kristie Sullivan, PhD
• Recipe and meal ideas from Ruled.me, Keto-Mojo.com, and 

Dr. Teicholz is the founder of Nutrition Coalition, an independent nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that US dietary guidelines align with current science. She disclosed receiving book royalties from The Big Fat Surprise, and received honorarium not exceeding $2000 for speeches from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

My field of electrophysiology is abuzz with excitement over the new technology of pulsed field ablation (PFA). It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market. 

Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data. 

Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples. 

The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF. 

Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.

A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters. 

The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation. 

The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further. 

Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone. 
 

What About PFA Efficacy?

I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF. 

The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation. 

Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged. 
 

What About PFA Safety?

In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur. 

The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure. 

No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event. 

One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption. 
 

What About Speed and Cost? 

Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.

I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs. 

Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system. 
 

What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA? 

So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.

The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user. 

One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released. 

Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure. 

It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe. 

But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

My field of electrophysiology is abuzz with excitement over the new technology of pulsed field ablation (PFA). It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market. 

Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data. 

Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples. 

The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF. 

Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.

A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters. 

The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation. 

The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further. 

Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone. 
 

What About PFA Efficacy?

I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF. 

The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation. 

Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged. 
 

What About PFA Safety?

In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur. 

The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure. 

No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event. 

One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption. 
 

What About Speed and Cost? 

Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.

I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs. 

Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system. 
 

What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA? 

So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.

The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user. 

One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released. 

Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure. 

It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe. 

But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

My field of electrophysiology is abuzz with excitement over the new technology of pulsed field ablation (PFA). It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market. 

Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data. 

Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples. 

The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF. 

Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.

A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters. 

The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation. 

The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further. 

Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone. 
 

What About PFA Efficacy?

I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF. 

The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation. 

Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged. 
 

What About PFA Safety?

In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur. 

The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure. 

No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event. 

One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption. 
 

What About Speed and Cost? 

Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.

I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs. 

Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system. 
 

What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA? 

So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.

The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user. 

One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released. 

Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure. 

It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe. 

But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.