Business of Medicine

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; ebarkoudah@bwh.harvard.edu

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

During the closing arguments in a $10 million malpractice trial, attorney Robert McKenna III told jurors the claims against his client, a gastroenterologist, were baseless and equivalent to “extortion.” The patient’s family blamed the gastroenterologist for their father’s death, alleging the doctor perforated his colon during insertion of a feeding tube. 

“I take pride in what I do, and I’ve got to tell you, in the 30 years I have been doing this, I have never seen a more insulting, factually devoid presentation in my entire career,” Mr. McKenna said, according to court transcripts. “On the strength of this evidence, they want you to award them $10 million. Welcome to America. Welcome to the personal injury machine, the personal injury industrial complex.”

After less than 30 minutes of deliberation, jurors returned a 12-0 verdict in favor of the physician.

However, Mr. McKenna, from Huntington Beach, Calif., described the case very differently to his staff in a celebration video, which he never expected to become public.

In the video, posted on Twitter and Instagram, Mr. McKenna bragged about how his legal team convinced jurors to doubt the patient’s official cause of death. He said the lawsuit involved a guy “that was probably negligently killed, but we kind of made it look like other people did it.”

“We actually had a death certificate that said he died the very way the plaintiff said he died, and we had to say, ‘No, you really shouldn’t believe what that death certificate says, or the coroner from the Orange County coroner’s office ... who says that it’s right,’” Mr. McKenna said in the video.

The 26-minute verdict was the fastest he’s ever received, Mr. McKenna says in the video, encouraging his partner to ring the firm’s victory bell.

“Overcoming all of those hurdles, we managed to sock three lawyers in the face,” Mr. McKenna said, referring to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. 

The video of Mr. McKenna’s remarks is now in wide circulation after having been posted to online attorney forums, Instagram, where it’s been viewed more than 8,000 times, and Twitter, where views have reached over 3,000.

Jorge Ledezma, an Orange County, Calif., attorney who represented the patient’s family in the case, said the remarks make it appear as if Mr. McKenna tricked the jury.

“It was a drastic change from the comments he made to the jury during his closing arguments,” Mr. Ledezma said. “But the video is more important for what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say his client did everything properly. He doesn’t say our case didn’t have any merit. He doesn’t say his client was a good doctor. Clearly, what he told the jury and what he believes are the exact opposite of each other.”

Mr. McKenna did not return multiple messages seeking comment for this story. In a statement to the LA Times, Mr. McKenna said his remarks were “intended purely as an internal briefing to our staff, using shorthand phrases which might understandably cause confusion for a lay audience unfamiliar with the case at hand, and the law in general.”

“I have expressed my apologies to my client, opposing counsel, and both the medical and legal communities,” Mr. McKenna said in the statement to the LA Times. “However, nothing about my remarks should call into question our very transparent trial strategy or the jury’s verdict in favor of my client.”
 

What happened to the patient?

Enrique Garcia Sanchez, 49, arrived at the critical care unit at South Coast Global Medical Center in Santa Ana, Calif., on Nov. 5, 2017, complaining of abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis, acute hypokalemia, and alcohol abuse, and transferred to the ICU, according to the family’s legal complaint.

Mr. Sanchez had a positive D-Dimer test, indicating a probable blood clot, and he appeared to be experiencing septic shock caused by pancreatitis, according to the complaint. By Nov. 17, Mr. Sanchez was suffering from respiratory failure and severe hypoxemia, and as a result, he was sedated. In addition, his abdomen was described as distended with decreased bowel sounds, according to court documents.

On. Nov. 18, a gastrointestinal specialist was consulted because of Mr. Sanchez’s prolonged intubation and oropharyngeal dysphagia, according to the lawsuit. On Nov. 21, air was leaking from Mr. Sanchez’s breathing tube with diffuse infiltration noted on the right side, and pneumonia.

Mr. Sanchez was eventually unable to swallow, and the gastroenterologist inserted a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, according to court records. 

Mr. Sanchez’s condition worsened, and he developed respiratory distress, hypotension, and weakness during dialysis. On Dec. 9, 2017, physicians noted he had a bacterial infection, and he was later intubated on vent support because of progressive respiratory failure. Additionally, an internist reported that “fecal material” was observed per the PEG tube. Mr. Sanchez’s white blood cell count continued to rise, and his condition deteriorated. Mr. Sanchez died on Dec. 31, 2017.

A death certificate concluded that Mr. Sanchez died from complications of a PEG tube that perforated his colon, according to Mr. Ledezma. The plaintiffs’ legal team argued the gastroenterologist breached the standard of care by failing to ensure the tube was placed properly and failing to remedy the error after leakage was noted. 

“Mr. Garcia died because of a misplaced PEG tube that perforated the colon, resulting in peritonitis and sepsis,” attorney Jose Robles said during his closing arguments. “Mr. Garcia had ascites, a contraindication for PEG tube placement. He had ileus, a contraindication for PEG tube placement. The standard of care requires that [the gastroenterologist] conduct a proper workup to confirm that a PEG tube placement can be done appropriately and safely.”

Mr. McKenna argued the gastroenterologist was not at fault for the patient’s death, and that complications from his pancreatitis ultimately killed him. During the trial, physicians who cared for Mr. Sanchez testified the patient had a less than 50% chance of survival.

“What he had was end-stage catastrophic [pancreatitis] that was affecting his organ system and aspiration pneumonia that made it impossible for him to try to breathe on his own,” Mr. McKenna said during closing arguments. “The man ... had a catastrophic injury that ate most of his pancreas. That is not a survivable event.”
 

Attorney faces backlash from legal community

Since his celebratory remarks were posted online, Mr. McKenna has faced much backlash, particularly from the legal community.

@mgvolada tweeted, “As an attorney I am revolted and I hope sanctions follow ... this is why people hate attorneys.”

@stevewieland, who identified himself as a trial lawyer, wrote he would not feel good about winning such a case.

“No wonder we get no love from the public,” he tweeted.

“Let’s see how the Court of Appeals thinks about your braggadocio and how this makes lawyers appear to the public,” tweeted @Stephen60134955, a self-identified attorney.

Mr. McKenna’s license remains active and in good standing with no disciplinary actions, according to the State Bar of California website.

Mr. Ledezma has filed a motion for a new trial, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for Aug. 4, 2022. The motion was filed primarily because of issues during the trial, what Mr. Ledezma described as “inflammatory closing arguments,” and in small part, Mr. McKenna’s video remarks, he said.

If the motion is denied, the plaintiffs will move forward with an appeal, he said.

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

During the closing arguments in a $10 million malpractice trial, attorney Robert McKenna III told jurors the claims against his client, a gastroenterologist, were baseless and equivalent to “extortion.” The patient’s family blamed the gastroenterologist for their father’s death, alleging the doctor perforated his colon during insertion of a feeding tube. 

“I take pride in what I do, and I’ve got to tell you, in the 30 years I have been doing this, I have never seen a more insulting, factually devoid presentation in my entire career,” Mr. McKenna said, according to court transcripts. “On the strength of this evidence, they want you to award them $10 million. Welcome to America. Welcome to the personal injury machine, the personal injury industrial complex.”

After less than 30 minutes of deliberation, jurors returned a 12-0 verdict in favor of the physician.

However, Mr. McKenna, from Huntington Beach, Calif., described the case very differently to his staff in a celebration video, which he never expected to become public.

In the video, posted on Twitter and Instagram, Mr. McKenna bragged about how his legal team convinced jurors to doubt the patient’s official cause of death. He said the lawsuit involved a guy “that was probably negligently killed, but we kind of made it look like other people did it.”

“We actually had a death certificate that said he died the very way the plaintiff said he died, and we had to say, ‘No, you really shouldn’t believe what that death certificate says, or the coroner from the Orange County coroner’s office ... who says that it’s right,’” Mr. McKenna said in the video.

The 26-minute verdict was the fastest he’s ever received, Mr. McKenna says in the video, encouraging his partner to ring the firm’s victory bell.

“Overcoming all of those hurdles, we managed to sock three lawyers in the face,” Mr. McKenna said, referring to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. 

The video of Mr. McKenna’s remarks is now in wide circulation after having been posted to online attorney forums, Instagram, where it’s been viewed more than 8,000 times, and Twitter, where views have reached over 3,000.

Jorge Ledezma, an Orange County, Calif., attorney who represented the patient’s family in the case, said the remarks make it appear as if Mr. McKenna tricked the jury.

“It was a drastic change from the comments he made to the jury during his closing arguments,” Mr. Ledezma said. “But the video is more important for what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say his client did everything properly. He doesn’t say our case didn’t have any merit. He doesn’t say his client was a good doctor. Clearly, what he told the jury and what he believes are the exact opposite of each other.”

Mr. McKenna did not return multiple messages seeking comment for this story. In a statement to the LA Times, Mr. McKenna said his remarks were “intended purely as an internal briefing to our staff, using shorthand phrases which might understandably cause confusion for a lay audience unfamiliar with the case at hand, and the law in general.”

“I have expressed my apologies to my client, opposing counsel, and both the medical and legal communities,” Mr. McKenna said in the statement to the LA Times. “However, nothing about my remarks should call into question our very transparent trial strategy or the jury’s verdict in favor of my client.”
 

What happened to the patient?

Enrique Garcia Sanchez, 49, arrived at the critical care unit at South Coast Global Medical Center in Santa Ana, Calif., on Nov. 5, 2017, complaining of abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis, acute hypokalemia, and alcohol abuse, and transferred to the ICU, according to the family’s legal complaint.

Mr. Sanchez had a positive D-Dimer test, indicating a probable blood clot, and he appeared to be experiencing septic shock caused by pancreatitis, according to the complaint. By Nov. 17, Mr. Sanchez was suffering from respiratory failure and severe hypoxemia, and as a result, he was sedated. In addition, his abdomen was described as distended with decreased bowel sounds, according to court documents.

On. Nov. 18, a gastrointestinal specialist was consulted because of Mr. Sanchez’s prolonged intubation and oropharyngeal dysphagia, according to the lawsuit. On Nov. 21, air was leaking from Mr. Sanchez’s breathing tube with diffuse infiltration noted on the right side, and pneumonia.

Mr. Sanchez was eventually unable to swallow, and the gastroenterologist inserted a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, according to court records. 

Mr. Sanchez’s condition worsened, and he developed respiratory distress, hypotension, and weakness during dialysis. On Dec. 9, 2017, physicians noted he had a bacterial infection, and he was later intubated on vent support because of progressive respiratory failure. Additionally, an internist reported that “fecal material” was observed per the PEG tube. Mr. Sanchez’s white blood cell count continued to rise, and his condition deteriorated. Mr. Sanchez died on Dec. 31, 2017.

A death certificate concluded that Mr. Sanchez died from complications of a PEG tube that perforated his colon, according to Mr. Ledezma. The plaintiffs’ legal team argued the gastroenterologist breached the standard of care by failing to ensure the tube was placed properly and failing to remedy the error after leakage was noted. 

“Mr. Garcia died because of a misplaced PEG tube that perforated the colon, resulting in peritonitis and sepsis,” attorney Jose Robles said during his closing arguments. “Mr. Garcia had ascites, a contraindication for PEG tube placement. He had ileus, a contraindication for PEG tube placement. The standard of care requires that [the gastroenterologist] conduct a proper workup to confirm that a PEG tube placement can be done appropriately and safely.”

Mr. McKenna argued the gastroenterologist was not at fault for the patient’s death, and that complications from his pancreatitis ultimately killed him. During the trial, physicians who cared for Mr. Sanchez testified the patient had a less than 50% chance of survival.

“What he had was end-stage catastrophic [pancreatitis] that was affecting his organ system and aspiration pneumonia that made it impossible for him to try to breathe on his own,” Mr. McKenna said during closing arguments. “The man ... had a catastrophic injury that ate most of his pancreas. That is not a survivable event.”
 

Attorney faces backlash from legal community

Since his celebratory remarks were posted online, Mr. McKenna has faced much backlash, particularly from the legal community.

@mgvolada tweeted, “As an attorney I am revolted and I hope sanctions follow ... this is why people hate attorneys.”

@stevewieland, who identified himself as a trial lawyer, wrote he would not feel good about winning such a case.

“No wonder we get no love from the public,” he tweeted.

“Let’s see how the Court of Appeals thinks about your braggadocio and how this makes lawyers appear to the public,” tweeted @Stephen60134955, a self-identified attorney.

Mr. McKenna’s license remains active and in good standing with no disciplinary actions, according to the State Bar of California website.

Mr. Ledezma has filed a motion for a new trial, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for Aug. 4, 2022. The motion was filed primarily because of issues during the trial, what Mr. Ledezma described as “inflammatory closing arguments,” and in small part, Mr. McKenna’s video remarks, he said.

If the motion is denied, the plaintiffs will move forward with an appeal, he said.

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

During the closing arguments in a $10 million malpractice trial, attorney Robert McKenna III told jurors the claims against his client, a gastroenterologist, were baseless and equivalent to “extortion.” The patient’s family blamed the gastroenterologist for their father’s death, alleging the doctor perforated his colon during insertion of a feeding tube. 

“I take pride in what I do, and I’ve got to tell you, in the 30 years I have been doing this, I have never seen a more insulting, factually devoid presentation in my entire career,” Mr. McKenna said, according to court transcripts. “On the strength of this evidence, they want you to award them $10 million. Welcome to America. Welcome to the personal injury machine, the personal injury industrial complex.”

After less than 30 minutes of deliberation, jurors returned a 12-0 verdict in favor of the physician.

However, Mr. McKenna, from Huntington Beach, Calif., described the case very differently to his staff in a celebration video, which he never expected to become public.

In the video, posted on Twitter and Instagram, Mr. McKenna bragged about how his legal team convinced jurors to doubt the patient’s official cause of death. He said the lawsuit involved a guy “that was probably negligently killed, but we kind of made it look like other people did it.”

“We actually had a death certificate that said he died the very way the plaintiff said he died, and we had to say, ‘No, you really shouldn’t believe what that death certificate says, or the coroner from the Orange County coroner’s office ... who says that it’s right,’” Mr. McKenna said in the video.

The 26-minute verdict was the fastest he’s ever received, Mr. McKenna says in the video, encouraging his partner to ring the firm’s victory bell.

“Overcoming all of those hurdles, we managed to sock three lawyers in the face,” Mr. McKenna said, referring to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. 

The video of Mr. McKenna’s remarks is now in wide circulation after having been posted to online attorney forums, Instagram, where it’s been viewed more than 8,000 times, and Twitter, where views have reached over 3,000.

Jorge Ledezma, an Orange County, Calif., attorney who represented the patient’s family in the case, said the remarks make it appear as if Mr. McKenna tricked the jury.

“It was a drastic change from the comments he made to the jury during his closing arguments,” Mr. Ledezma said. “But the video is more important for what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say his client did everything properly. He doesn’t say our case didn’t have any merit. He doesn’t say his client was a good doctor. Clearly, what he told the jury and what he believes are the exact opposite of each other.”

Mr. McKenna did not return multiple messages seeking comment for this story. In a statement to the LA Times, Mr. McKenna said his remarks were “intended purely as an internal briefing to our staff, using shorthand phrases which might understandably cause confusion for a lay audience unfamiliar with the case at hand, and the law in general.”

“I have expressed my apologies to my client, opposing counsel, and both the medical and legal communities,” Mr. McKenna said in the statement to the LA Times. “However, nothing about my remarks should call into question our very transparent trial strategy or the jury’s verdict in favor of my client.”
 

What happened to the patient?

Enrique Garcia Sanchez, 49, arrived at the critical care unit at South Coast Global Medical Center in Santa Ana, Calif., on Nov. 5, 2017, complaining of abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis, acute hypokalemia, and alcohol abuse, and transferred to the ICU, according to the family’s legal complaint.

Mr. Sanchez had a positive D-Dimer test, indicating a probable blood clot, and he appeared to be experiencing septic shock caused by pancreatitis, according to the complaint. By Nov. 17, Mr. Sanchez was suffering from respiratory failure and severe hypoxemia, and as a result, he was sedated. In addition, his abdomen was described as distended with decreased bowel sounds, according to court documents.

On. Nov. 18, a gastrointestinal specialist was consulted because of Mr. Sanchez’s prolonged intubation and oropharyngeal dysphagia, according to the lawsuit. On Nov. 21, air was leaking from Mr. Sanchez’s breathing tube with diffuse infiltration noted on the right side, and pneumonia.

Mr. Sanchez was eventually unable to swallow, and the gastroenterologist inserted a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, according to court records. 

Mr. Sanchez’s condition worsened, and he developed respiratory distress, hypotension, and weakness during dialysis. On Dec. 9, 2017, physicians noted he had a bacterial infection, and he was later intubated on vent support because of progressive respiratory failure. Additionally, an internist reported that “fecal material” was observed per the PEG tube. Mr. Sanchez’s white blood cell count continued to rise, and his condition deteriorated. Mr. Sanchez died on Dec. 31, 2017.

A death certificate concluded that Mr. Sanchez died from complications of a PEG tube that perforated his colon, according to Mr. Ledezma. The plaintiffs’ legal team argued the gastroenterologist breached the standard of care by failing to ensure the tube was placed properly and failing to remedy the error after leakage was noted. 

“Mr. Garcia died because of a misplaced PEG tube that perforated the colon, resulting in peritonitis and sepsis,” attorney Jose Robles said during his closing arguments. “Mr. Garcia had ascites, a contraindication for PEG tube placement. He had ileus, a contraindication for PEG tube placement. The standard of care requires that [the gastroenterologist] conduct a proper workup to confirm that a PEG tube placement can be done appropriately and safely.”

Mr. McKenna argued the gastroenterologist was not at fault for the patient’s death, and that complications from his pancreatitis ultimately killed him. During the trial, physicians who cared for Mr. Sanchez testified the patient had a less than 50% chance of survival.

“What he had was end-stage catastrophic [pancreatitis] that was affecting his organ system and aspiration pneumonia that made it impossible for him to try to breathe on his own,” Mr. McKenna said during closing arguments. “The man ... had a catastrophic injury that ate most of his pancreas. That is not a survivable event.”
 

Attorney faces backlash from legal community

Since his celebratory remarks were posted online, Mr. McKenna has faced much backlash, particularly from the legal community.

@mgvolada tweeted, “As an attorney I am revolted and I hope sanctions follow ... this is why people hate attorneys.”

@stevewieland, who identified himself as a trial lawyer, wrote he would not feel good about winning such a case.

“No wonder we get no love from the public,” he tweeted.

“Let’s see how the Court of Appeals thinks about your braggadocio and how this makes lawyers appear to the public,” tweeted @Stephen60134955, a self-identified attorney.

Mr. McKenna’s license remains active and in good standing with no disciplinary actions, according to the State Bar of California website.

Mr. Ledezma has filed a motion for a new trial, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for Aug. 4, 2022. The motion was filed primarily because of issues during the trial, what Mr. Ledezma described as “inflammatory closing arguments,” and in small part, Mr. McKenna’s video remarks, he said.

If the motion is denied, the plaintiffs will move forward with an appeal, he said.

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

The names of the doctors in this story have been changed at their request because of fear of legal repercussions and/or professional retaliation.

When an Ohio ob.gyn. had a patient in need of an abortion in July 2022, he knew he had to move quickly.

Daniel, who also sees patients at an abortion clinic, was treating a woman who came in for an abortion around 5 weeks into her pregnancy. And after going through the mandatory waiting periods, the required ultrasounds at each appointment, the consent process, and the options counseling, she was set for a surgical abortion the following Monday.

But on Monday, pre-op tests showed that her blood pressure was very high, posing a serious health risk if Daniel proceeded with the surgery.

Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Daniel would have sent the patient home with instructions on how to lower her blood pressure over time. But the patient now had just four days to show the necessary improvement.

In this case, everything worked out. The patient returned Thursday and was able to have the procedure. But this is just one of the many day-to-day medical decisions abortion providers are now having to make with the changing legal risks being as top-of-mind to doctors as the safety of their patients.

Daniel said he doesn’t want the Ohio abortion law to change the way he communicates with his patients. As far as he knows, it’s still legal to talk to patients about self-managed abortions, as long as everything is unbiased and clearly stated, he says.

“But I don’t think I would get a lot of institutional support to have those conversations with patients because of the perceived legal liability,” says Daniel. “I will still have those conversations, but I’m not going to tell my employer that I’m having them and I’m not going to document them in the chart.”

Daniel is aware that having these kinds of discussions, or entertaining the possibility of omitting certain information from patient records, runs the risk of legal and professional consequences. Enforcement of these rules is foggy, too.

Under the Ohio law, if a fellow staff member suspects you of violating a law, you could be reported to a supervisor or licensing body. Abortion providers are aware they must be cautious about what they say because anti-abortion activitists, posing as patients, have secretly recorded conversations in the past, Daniel says.
 

Enforcement: The past, present, and future legal risks

Before Roe, enforcement of illegal abortion was spotty, says Mary Ziegler, JD, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, who specializes in the legal history of reproductive rights. At the start of the late 19th century, the doctors who provided illegal abortions would, in most cases, be prosecuted if a patient died as a result of the procedure.

A doctor in Ashland, Pa., named Robert Spencer was known for providing abortions in the small mining town where he practiced in the 1920s. He was reportedly arrested three times – once after a patient died as a result of abortion complications – but was ultimately acquitted.

For many doctors performing abortions at the time, “it was very much a kind of roll of the dice,” Ms. Ziegler says. “There was a sense that these laws were not enforced very much.”

Carole Joffe, PhD, a sociologist with expertise in reproductive health, recalls that there were very few doctors arrested, given the sheer number of abortions that were performed. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that, in the years leading up to the original Roe decision, about 1.2 million women in the U.S. had illegal abortions – a number that exceeds today’s estimates.

Among the most notable cases of a doctor being detained was the arrest of gynecologist Jane Hodgson, MD, in 1970. Dr. Hodgson intentionally violated Minnesota law, which prohibited all abortions except in cases that were life-threatening to the patient.

After performing an abortion on a patient who had contracted rubella, also known as German measles, Dr. Hodgson was arrested, sentenced to 30 days in jail, and put on a year-long probation. She did not end up serving any time in jail, and her conviction was overturned after the Roe decision in 1973.

Now, the abortion restrictions being passed in many states have authorized much more sweeping penalties than those that existed in the pre-Roe era. According to Joffe, there is one key reason why we can anticipate more doctor arrests now.

“There simply was not the modern anti-abortion movement that we have come to know,” she says. “In the old days, there was not that much legal surveillance, and things were very unsafe. Fast forward to the present, we have much safer options now – like medication abortion pills – but we have a very different legal environment.”

Carmel Shachar, JD, MPH, a law and health policy expert at Harvard Law School, also expects that we will see more frequent prosecutions of doctors who provide abortion.

“There’s so much more data available through medical record-keeping and information generated by our phones and internet searches, that I think it would be much harder for a physician to fly under the radar,” Ms. Shachar says.

Also, Ms. Shachar emphasizes the power of prosecutorial discretion in abortion cases, where one prosecutor may choose to apply a law much more aggressively than another prosecutor in the next county over. Such has been seen in DeKalb County, Ga., which includes parts of Atlanta, where District Attorney Sherry Boston says she plans to use her prosecutorial discretion to address crimes like rape and murder, rather than “potentially investigat[ing] women and doctors for medical decisions,” Bloomberg Law reported. State Sen. Jen Jordan, the Democratic nominee for Georgia attorney general, has also said that, if elected, she would not enforce the state’s new 6-week abortion ban.
 

Is there a legal path forward for abortion care in states that forbid it?

Robin, an ob.gyn., became a complex family planning fellow in Utah to seek out further medical training and education in abortion care. Her plan was to solidify this as an area of expertise, so that, upon completing her fellowship, she could move back to her home state of Arizona to provide services there.

In Utah, where she currently practices, abortion is banned after 18 weeks. In Arizona, abortion is still allowed up to 24-26 weeks, until a pregnancy reaches “viability” (when a fetus is developed enough that it is able to survive outside the uterus with medical assistance). But new restrictions in Arizona may go into effect as early as September which would prohibit abortions after 15 weeks.

Despite the uncertain future of abortion access in Arizona, Robin still plans on moving there after her fellowship, but she hopes to travel to surrounding states to help provide abortion care where it’s less restricted. Even if she isn’t able to provide abortions at all, she says that there are still ways to help patients get safe, above-board abortions so as not to repeat the dangerous and often gruesome outcomes of self-induced abortions or those done by illegitimate practitioners before Roe.

“One of the roles that I think I can have as a physician is helping people with wraparound care for self-managed abortion,” says Robin. “If they can get the [abortion] pills online, then I can do the ultrasound beforehand, I can do the ultrasound after, I can talk them through it. I can help them with all the aspects of this care, I just can’t give them the pills myself.”

Whether a doctor can be penalized for “aiding and abetting” abortions that happen in different states remains an open question. In Texas, for example, Senate Bill 8 – which took effect Sept. 1, 2021 – not only established a fetal heartbeat law but added language that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” or anyone who even intends to do so.

That’s what happened to Alan Braid, MD, an ob.gyn. based in San Antonio. He confessed in a Washington Post op-ed that he had performed an abortion after cardiac activity had been detected in the pregnancy. Aware of the legal risks, he has since been sued by three people, and those cases are still underway.

But Ms. Ziegler says the chances of a doctor from a progressive state actually getting extradited and prosecuted by a state with restrictive abortion laws is pretty low – not zero, but low.

Like Robin, Natalie – an ob.gyn. in her early 30s – is a complex family planning fellow in Massachusetts. After her fellowship, she wants to return to Texas, where she completed her residency training.

“I’m at the point in my training where everyone starts looking for jobs and figuring out their next steps,” says Natalie. “The Dobbs decision introduced a ton of chaos due to the vagueness in the laws and how they get enforced, and then there’s chaos within institutions themselves and what kind of risk tolerance they have.”

Looking towards her future career path, Natalie says that she would not consider a job at an institution that didn’t allow her to teach abortion care to students, speak publicly about abortion rights, or let her travel outside of Texas to continue providing abortion care. She’s also preemptively seeking legal counsel and general guidance – advice that Ms. Ziegler strongly urges doctors to heed, sooner rather than later.

In states that have strict abortion bans with exceptions for life-threatening cases, there is still a lack of clarity around what is actually considered life-threatening enough to pass as an exception.

“Is it life-threatening in the next 6 hours? 24 hours? Seven days? One month?” Robin asks. “In medicine, we don’t necessarily talk about if something is life-threatening or not, we just say that there’s a high risk of X thing happening in X period of time. What’s the threshold at which that meets legal criteria? Nobody has an answer for that.”

Robin explains that, in her patients who have cancer, a pregnancy wouldn’t “necessarily kill them within the span of the next 9 months, but it could certainly accelerate their disease that could kill them within the next year or two.”

Right now, she says she doesn’t know what she would do if and when she is put in that position as a doctor.

“I didn’t go to medical school and become a doctor to become a felon,” says Robin. “Our goal is to make as many legal changes as we can to protect our patients and then practice as much harm reduction and as much care as we can within the letter of the law.”

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

The names of the doctors in this story have been changed at their request because of fear of legal repercussions and/or professional retaliation.

When an Ohio ob.gyn. had a patient in need of an abortion in July 2022, he knew he had to move quickly.

Daniel, who also sees patients at an abortion clinic, was treating a woman who came in for an abortion around 5 weeks into her pregnancy. And after going through the mandatory waiting periods, the required ultrasounds at each appointment, the consent process, and the options counseling, she was set for a surgical abortion the following Monday.

But on Monday, pre-op tests showed that her blood pressure was very high, posing a serious health risk if Daniel proceeded with the surgery.

Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Daniel would have sent the patient home with instructions on how to lower her blood pressure over time. But the patient now had just four days to show the necessary improvement.

In this case, everything worked out. The patient returned Thursday and was able to have the procedure. But this is just one of the many day-to-day medical decisions abortion providers are now having to make with the changing legal risks being as top-of-mind to doctors as the safety of their patients.

Daniel said he doesn’t want the Ohio abortion law to change the way he communicates with his patients. As far as he knows, it’s still legal to talk to patients about self-managed abortions, as long as everything is unbiased and clearly stated, he says.

“But I don’t think I would get a lot of institutional support to have those conversations with patients because of the perceived legal liability,” says Daniel. “I will still have those conversations, but I’m not going to tell my employer that I’m having them and I’m not going to document them in the chart.”

Daniel is aware that having these kinds of discussions, or entertaining the possibility of omitting certain information from patient records, runs the risk of legal and professional consequences. Enforcement of these rules is foggy, too.

Under the Ohio law, if a fellow staff member suspects you of violating a law, you could be reported to a supervisor or licensing body. Abortion providers are aware they must be cautious about what they say because anti-abortion activitists, posing as patients, have secretly recorded conversations in the past, Daniel says.
 

Enforcement: The past, present, and future legal risks

Before Roe, enforcement of illegal abortion was spotty, says Mary Ziegler, JD, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, who specializes in the legal history of reproductive rights. At the start of the late 19th century, the doctors who provided illegal abortions would, in most cases, be prosecuted if a patient died as a result of the procedure.

A doctor in Ashland, Pa., named Robert Spencer was known for providing abortions in the small mining town where he practiced in the 1920s. He was reportedly arrested three times – once after a patient died as a result of abortion complications – but was ultimately acquitted.

For many doctors performing abortions at the time, “it was very much a kind of roll of the dice,” Ms. Ziegler says. “There was a sense that these laws were not enforced very much.”

Carole Joffe, PhD, a sociologist with expertise in reproductive health, recalls that there were very few doctors arrested, given the sheer number of abortions that were performed. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that, in the years leading up to the original Roe decision, about 1.2 million women in the U.S. had illegal abortions – a number that exceeds today’s estimates.

Among the most notable cases of a doctor being detained was the arrest of gynecologist Jane Hodgson, MD, in 1970. Dr. Hodgson intentionally violated Minnesota law, which prohibited all abortions except in cases that were life-threatening to the patient.

After performing an abortion on a patient who had contracted rubella, also known as German measles, Dr. Hodgson was arrested, sentenced to 30 days in jail, and put on a year-long probation. She did not end up serving any time in jail, and her conviction was overturned after the Roe decision in 1973.

Now, the abortion restrictions being passed in many states have authorized much more sweeping penalties than those that existed in the pre-Roe era. According to Joffe, there is one key reason why we can anticipate more doctor arrests now.

“There simply was not the modern anti-abortion movement that we have come to know,” she says. “In the old days, there was not that much legal surveillance, and things were very unsafe. Fast forward to the present, we have much safer options now – like medication abortion pills – but we have a very different legal environment.”

Carmel Shachar, JD, MPH, a law and health policy expert at Harvard Law School, also expects that we will see more frequent prosecutions of doctors who provide abortion.

“There’s so much more data available through medical record-keeping and information generated by our phones and internet searches, that I think it would be much harder for a physician to fly under the radar,” Ms. Shachar says.

Also, Ms. Shachar emphasizes the power of prosecutorial discretion in abortion cases, where one prosecutor may choose to apply a law much more aggressively than another prosecutor in the next county over. Such has been seen in DeKalb County, Ga., which includes parts of Atlanta, where District Attorney Sherry Boston says she plans to use her prosecutorial discretion to address crimes like rape and murder, rather than “potentially investigat[ing] women and doctors for medical decisions,” Bloomberg Law reported. State Sen. Jen Jordan, the Democratic nominee for Georgia attorney general, has also said that, if elected, she would not enforce the state’s new 6-week abortion ban.
 

Is there a legal path forward for abortion care in states that forbid it?

Robin, an ob.gyn., became a complex family planning fellow in Utah to seek out further medical training and education in abortion care. Her plan was to solidify this as an area of expertise, so that, upon completing her fellowship, she could move back to her home state of Arizona to provide services there.

In Utah, where she currently practices, abortion is banned after 18 weeks. In Arizona, abortion is still allowed up to 24-26 weeks, until a pregnancy reaches “viability” (when a fetus is developed enough that it is able to survive outside the uterus with medical assistance). But new restrictions in Arizona may go into effect as early as September which would prohibit abortions after 15 weeks.

Despite the uncertain future of abortion access in Arizona, Robin still plans on moving there after her fellowship, but she hopes to travel to surrounding states to help provide abortion care where it’s less restricted. Even if she isn’t able to provide abortions at all, she says that there are still ways to help patients get safe, above-board abortions so as not to repeat the dangerous and often gruesome outcomes of self-induced abortions or those done by illegitimate practitioners before Roe.

“One of the roles that I think I can have as a physician is helping people with wraparound care for self-managed abortion,” says Robin. “If they can get the [abortion] pills online, then I can do the ultrasound beforehand, I can do the ultrasound after, I can talk them through it. I can help them with all the aspects of this care, I just can’t give them the pills myself.”

Whether a doctor can be penalized for “aiding and abetting” abortions that happen in different states remains an open question. In Texas, for example, Senate Bill 8 – which took effect Sept. 1, 2021 – not only established a fetal heartbeat law but added language that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” or anyone who even intends to do so.

That’s what happened to Alan Braid, MD, an ob.gyn. based in San Antonio. He confessed in a Washington Post op-ed that he had performed an abortion after cardiac activity had been detected in the pregnancy. Aware of the legal risks, he has since been sued by three people, and those cases are still underway.

But Ms. Ziegler says the chances of a doctor from a progressive state actually getting extradited and prosecuted by a state with restrictive abortion laws is pretty low – not zero, but low.

Like Robin, Natalie – an ob.gyn. in her early 30s – is a complex family planning fellow in Massachusetts. After her fellowship, she wants to return to Texas, where she completed her residency training.

“I’m at the point in my training where everyone starts looking for jobs and figuring out their next steps,” says Natalie. “The Dobbs decision introduced a ton of chaos due to the vagueness in the laws and how they get enforced, and then there’s chaos within institutions themselves and what kind of risk tolerance they have.”

Looking towards her future career path, Natalie says that she would not consider a job at an institution that didn’t allow her to teach abortion care to students, speak publicly about abortion rights, or let her travel outside of Texas to continue providing abortion care. She’s also preemptively seeking legal counsel and general guidance – advice that Ms. Ziegler strongly urges doctors to heed, sooner rather than later.

In states that have strict abortion bans with exceptions for life-threatening cases, there is still a lack of clarity around what is actually considered life-threatening enough to pass as an exception.

“Is it life-threatening in the next 6 hours? 24 hours? Seven days? One month?” Robin asks. “In medicine, we don’t necessarily talk about if something is life-threatening or not, we just say that there’s a high risk of X thing happening in X period of time. What’s the threshold at which that meets legal criteria? Nobody has an answer for that.”

Robin explains that, in her patients who have cancer, a pregnancy wouldn’t “necessarily kill them within the span of the next 9 months, but it could certainly accelerate their disease that could kill them within the next year or two.”

Right now, she says she doesn’t know what she would do if and when she is put in that position as a doctor.

“I didn’t go to medical school and become a doctor to become a felon,” says Robin. “Our goal is to make as many legal changes as we can to protect our patients and then practice as much harm reduction and as much care as we can within the letter of the law.”

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

The names of the doctors in this story have been changed at their request because of fear of legal repercussions and/or professional retaliation.

When an Ohio ob.gyn. had a patient in need of an abortion in July 2022, he knew he had to move quickly.

Daniel, who also sees patients at an abortion clinic, was treating a woman who came in for an abortion around 5 weeks into her pregnancy. And after going through the mandatory waiting periods, the required ultrasounds at each appointment, the consent process, and the options counseling, she was set for a surgical abortion the following Monday.

But on Monday, pre-op tests showed that her blood pressure was very high, posing a serious health risk if Daniel proceeded with the surgery.

Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Daniel would have sent the patient home with instructions on how to lower her blood pressure over time. But the patient now had just four days to show the necessary improvement.

In this case, everything worked out. The patient returned Thursday and was able to have the procedure. But this is just one of the many day-to-day medical decisions abortion providers are now having to make with the changing legal risks being as top-of-mind to doctors as the safety of their patients.

Daniel said he doesn’t want the Ohio abortion law to change the way he communicates with his patients. As far as he knows, it’s still legal to talk to patients about self-managed abortions, as long as everything is unbiased and clearly stated, he says.

“But I don’t think I would get a lot of institutional support to have those conversations with patients because of the perceived legal liability,” says Daniel. “I will still have those conversations, but I’m not going to tell my employer that I’m having them and I’m not going to document them in the chart.”

Daniel is aware that having these kinds of discussions, or entertaining the possibility of omitting certain information from patient records, runs the risk of legal and professional consequences. Enforcement of these rules is foggy, too.

Under the Ohio law, if a fellow staff member suspects you of violating a law, you could be reported to a supervisor or licensing body. Abortion providers are aware they must be cautious about what they say because anti-abortion activitists, posing as patients, have secretly recorded conversations in the past, Daniel says.
 

Enforcement: The past, present, and future legal risks

Before Roe, enforcement of illegal abortion was spotty, says Mary Ziegler, JD, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, who specializes in the legal history of reproductive rights. At the start of the late 19th century, the doctors who provided illegal abortions would, in most cases, be prosecuted if a patient died as a result of the procedure.

A doctor in Ashland, Pa., named Robert Spencer was known for providing abortions in the small mining town where he practiced in the 1920s. He was reportedly arrested three times – once after a patient died as a result of abortion complications – but was ultimately acquitted.

For many doctors performing abortions at the time, “it was very much a kind of roll of the dice,” Ms. Ziegler says. “There was a sense that these laws were not enforced very much.”

Carole Joffe, PhD, a sociologist with expertise in reproductive health, recalls that there were very few doctors arrested, given the sheer number of abortions that were performed. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that, in the years leading up to the original Roe decision, about 1.2 million women in the U.S. had illegal abortions – a number that exceeds today’s estimates.

Among the most notable cases of a doctor being detained was the arrest of gynecologist Jane Hodgson, MD, in 1970. Dr. Hodgson intentionally violated Minnesota law, which prohibited all abortions except in cases that were life-threatening to the patient.

After performing an abortion on a patient who had contracted rubella, also known as German measles, Dr. Hodgson was arrested, sentenced to 30 days in jail, and put on a year-long probation. She did not end up serving any time in jail, and her conviction was overturned after the Roe decision in 1973.

Now, the abortion restrictions being passed in many states have authorized much more sweeping penalties than those that existed in the pre-Roe era. According to Joffe, there is one key reason why we can anticipate more doctor arrests now.

“There simply was not the modern anti-abortion movement that we have come to know,” she says. “In the old days, there was not that much legal surveillance, and things were very unsafe. Fast forward to the present, we have much safer options now – like medication abortion pills – but we have a very different legal environment.”

Carmel Shachar, JD, MPH, a law and health policy expert at Harvard Law School, also expects that we will see more frequent prosecutions of doctors who provide abortion.

“There’s so much more data available through medical record-keeping and information generated by our phones and internet searches, that I think it would be much harder for a physician to fly under the radar,” Ms. Shachar says.

Also, Ms. Shachar emphasizes the power of prosecutorial discretion in abortion cases, where one prosecutor may choose to apply a law much more aggressively than another prosecutor in the next county over. Such has been seen in DeKalb County, Ga., which includes parts of Atlanta, where District Attorney Sherry Boston says she plans to use her prosecutorial discretion to address crimes like rape and murder, rather than “potentially investigat[ing] women and doctors for medical decisions,” Bloomberg Law reported. State Sen. Jen Jordan, the Democratic nominee for Georgia attorney general, has also said that, if elected, she would not enforce the state’s new 6-week abortion ban.
 

Is there a legal path forward for abortion care in states that forbid it?

Robin, an ob.gyn., became a complex family planning fellow in Utah to seek out further medical training and education in abortion care. Her plan was to solidify this as an area of expertise, so that, upon completing her fellowship, she could move back to her home state of Arizona to provide services there.

In Utah, where she currently practices, abortion is banned after 18 weeks. In Arizona, abortion is still allowed up to 24-26 weeks, until a pregnancy reaches “viability” (when a fetus is developed enough that it is able to survive outside the uterus with medical assistance). But new restrictions in Arizona may go into effect as early as September which would prohibit abortions after 15 weeks.

Despite the uncertain future of abortion access in Arizona, Robin still plans on moving there after her fellowship, but she hopes to travel to surrounding states to help provide abortion care where it’s less restricted. Even if she isn’t able to provide abortions at all, she says that there are still ways to help patients get safe, above-board abortions so as not to repeat the dangerous and often gruesome outcomes of self-induced abortions or those done by illegitimate practitioners before Roe.

“One of the roles that I think I can have as a physician is helping people with wraparound care for self-managed abortion,” says Robin. “If they can get the [abortion] pills online, then I can do the ultrasound beforehand, I can do the ultrasound after, I can talk them through it. I can help them with all the aspects of this care, I just can’t give them the pills myself.”

Whether a doctor can be penalized for “aiding and abetting” abortions that happen in different states remains an open question. In Texas, for example, Senate Bill 8 – which took effect Sept. 1, 2021 – not only established a fetal heartbeat law but added language that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” or anyone who even intends to do so.

That’s what happened to Alan Braid, MD, an ob.gyn. based in San Antonio. He confessed in a Washington Post op-ed that he had performed an abortion after cardiac activity had been detected in the pregnancy. Aware of the legal risks, he has since been sued by three people, and those cases are still underway.

But Ms. Ziegler says the chances of a doctor from a progressive state actually getting extradited and prosecuted by a state with restrictive abortion laws is pretty low – not zero, but low.

Like Robin, Natalie – an ob.gyn. in her early 30s – is a complex family planning fellow in Massachusetts. After her fellowship, she wants to return to Texas, where she completed her residency training.

“I’m at the point in my training where everyone starts looking for jobs and figuring out their next steps,” says Natalie. “The Dobbs decision introduced a ton of chaos due to the vagueness in the laws and how they get enforced, and then there’s chaos within institutions themselves and what kind of risk tolerance they have.”

Looking towards her future career path, Natalie says that she would not consider a job at an institution that didn’t allow her to teach abortion care to students, speak publicly about abortion rights, or let her travel outside of Texas to continue providing abortion care. She’s also preemptively seeking legal counsel and general guidance – advice that Ms. Ziegler strongly urges doctors to heed, sooner rather than later.

In states that have strict abortion bans with exceptions for life-threatening cases, there is still a lack of clarity around what is actually considered life-threatening enough to pass as an exception.

“Is it life-threatening in the next 6 hours? 24 hours? Seven days? One month?” Robin asks. “In medicine, we don’t necessarily talk about if something is life-threatening or not, we just say that there’s a high risk of X thing happening in X period of time. What’s the threshold at which that meets legal criteria? Nobody has an answer for that.”

Robin explains that, in her patients who have cancer, a pregnancy wouldn’t “necessarily kill them within the span of the next 9 months, but it could certainly accelerate their disease that could kill them within the next year or two.”

Right now, she says she doesn’t know what she would do if and when she is put in that position as a doctor.

“I didn’t go to medical school and become a doctor to become a felon,” says Robin. “Our goal is to make as many legal changes as we can to protect our patients and then practice as much harm reduction and as much care as we can within the letter of the law.”

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

There was a recent post on Sermo about medical office staff cross-training. It talked about the importance of the scheduler being able to cover for the medical assistant (to an extent), a billing person being able to room patients, and so on.

Here, in my little three-person office, the only thing my staff can’t do is see patients.

Actually, more than 2 years out since the pandemic changed everyone’s lives, we’ve settled into a very different cross-training routine. I’m the only one at my office. My medical assistant works from home, far north of me, and so does my scheduler, who is across town.

So, at the office, I handle it all. I check people in, copy insurance cards, collect copays, see patients, and make follow-ups.

At this time, I’ve not only gotten used to it, but really don’t mind it.

We don’t worry about freeway traffic. My staff starts at the exact time each day, and so I don’t worry about one of them being an hour late, trapped behind a rush-hour pile-up on the 101. Staying at home with a sick kid isn’t an issue either, anymore. If my secretary has to make her young daughter lunch, or run her over to a birthday party, I don’t even notice it. If there are any problems, she knows how to reach me. Same with my medical assistant.

Nobody worries about what to throw together for dinner if they get home late.

In an era where other businesses want to reverse the work-from-home trend, I don’t see an issue with its continuing for some jobs. It saves money on rent, and money and time on transportation.

Gas prices, at least for driving to and from work for them, don’t have to be factored into the wage equations. I’d guess it’s about 1,000 gallons of gas a year saved. On a national scale that’s nothing, but to my staff right now that’s $3,000-$4,000 more in their pockets at the end of the year. Not to mention it’s two more cars off the road.

Granted, this doesn’t change what I’m doing. Seeing patients in person is a key part of being a doctor. Some things can be handled equally well over the phone or Zoom, but many can’t. It’s what I signed up for, and I really don’t mind it. Seeing patients is still what I enjoy.

My staff is a lot happier with this arrangement, and I don’t mind it either. I always, by nature, kept a reasonably paced schedule. Trying to shoehorn patients in has never been my way, so I have time to run a credit card or scan insurance information.

When one of my staff goes out of town, the other covers her calls and relays messages to me. Yes, it’s extra work, but no more so than if they were here in person. Probably less.

I’m sure many physicians wouldn’t agree with my office model, but it suits me fine. Cross-training and all.

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

There was a recent post on Sermo about medical office staff cross-training. It talked about the importance of the scheduler being able to cover for the medical assistant (to an extent), a billing person being able to room patients, and so on.

Here, in my little three-person office, the only thing my staff can’t do is see patients.

Actually, more than 2 years out since the pandemic changed everyone’s lives, we’ve settled into a very different cross-training routine. I’m the only one at my office. My medical assistant works from home, far north of me, and so does my scheduler, who is across town.

So, at the office, I handle it all. I check people in, copy insurance cards, collect copays, see patients, and make follow-ups.

At this time, I’ve not only gotten used to it, but really don’t mind it.

We don’t worry about freeway traffic. My staff starts at the exact time each day, and so I don’t worry about one of them being an hour late, trapped behind a rush-hour pile-up on the 101. Staying at home with a sick kid isn’t an issue either, anymore. If my secretary has to make her young daughter lunch, or run her over to a birthday party, I don’t even notice it. If there are any problems, she knows how to reach me. Same with my medical assistant.

Nobody worries about what to throw together for dinner if they get home late.

In an era where other businesses want to reverse the work-from-home trend, I don’t see an issue with its continuing for some jobs. It saves money on rent, and money and time on transportation.

Gas prices, at least for driving to and from work for them, don’t have to be factored into the wage equations. I’d guess it’s about 1,000 gallons of gas a year saved. On a national scale that’s nothing, but to my staff right now that’s $3,000-$4,000 more in their pockets at the end of the year. Not to mention it’s two more cars off the road.

Granted, this doesn’t change what I’m doing. Seeing patients in person is a key part of being a doctor. Some things can be handled equally well over the phone or Zoom, but many can’t. It’s what I signed up for, and I really don’t mind it. Seeing patients is still what I enjoy.

My staff is a lot happier with this arrangement, and I don’t mind it either. I always, by nature, kept a reasonably paced schedule. Trying to shoehorn patients in has never been my way, so I have time to run a credit card or scan insurance information.

When one of my staff goes out of town, the other covers her calls and relays messages to me. Yes, it’s extra work, but no more so than if they were here in person. Probably less.

I’m sure many physicians wouldn’t agree with my office model, but it suits me fine. Cross-training and all.

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

There was a recent post on Sermo about medical office staff cross-training. It talked about the importance of the scheduler being able to cover for the medical assistant (to an extent), a billing person being able to room patients, and so on.

Here, in my little three-person office, the only thing my staff can’t do is see patients.

Actually, more than 2 years out since the pandemic changed everyone’s lives, we’ve settled into a very different cross-training routine. I’m the only one at my office. My medical assistant works from home, far north of me, and so does my scheduler, who is across town.

So, at the office, I handle it all. I check people in, copy insurance cards, collect copays, see patients, and make follow-ups.

At this time, I’ve not only gotten used to it, but really don’t mind it.

We don’t worry about freeway traffic. My staff starts at the exact time each day, and so I don’t worry about one of them being an hour late, trapped behind a rush-hour pile-up on the 101. Staying at home with a sick kid isn’t an issue either, anymore. If my secretary has to make her young daughter lunch, or run her over to a birthday party, I don’t even notice it. If there are any problems, she knows how to reach me. Same with my medical assistant.

Nobody worries about what to throw together for dinner if they get home late.

In an era where other businesses want to reverse the work-from-home trend, I don’t see an issue with its continuing for some jobs. It saves money on rent, and money and time on transportation.

Gas prices, at least for driving to and from work for them, don’t have to be factored into the wage equations. I’d guess it’s about 1,000 gallons of gas a year saved. On a national scale that’s nothing, but to my staff right now that’s $3,000-$4,000 more in their pockets at the end of the year. Not to mention it’s two more cars off the road.

Granted, this doesn’t change what I’m doing. Seeing patients in person is a key part of being a doctor. Some things can be handled equally well over the phone or Zoom, but many can’t. It’s what I signed up for, and I really don’t mind it. Seeing patients is still what I enjoy.

My staff is a lot happier with this arrangement, and I don’t mind it either. I always, by nature, kept a reasonably paced schedule. Trying to shoehorn patients in has never been my way, so I have time to run a credit card or scan insurance information.

When one of my staff goes out of town, the other covers her calls and relays messages to me. Yes, it’s extra work, but no more so than if they were here in person. Probably less.

I’m sure many physicians wouldn’t agree with my office model, but it suits me fine. Cross-training and all.

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

Wide variation in the cost of common cardiovascular (CV) tests and procedures, from stress tests to coronary interventions, was revealed in a cross-sectional analysis based on publicly available data from 20 top-ranked hospitals in the United States.

The analysis also suggested a low level of compliance with the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule among the 20 centers.

“The variation we found in payer-negotiated prices for identical cardiovascular tests and procedures was stunning,” Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told this news organization.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

The researchers looked at payer and self-pay cash prices for noninvasive and invasive CV tests and procedures at the U.S. News & World Report 2021 top 20–ranked U.S. hospitals, based in part on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Price differences among the hospitals were derived from median negotiated prices for each test and procedure at the centers across all payers. The interquartile ratio (IQR) of prices for each test or procedure across payers was used to evaluate within-hospital price variation.

“Only 80% of the hospitals reported prices for some cardiovascular tests and procedures,” Dr. Wadhera said. “For the most part, even among the hospitals that did report this information, it was extremely challenging to navigate and interpret the data provided.”

Further, the team found that only 7 of the 20 hospitals reported prices for all CV tests and procedures. Centers that did not post prices for some tests or procedures are named in the report’s Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The number of insurance plans listed for each test or procedure ranged from 1 to 432 in the analysis. Median prices ranged from $204 to $2,588 for an echocardiogram, $463 to $3,230 for a stress test, $2,821 to $9,382 for right heart catheterization, $2,868 to $9,203 for a coronary angiogram, $657 to $25,521 for a PCI, and $506 to $20,002 for pacemaker implantation, the report states.

A similar pattern was seen for self-pay cash prices.

Within-hospital variation also ranged broadly. For example, the widest IQR ranges were $3,143-$12,926 for a right heart catheterization, $4,011-$14,486 for a coronary angiogram, $11,325-$23,392 for a PCI, and $8,474-$22,694 for pacemaker implantation.

The report cites a number of limitations to the analysis, among those, the need to rely on the hospitals themselves for data quality and accuracy.
 

‘More needed besides transparency’

“As a means to better understand health care costs, many opined that full price transparency would leverage market dynamics and result in lower costs,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine, Chicago. The findings “by an expert group of outcomes scientists make clear that more is needed besides price transparency to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

That said, he added, “there are sufficient variations and allowances made for data collection that it is preferable to hold the current findings circumspect at best. Importantly, the voice of the hospitals does not appear.”

Although “price variation among the top 20 hospitals is substantial,” he observed, “without a better assessment of root cause, actual charge capture, prevailing market dynamics – especially nursing and ancillary staff costs – and the general influence of inflation, it is too difficult to emerge with a precise interpretation.”

Across the 20 hospitals, “there are likely to be 20 different business models,” he added, with negotiated prices reflecting “at least regional, if not institutional, variations.”

“These are complex issues. The several-fold price differences in standard procedures are a concern and an area worth further study with the intention of lowering health care costs,” Dr. Yancy said. “But clearly our next efforts should not address lowering prices per se but understanding how prices are set [and] the connection with reimbursement and actual payments.”

Dr. Wadhera discloses receiving personal fees from Abbott and CVS Health unrelated to the current study; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Yancy is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology.

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

Wide variation in the cost of common cardiovascular (CV) tests and procedures, from stress tests to coronary interventions, was revealed in a cross-sectional analysis based on publicly available data from 20 top-ranked hospitals in the United States.

The analysis also suggested a low level of compliance with the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule among the 20 centers.

“The variation we found in payer-negotiated prices for identical cardiovascular tests and procedures was stunning,” Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told this news organization.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

The researchers looked at payer and self-pay cash prices for noninvasive and invasive CV tests and procedures at the U.S. News & World Report 2021 top 20–ranked U.S. hospitals, based in part on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Price differences among the hospitals were derived from median negotiated prices for each test and procedure at the centers across all payers. The interquartile ratio (IQR) of prices for each test or procedure across payers was used to evaluate within-hospital price variation.

“Only 80% of the hospitals reported prices for some cardiovascular tests and procedures,” Dr. Wadhera said. “For the most part, even among the hospitals that did report this information, it was extremely challenging to navigate and interpret the data provided.”

Further, the team found that only 7 of the 20 hospitals reported prices for all CV tests and procedures. Centers that did not post prices for some tests or procedures are named in the report’s Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The number of insurance plans listed for each test or procedure ranged from 1 to 432 in the analysis. Median prices ranged from $204 to $2,588 for an echocardiogram, $463 to $3,230 for a stress test, $2,821 to $9,382 for right heart catheterization, $2,868 to $9,203 for a coronary angiogram, $657 to $25,521 for a PCI, and $506 to $20,002 for pacemaker implantation, the report states.

A similar pattern was seen for self-pay cash prices.

Within-hospital variation also ranged broadly. For example, the widest IQR ranges were $3,143-$12,926 for a right heart catheterization, $4,011-$14,486 for a coronary angiogram, $11,325-$23,392 for a PCI, and $8,474-$22,694 for pacemaker implantation.

The report cites a number of limitations to the analysis, among those, the need to rely on the hospitals themselves for data quality and accuracy.
 

‘More needed besides transparency’

“As a means to better understand health care costs, many opined that full price transparency would leverage market dynamics and result in lower costs,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine, Chicago. The findings “by an expert group of outcomes scientists make clear that more is needed besides price transparency to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

That said, he added, “there are sufficient variations and allowances made for data collection that it is preferable to hold the current findings circumspect at best. Importantly, the voice of the hospitals does not appear.”

Although “price variation among the top 20 hospitals is substantial,” he observed, “without a better assessment of root cause, actual charge capture, prevailing market dynamics – especially nursing and ancillary staff costs – and the general influence of inflation, it is too difficult to emerge with a precise interpretation.”

Across the 20 hospitals, “there are likely to be 20 different business models,” he added, with negotiated prices reflecting “at least regional, if not institutional, variations.”

“These are complex issues. The several-fold price differences in standard procedures are a concern and an area worth further study with the intention of lowering health care costs,” Dr. Yancy said. “But clearly our next efforts should not address lowering prices per se but understanding how prices are set [and] the connection with reimbursement and actual payments.”

Dr. Wadhera discloses receiving personal fees from Abbott and CVS Health unrelated to the current study; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Yancy is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology.

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

Wide variation in the cost of common cardiovascular (CV) tests and procedures, from stress tests to coronary interventions, was revealed in a cross-sectional analysis based on publicly available data from 20 top-ranked hospitals in the United States.

The analysis also suggested a low level of compliance with the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule among the 20 centers.

“The variation we found in payer-negotiated prices for identical cardiovascular tests and procedures was stunning,” Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told this news organization.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

The researchers looked at payer and self-pay cash prices for noninvasive and invasive CV tests and procedures at the U.S. News & World Report 2021 top 20–ranked U.S. hospitals, based in part on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Price differences among the hospitals were derived from median negotiated prices for each test and procedure at the centers across all payers. The interquartile ratio (IQR) of prices for each test or procedure across payers was used to evaluate within-hospital price variation.

“Only 80% of the hospitals reported prices for some cardiovascular tests and procedures,” Dr. Wadhera said. “For the most part, even among the hospitals that did report this information, it was extremely challenging to navigate and interpret the data provided.”

Further, the team found that only 7 of the 20 hospitals reported prices for all CV tests and procedures. Centers that did not post prices for some tests or procedures are named in the report’s Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The number of insurance plans listed for each test or procedure ranged from 1 to 432 in the analysis. Median prices ranged from $204 to $2,588 for an echocardiogram, $463 to $3,230 for a stress test, $2,821 to $9,382 for right heart catheterization, $2,868 to $9,203 for a coronary angiogram, $657 to $25,521 for a PCI, and $506 to $20,002 for pacemaker implantation, the report states.

A similar pattern was seen for self-pay cash prices.

Within-hospital variation also ranged broadly. For example, the widest IQR ranges were $3,143-$12,926 for a right heart catheterization, $4,011-$14,486 for a coronary angiogram, $11,325-$23,392 for a PCI, and $8,474-$22,694 for pacemaker implantation.

The report cites a number of limitations to the analysis, among those, the need to rely on the hospitals themselves for data quality and accuracy.
 

‘More needed besides transparency’

“As a means to better understand health care costs, many opined that full price transparency would leverage market dynamics and result in lower costs,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine, Chicago. The findings “by an expert group of outcomes scientists make clear that more is needed besides price transparency to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

That said, he added, “there are sufficient variations and allowances made for data collection that it is preferable to hold the current findings circumspect at best. Importantly, the voice of the hospitals does not appear.”

Although “price variation among the top 20 hospitals is substantial,” he observed, “without a better assessment of root cause, actual charge capture, prevailing market dynamics – especially nursing and ancillary staff costs – and the general influence of inflation, it is too difficult to emerge with a precise interpretation.”

Across the 20 hospitals, “there are likely to be 20 different business models,” he added, with negotiated prices reflecting “at least regional, if not institutional, variations.”

“These are complex issues. The several-fold price differences in standard procedures are a concern and an area worth further study with the intention of lowering health care costs,” Dr. Yancy said. “But clearly our next efforts should not address lowering prices per se but understanding how prices are set [and] the connection with reimbursement and actual payments.”

Dr. Wadhera discloses receiving personal fees from Abbott and CVS Health unrelated to the current study; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Yancy is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology.

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

Ob.gyns. will not have to travel to Texas to take the board certification exam this fall. 

The announcement from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology follows worries from physicians that gathering in large groups for the examination would leave them vulnerable to physical or political retaliation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ABOG is headquartered in Dallas; Texas is one of many states with a near-complete ban on abortion.

Though certification is voluntary, many doctors opt to take the 3-hour oral test to enhance their medical expertise beyond what their state requires. 

ABOG held board certification exams online during the pandemic, with plans to return to in-person testing this fall. However, last week, the board said that online testing will continue “due to the increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

More than 500 physicians petitioned against having in-person board certification exams last month in a letter addressed to the board.

“The state of Texas has severely restricted access to abortion and has allowed private citizens to take legal action against anyone suspected of assisting or performing terminations,” the letter says. “Due to the ‘aid and abet’ clause included in SB8, we may be targeted for legal or political retribution.”

SB8 is shorthand for the Texas Heartbeat Act, which authorizes anyone in the state of Texas to sue any individual whom they believe to have performed or induced an abortion, as well as people who aid or abet abortions in any way, such as paying for the abortion through their insurance.

Pregnant exam-takers also feared having to seek care for potential complications in Texas.

“We see no justifiable reason to mandate in-person oral board exams in a state that restricts basic healthcare of pregnant people and whose laws encourage vigilante targeting of physicians who perform abortions,” the letter continues.

Alice Abernathy, MD, a national clinician scholar in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, signed the petition and would be required to travel to Texas for her certification exam next year if ABOG’s future exam cycles are held in person.

“My job is straightforward – I take care of patients. I will not expose myself to risk of prosecution for delivering the highest standard of comprehensive reproductive health care to my patients,” Dr. Abernathy told this news organization.

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

Ob.gyns. will not have to travel to Texas to take the board certification exam this fall. 

The announcement from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology follows worries from physicians that gathering in large groups for the examination would leave them vulnerable to physical or political retaliation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ABOG is headquartered in Dallas; Texas is one of many states with a near-complete ban on abortion.

Though certification is voluntary, many doctors opt to take the 3-hour oral test to enhance their medical expertise beyond what their state requires. 

ABOG held board certification exams online during the pandemic, with plans to return to in-person testing this fall. However, last week, the board said that online testing will continue “due to the increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

More than 500 physicians petitioned against having in-person board certification exams last month in a letter addressed to the board.

“The state of Texas has severely restricted access to abortion and has allowed private citizens to take legal action against anyone suspected of assisting or performing terminations,” the letter says. “Due to the ‘aid and abet’ clause included in SB8, we may be targeted for legal or political retribution.”

SB8 is shorthand for the Texas Heartbeat Act, which authorizes anyone in the state of Texas to sue any individual whom they believe to have performed or induced an abortion, as well as people who aid or abet abortions in any way, such as paying for the abortion through their insurance.

Pregnant exam-takers also feared having to seek care for potential complications in Texas.

“We see no justifiable reason to mandate in-person oral board exams in a state that restricts basic healthcare of pregnant people and whose laws encourage vigilante targeting of physicians who perform abortions,” the letter continues.

Alice Abernathy, MD, a national clinician scholar in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, signed the petition and would be required to travel to Texas for her certification exam next year if ABOG’s future exam cycles are held in person.

“My job is straightforward – I take care of patients. I will not expose myself to risk of prosecution for delivering the highest standard of comprehensive reproductive health care to my patients,” Dr. Abernathy told this news organization.

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

Ob.gyns. will not have to travel to Texas to take the board certification exam this fall. 

The announcement from the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology follows worries from physicians that gathering in large groups for the examination would leave them vulnerable to physical or political retaliation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ABOG is headquartered in Dallas; Texas is one of many states with a near-complete ban on abortion.

Though certification is voluntary, many doctors opt to take the 3-hour oral test to enhance their medical expertise beyond what their state requires. 

ABOG held board certification exams online during the pandemic, with plans to return to in-person testing this fall. However, last week, the board said that online testing will continue “due to the increase in COVID-19 cases across the country and concerns regarding the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

More than 500 physicians petitioned against having in-person board certification exams last month in a letter addressed to the board.

“The state of Texas has severely restricted access to abortion and has allowed private citizens to take legal action against anyone suspected of assisting or performing terminations,” the letter says. “Due to the ‘aid and abet’ clause included in SB8, we may be targeted for legal or political retribution.”

SB8 is shorthand for the Texas Heartbeat Act, which authorizes anyone in the state of Texas to sue any individual whom they believe to have performed or induced an abortion, as well as people who aid or abet abortions in any way, such as paying for the abortion through their insurance.

Pregnant exam-takers also feared having to seek care for potential complications in Texas.

“We see no justifiable reason to mandate in-person oral board exams in a state that restricts basic healthcare of pregnant people and whose laws encourage vigilante targeting of physicians who perform abortions,” the letter continues.

Alice Abernathy, MD, a national clinician scholar in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, signed the petition and would be required to travel to Texas for her certification exam next year if ABOG’s future exam cycles are held in person.

“My job is straightforward – I take care of patients. I will not expose myself to risk of prosecution for delivering the highest standard of comprehensive reproductive health care to my patients,” Dr. Abernathy told this news organization.

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, my mind has been flooded with the emotions of disappointment, fear, helplessness, and rage. While I process the news and try to move forward, a sense of survivor’s guilt remains. Currently, I am a Complex Family Planning fellow in California, but prior to last year, I spent my entire life in Florida. I continue to provide abortion care without the fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, my family, friends, and colleagues back home remain trapped as they scramble to figure out what to do in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The day the Supreme Court decision was announced, I was in the operating room performing an abortion. As I went through a 24-week dilation and evacuation procedure, I could hear my phone vibrating as text messages and social media alerts started to flood in. Those who have met me know how much I care about reproductive rights. I was not surprised when family, friends, and former colleagues reached out to check on me. While I appreciated the support, I could not help but think how it was not me who needed the comforting. I did not have to question whether my team could complete our full day of abortion procedures. I knew there were providers across the country making devastating calls canceling and denying appointments for patients needing abortion care. They were meeting with their staffs, administrators, and lawyers, and fielding responses from the media. I thought about all the patients and the fear they must be experiencing as they scrambled to make arrangements for possible travel to other clinics or self-management of their abortion. I know that for many, their only option is forced pregnancy.

Like any other day, the patients we cared for that day were seeking an abortion for a variety of reasons. There was a patient who recently learned her desired pregnancy was complicated by a lethal fetal malformation. One patient shared that she experienced contraception failure. Another patient feared pregnancy because her last pregnancy was complicated by severe preeclampsia and hemorrhage. Our last patient told us she missed her period and knew she did not want to be pregnant. While each individual experience is unique, these stories are not exclusive to people living in California – these stories are the same ones I heard from patients and friends seeking an abortion in Florida - across the country.

The Supreme Court majority argued it was handing the question of abortion over to the states and their voters to decide. Recent surveys found 61% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases,¹ but in several states, within hours to days of the SCOTUS decision, patients were forced to make other plans as their prior fundamental right to an abortion was immediately removed. There were no further conversations, elections, or votes. It no longer matters what the majority supports or what the details are about the lives of those people making the personal decision to have an abortion. All that matters now is the ZIP code someone happens to reside in.

After I completed the first case, the graduating resident on our team expertly completed the remaining procedures. I felt confident that she would be leaving the program able to take care of any patient needing an abortion. She would also be able to manage any emergency that requires the quick evacuation of a uterus. Dread set in as I thought about the residents back home in Florida and other restrictive states. Many of these programs already struggle to provide abortion training, and their ability to do so in a post-Roe world will be near impossible. Around 50% of current ob.gyn. residents are training in a state that is expected to or already has banned abortions.² Even in states without abortion bans, residents often are not exposed to full spectrum abortion care for a variety of reasons.

During my time in residency, a family planning rotation was developed thanks to a few dedicated educators. While there were no laws prohibiting abortion at that time, like most hospitals in the state, our primary training site only allowed terminations for a select list of indications. An all too familiar story was the transfer of a patient from a nearby hospital after a failed multiday induction for a pregnancy loss or lethal fetal anomaly. They would arrive with heavy bleeding, infections, and hemodynamic instability. Most of these patients told us they were only offered an induction because there were no providers who could or would perform a dilation and evacuation. Even at our top-rated hospital, it was often a struggle coordinating emergent care for these patients because of the limited number of proficient abortion providers. These situations will become the new norm across the country as hundreds of residents will no longer learn these critical skills. As a result, these states will see more maternal morbidity and mortality for years to come.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade affects everyone, not just people who can become pregnant. It will have a devastating effect on medical training. It will change the trajectory of people’s careers and it will result in people losing their jobs. I am so proud to be an abortion provider and cannot imagine doing anything else. I am also a proud Floridian and always envisioned a future where I could live near family while caring for the people in my community. After this decision, I don’t what my future holds. I am concerned for the next generation of health care providers. I imagine many medical students may think twice about obstetrics and gynecology given concern about prosecution for exercising the full scope of the specialty. Most importantly, I am afraid for the patients who will no longer have access to essential abortion care. While we all process this traumatic event, the prochoice community of health care providers, lawyers, politicians, researchers, students, organizers, and volunteers will continue the fight for reproductive justice. For now, I will push this feeling of guilt aside as I take advantage of working in this protected space and embrace every opportunity to provide the best abortion care possible.
 

Dr. Brown is a complex family planning fellow at the University of California, Davis.

References

1. America’s Abortion Quandary [Internet]. Pew Res. Cent. Relig. Public Life Proj. 2022.

2. Vinekar K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022.

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, my mind has been flooded with the emotions of disappointment, fear, helplessness, and rage. While I process the news and try to move forward, a sense of survivor’s guilt remains. Currently, I am a Complex Family Planning fellow in California, but prior to last year, I spent my entire life in Florida. I continue to provide abortion care without the fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, my family, friends, and colleagues back home remain trapped as they scramble to figure out what to do in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The day the Supreme Court decision was announced, I was in the operating room performing an abortion. As I went through a 24-week dilation and evacuation procedure, I could hear my phone vibrating as text messages and social media alerts started to flood in. Those who have met me know how much I care about reproductive rights. I was not surprised when family, friends, and former colleagues reached out to check on me. While I appreciated the support, I could not help but think how it was not me who needed the comforting. I did not have to question whether my team could complete our full day of abortion procedures. I knew there were providers across the country making devastating calls canceling and denying appointments for patients needing abortion care. They were meeting with their staffs, administrators, and lawyers, and fielding responses from the media. I thought about all the patients and the fear they must be experiencing as they scrambled to make arrangements for possible travel to other clinics or self-management of their abortion. I know that for many, their only option is forced pregnancy.

Like any other day, the patients we cared for that day were seeking an abortion for a variety of reasons. There was a patient who recently learned her desired pregnancy was complicated by a lethal fetal malformation. One patient shared that she experienced contraception failure. Another patient feared pregnancy because her last pregnancy was complicated by severe preeclampsia and hemorrhage. Our last patient told us she missed her period and knew she did not want to be pregnant. While each individual experience is unique, these stories are not exclusive to people living in California – these stories are the same ones I heard from patients and friends seeking an abortion in Florida - across the country.

The Supreme Court majority argued it was handing the question of abortion over to the states and their voters to decide. Recent surveys found 61% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases,¹ but in several states, within hours to days of the SCOTUS decision, patients were forced to make other plans as their prior fundamental right to an abortion was immediately removed. There were no further conversations, elections, or votes. It no longer matters what the majority supports or what the details are about the lives of those people making the personal decision to have an abortion. All that matters now is the ZIP code someone happens to reside in.

After I completed the first case, the graduating resident on our team expertly completed the remaining procedures. I felt confident that she would be leaving the program able to take care of any patient needing an abortion. She would also be able to manage any emergency that requires the quick evacuation of a uterus. Dread set in as I thought about the residents back home in Florida and other restrictive states. Many of these programs already struggle to provide abortion training, and their ability to do so in a post-Roe world will be near impossible. Around 50% of current ob.gyn. residents are training in a state that is expected to or already has banned abortions.² Even in states without abortion bans, residents often are not exposed to full spectrum abortion care for a variety of reasons.

During my time in residency, a family planning rotation was developed thanks to a few dedicated educators. While there were no laws prohibiting abortion at that time, like most hospitals in the state, our primary training site only allowed terminations for a select list of indications. An all too familiar story was the transfer of a patient from a nearby hospital after a failed multiday induction for a pregnancy loss or lethal fetal anomaly. They would arrive with heavy bleeding, infections, and hemodynamic instability. Most of these patients told us they were only offered an induction because there were no providers who could or would perform a dilation and evacuation. Even at our top-rated hospital, it was often a struggle coordinating emergent care for these patients because of the limited number of proficient abortion providers. These situations will become the new norm across the country as hundreds of residents will no longer learn these critical skills. As a result, these states will see more maternal morbidity and mortality for years to come.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade affects everyone, not just people who can become pregnant. It will have a devastating effect on medical training. It will change the trajectory of people’s careers and it will result in people losing their jobs. I am so proud to be an abortion provider and cannot imagine doing anything else. I am also a proud Floridian and always envisioned a future where I could live near family while caring for the people in my community. After this decision, I don’t what my future holds. I am concerned for the next generation of health care providers. I imagine many medical students may think twice about obstetrics and gynecology given concern about prosecution for exercising the full scope of the specialty. Most importantly, I am afraid for the patients who will no longer have access to essential abortion care. While we all process this traumatic event, the prochoice community of health care providers, lawyers, politicians, researchers, students, organizers, and volunteers will continue the fight for reproductive justice. For now, I will push this feeling of guilt aside as I take advantage of working in this protected space and embrace every opportunity to provide the best abortion care possible.
 

Dr. Brown is a complex family planning fellow at the University of California, Davis.

References

1. America’s Abortion Quandary [Internet]. Pew Res. Cent. Relig. Public Life Proj. 2022.

2. Vinekar K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022.

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, my mind has been flooded with the emotions of disappointment, fear, helplessness, and rage. While I process the news and try to move forward, a sense of survivor’s guilt remains. Currently, I am a Complex Family Planning fellow in California, but prior to last year, I spent my entire life in Florida. I continue to provide abortion care without the fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, my family, friends, and colleagues back home remain trapped as they scramble to figure out what to do in the aftermath of this tragedy.

The day the Supreme Court decision was announced, I was in the operating room performing an abortion. As I went through a 24-week dilation and evacuation procedure, I could hear my phone vibrating as text messages and social media alerts started to flood in. Those who have met me know how much I care about reproductive rights. I was not surprised when family, friends, and former colleagues reached out to check on me. While I appreciated the support, I could not help but think how it was not me who needed the comforting. I did not have to question whether my team could complete our full day of abortion procedures. I knew there were providers across the country making devastating calls canceling and denying appointments for patients needing abortion care. They were meeting with their staffs, administrators, and lawyers, and fielding responses from the media. I thought about all the patients and the fear they must be experiencing as they scrambled to make arrangements for possible travel to other clinics or self-management of their abortion. I know that for many, their only option is forced pregnancy.

Like any other day, the patients we cared for that day were seeking an abortion for a variety of reasons. There was a patient who recently learned her desired pregnancy was complicated by a lethal fetal malformation. One patient shared that she experienced contraception failure. Another patient feared pregnancy because her last pregnancy was complicated by severe preeclampsia and hemorrhage. Our last patient told us she missed her period and knew she did not want to be pregnant. While each individual experience is unique, these stories are not exclusive to people living in California – these stories are the same ones I heard from patients and friends seeking an abortion in Florida - across the country.

The Supreme Court majority argued it was handing the question of abortion over to the states and their voters to decide. Recent surveys found 61% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases,¹ but in several states, within hours to days of the SCOTUS decision, patients were forced to make other plans as their prior fundamental right to an abortion was immediately removed. There were no further conversations, elections, or votes. It no longer matters what the majority supports or what the details are about the lives of those people making the personal decision to have an abortion. All that matters now is the ZIP code someone happens to reside in.

After I completed the first case, the graduating resident on our team expertly completed the remaining procedures. I felt confident that she would be leaving the program able to take care of any patient needing an abortion. She would also be able to manage any emergency that requires the quick evacuation of a uterus. Dread set in as I thought about the residents back home in Florida and other restrictive states. Many of these programs already struggle to provide abortion training, and their ability to do so in a post-Roe world will be near impossible. Around 50% of current ob.gyn. residents are training in a state that is expected to or already has banned abortions.² Even in states without abortion bans, residents often are not exposed to full spectrum abortion care for a variety of reasons.

During my time in residency, a family planning rotation was developed thanks to a few dedicated educators. While there were no laws prohibiting abortion at that time, like most hospitals in the state, our primary training site only allowed terminations for a select list of indications. An all too familiar story was the transfer of a patient from a nearby hospital after a failed multiday induction for a pregnancy loss or lethal fetal anomaly. They would arrive with heavy bleeding, infections, and hemodynamic instability. Most of these patients told us they were only offered an induction because there were no providers who could or would perform a dilation and evacuation. Even at our top-rated hospital, it was often a struggle coordinating emergent care for these patients because of the limited number of proficient abortion providers. These situations will become the new norm across the country as hundreds of residents will no longer learn these critical skills. As a result, these states will see more maternal morbidity and mortality for years to come.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade affects everyone, not just people who can become pregnant. It will have a devastating effect on medical training. It will change the trajectory of people’s careers and it will result in people losing their jobs. I am so proud to be an abortion provider and cannot imagine doing anything else. I am also a proud Floridian and always envisioned a future where I could live near family while caring for the people in my community. After this decision, I don’t what my future holds. I am concerned for the next generation of health care providers. I imagine many medical students may think twice about obstetrics and gynecology given concern about prosecution for exercising the full scope of the specialty. Most importantly, I am afraid for the patients who will no longer have access to essential abortion care. While we all process this traumatic event, the prochoice community of health care providers, lawyers, politicians, researchers, students, organizers, and volunteers will continue the fight for reproductive justice. For now, I will push this feeling of guilt aside as I take advantage of working in this protected space and embrace every opportunity to provide the best abortion care possible.
 

Dr. Brown is a complex family planning fellow at the University of California, Davis.

References

1. America’s Abortion Quandary [Internet]. Pew Res. Cent. Relig. Public Life Proj. 2022.

2. Vinekar K et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022.